IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

This application was first listed before the Commission on 14 July 1988, when I was advised that substantial agreement had been reached going to the 4% second tier claim and appropriate methods of offsetting the cost of that increase in wage rates. The increase is to apply to Division A - Employees of Electrical Contractors only.

The only qualification to the above, was a submission by Mr Malcolm that the preferred position of the employers he represented was that a 2% increase should apply now, with a further 2% in six months time.

A document identified as Exhibit B.1 detailed the agreement of the parties in respect of the cost offset arrangements.

Following consideration of the submissions of the advocates on 14 July and the detail of Exhibit B.1, I advised the parties that I was not satisfied that they had properly complied with the Wage Fixing Principles and indicated I would be re-listing the matter to enable further submissions.

Prior to the re-listing of the application I received a copy of a revised cost offset document which ultimately was identified as Exhibit B.2. That exhibit detailed a number of additional matters which were said to supplement those contained in Exhibit B.1.

In addressing Exhibit B.2 Mr Kenny gave a detailed explanation of the intention of each of the items and submitted that in an already efficient industry they represented a genuine attempt by the parties to comply with the second tier Principle.

He further submitted that if the Commission accepted that proposition, Division A of the Award should be varied, as agreed, from the first pay period commencing on or after 22 August 1988.

In the reconvened proceedings Mr Malcolm supported the position put forward by Mr Kenny, including the date of operation of the proposed award variation.

However, Mr Fitzgerald indicated that because of changed circumstances he could not support the application so far as members of the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries were concerned. He did not, however, oppose the Award being varied to reflect increased rates applying to members of the Electrical Contractors Association (E.C.A).

While I appreciate the efforts of Mr Kenny on 22 August, in explaining Exhibit B.2 there are many aspects of this application which cause me concern. It is quite obvious that the employer parties to this Award are at arms length. That situation has led to unsatisfactory negotiations with the union and left me in a more than unsatisfactory position both during proceedings and in arriving at a decision in this matter.

Again, I have considered deferring or even dismissing the application. However, particularly during the period up to the second hearing date the applicant has endeavoured to put together a satisfactory package in what is accepted by me as one of the more efficient industries. I highlight, in particular, the multiskilling proposals as an area where there is potential for significant cost savings.

In deciding to vary Division A of the Award I am confronted with another difficulty in the form of Mr Fitzgerald's changed position on 22 August: Mr Fitzgerald submitted that I should attach an appendix to the Award to accommodate his submission that any variation should only apply to E.C.A. members.

In the absence of any real submissions going to the mix of employer membership and other pertinent considerations, I decline that invitation. The Award will be varied by increasing all wage rates in Division A by 4%. It naturally follows that I intend that the offset arrangements detailed in Exhibit B.2 apply to all employers and employees bound by Division A of the Award.

The date of operation will be the first pay period commencing on or after the date of this decision.

This application (part of the draft order) also seeks a 4% variation to a number of existing allowances. This part of the application was not addressed during proceedings, however, Principle 6 - Allowances (a)(ii) reads:

"(ii)  Existing allowances which relate to work or conditions which have not changed may be adjusted from time to time to reflect the movements in increases under the first tier..."

In the light of the clear intention of the above that part of the application is dismissed.

The draft award also seeks to change the current Dispensation Allowance by replacing it with a Contracting Allowance and rationalising the payment. I am attracted by this move to resolve what has been an ongoing problem. However, I would prefer that a separate application be lodged to allow proper debate on the proposal. I therefore refuse that claim but request the lodging of a new application, which will now be dealt with by Commissioner Watling.

In concluding this decision I can only highlight the difficulties earlier referred to and encourage the parties to act together in this important area. Order

J. G. King
COMMISSIONER