IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:

30 June 1988                Hobart

This matter concerns the fixing of an operative date of effect for a 4% second tier increase in wage rates for classifications contained in the Fire Brigades Award.

I had dealt with the original application on 2 December 1987 and again on 23 February 1988. My decision as to appropriate operative date was appealed and the decision of the Full Bench (T.1318 of 1988) dated 21 June 1988 was to refer the matter back to me with directions.

In particular the directions of the Full Bench are to be found at page 6 of its decision where it said, inter alia:-

"As we are of the opinion that a measure of confusion existed during proceedings regarding representation on behalf of the controlling authority, we have decided to take the unusual step of referring the question of operative date back to the Deputy President.

After hearing further submissions in this regard it will be open to him, in the absence of agreement, to decide whether the second tier adjustment should operate from the beginning of the first pay period commencing on or after:

(a) 16 February 1988 (as suggested by one controlling authority representative); or

(b) 23 February 1988 (being the day on which the Deputy President indicated his intention to determine the matter in a certain way); or

(c) 26 April 1988 (being the date upon which the Deputy President published his reasons for decision)."

I invited further submissions from the parties and was advised that, having regard for the Full Bench decision, the controlling authority supported an operative date of the first pay period to commence on or after 23 February 1988.

There was no agreement between the parties, as the United Firefighters Union, Tasmanian Branch (UFU) proposed an operative date of the first pay period to commence on or after 16 February 1988.

After referring the parties into conference for a brief period they were still unable to reach a consensus view in relation to this question.

It therefore falls to me to arbitrate the issue once more in these revised circumstances.

Within the ambit of the directions given to me by the Full Bench I have the choice of three nominated dates, already mentioned.

The parties have suggested either the 16 or the 23 of February as being appropriate and I agree that, given the history of this matter, there are special circumstances which make it fair and right to award substantial retrospectivity, which automatically eliminates consideration of 26 April 1988.

Whilst I can appreciate that the controlling authority favours 23 February because such date coincides with the day I earlier dealt with this particular question, there are also very cogent and valid reasons for the date suggested by the U.F.U. In particular the effect of selecting the 23 as against 16 February would mean a difference of two weeks pay and not one because of the way in which the regular pay period falls.

Taking into consideration all of these factors, it is my decision that the date of effect of the 4% second tier increase shall be from the first pay period to commence on or after 16 February 1988.

Order is attached.

A. Robinson
DEPUTY PRESIDENT