IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

These applications deal with the payment of a 4% second tier increase to employees subject to Divisions C, D and E of the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award, (the Award).

The task of outlining the details of the various cost offsets fell to Mr Sertori representing the employers in this industry.

Mr Sertori comprehensively canvassed each and every offset as set out in exhibit S1. The offsets which encompass the three divisions of the Award, specify award and non award items.

Against an estimated cost of $250,000 , Mr Sertori considered that, over time, a higher value of savings and efficiency related cost improvements would result.

However, the fact remains that in their present form, none of the measures proposed to be implemented have any attributable cash value.

Notwithstanding the acute financial position of the agencies which provide services to clients under this award, Mr Sertori assured me on many occasions during the proceedings that the claim for increases in wage rates is totally supported by the organisations represented by him.

The severe financial constraints under which these community service organisations operate, is highlighted when regard is had to the submissions of Mr Sertori, who whilst advocating increases was forced to concede that, if granted, the 4% should be awarded in two instalments.

Mr Sertori could only commit to funds being available to meet a 2% increase from the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 August 1988.

However, in respect of the second part of the increase, i.e. the additional 2% which he proposed operate from the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 November 1988, he submitted that unless additional funds are made available through the provisions of the federal Disability Services Act, 1986, he would be forced into approaching the Commission to mount an incapacity to pay argument.

In fact, Mr Sertori sought leave reserved to argue this position pending the outcome of further funding discussions with the Commonwealth.

It is indeed a remarkable position which has been advanced by Mr Sertori.

On the one hand the virtues of the negotiated offsets have been held up as a shining example of employer and union endeavours. Yet on the other hand my endorsement of the package could result in an incapacity to pay argument being mounted in respect of the second part of the 4% increase.

This poses a dilemma for the Commission. My task has not been made any easier by the rather unhelpful submissions of the representative for the Commonwealth Minister for Industrial Relations who was granted leave to intervene in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984.

Mr Pak-Poy for the Minister did no more than read a short prepared statement on funding arrangements to the organisations subject to the provisions of the Award.

He was not able to make a submission on public interest grounds, or any other for that matter, on whether or not the claim should be granted.

I must indicate that I had anticipated a comprehensive and meaningful submission given the status of the intervenor, and the very serious implications for the organisations involved and indeed for the funding authority.

Mr. Pak-Poy submitted that the question of the 4% second tier was a matter only between the respective organisations, its employees and the unions involved.

This must be regarded as a rather superficial approach given the extent of financial control exercised in accordance with the Disability Services Act.

Notwithstanding that I adjourned these proceedings to enable Mr Pak-Poy to receive better instructions on the financial implications of the claim, he was not able to add anything of any substance to his "submissions" when the hearing subsequently resumed.

Mr Holden supported the submissions of Mr Sertori. He also advised me that the offsets document had been negotiated over a protracted period, that they are extensive and are supported by the employers.

It is patently obvious that a great deal of time and effort has been devoted to putting into place restructuring and efficiency measures for the industry subject to the Award.

Whilst cash amounts for offsets are not easily attributable to the package, that is not to say that savings will not accrue on an ongoing basis. Indeed I accept Mr Sertori's submission that over time savings in excess of the 4% cost of the claim can reasonably be achieved.

In other words my assessment is that Mr Sertori should be believed in that the savings foreshadowed by him will be fully realised.

Accordingly as a very real and genuine attempt has been made to meet the requirements of the Restructuring and Efficiency Principle, and in the absence of any contrary submissions, I have decided to grant the application in the terms sought.

That is, increases in wage rates will be phased in and operate as outlined earlier in this decision. With regard to the 2% increase operative from the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 November 1988, leave is reserved for Mr Sertori to come back to the Commission should the problems alluded to by him manifest.

My order and the relevant portion of exhibit S1 setting out offsets, are attached. The order will incorporate variations necessarily made as a consequence of my endorsement of applications T.908, T.909, T.910 and T.924, T.925 and T.926 dealing with various miscellaneous amendments to the Award.

In reaching my decision in this matter I have also been cognisant of what I regard as the legitimate aspirations of employees subject to an established award.

The merits of the claim have been established to my satisfaction. It would be inequitable if employees subject to the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award suffered relative to employees covered by other awards of this Commission, when the circumstances are such that all the appropriate criteria and prerequisites for an increase in accordance with the Wage Fixing Principles have been met.

On the question of funding, I find it curious that the Commonwealth can on the one hand propose wages outcomes in National Wage Case proceedings, whilst on the other hand a quite contrary position is adopted in funding discussions where it appears the formula used for wage rate adjustment bears no relationship to its stated position in those hearings.

This position is exacerbated even further when the Minister's representative is not even able to make a reasonable contribution in proceedings on the question of public interest or on the merits of the claim before the Commission.

R K Gozzi
COMMISSIONER