IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

On 11 December 1987, at the conclusion of proceedings relating to the two matters then before the Commission, I indicated that the claim for a 38-hour week, together with related or consequential award variations, would be granted.

I now publish my reasons for doing so.

BACKGROUND:

On 19 January 1987 the Police Association wrote to the (then) Minister for Police (the Hon. F. R. Groom) requesting from him an "in principle" decision regarding the Association's desire to obtain a shorter working week.

In his reply dated 3 May 1984, the Minister stated, inter alia:

On 18 June 1987 minutes of a meeting held between representatives of the Office of Industrial Relations, the Police Association and the Commissioner of Police disclose that a number of trade-off proposals was agreed to, including the following procedural matters, namely:

On 14 July 1987 the Association wrote to the Commissioner of Police (the controlling authority) indicating that members of the Association had "endorsed the final package proposal". This included the introduction of a shorter working week "from the agreed implementation date of 1 October 1987".

Then followed a list of 8 items with regard to offsets that were agreed to by the Association and its members.

The letter concluded by stating that on receipt of Cabinet approval of the package meetings would be convened to enable implementation to proceed.3

On 22 September 1987 the Director of Industrial Relations wrote to the Association advising the Association that "any costs resulting from the implementation of a 38-hour week for police officers must be fully offset".

The Director then indicated that the Commissioner of Police and the Office of Industrial Relations had been instructed to resume negotiation in accordance with Cabinet's directive.4

This prompted the Association to apply to the Commission to have the matter arbitrated. On 23 September 1987 an application was duly filed and contained details of an executed agreement entered into between the controlling authority and the Police Association, the effect of which was to introduce a 38-hour week.

Among other things the agreement provided for an operative date of 1 October 1987 subject only to ratification by the Commission.

PROCEEDINGS:

Proceedings before the Commission involved a series of brief hearings and adjournments during which time further discussion took place between the parties.

Eventually I was informed that Cabinet had consented to the package of negotiated offsets and would raise no objection to the controlling authority assenting to the Association's claims.

The overall cost of a 38-hour week was said to be approximately $927,000 for a full year. However, when regard is had for the savings to be made from the agreed offsets the residual impact on the public purse, when looked at objectively, is not unreasonable in the circumstance. The "circumstance" to which I refer is the fact that members of the Police Department are the last large group of employees in the non-private sector to obtain a shorter working week.

Although now forming part of the current wage fixing principles, the notion of a 38-hour week and its inevitable cost burden on the Australian public - apart from its undoubted acceptance by the recipients - must inevitably remain but one more monument to the wisdom of leaving important industrial issues to the exposure of market forces. The concept of a 38-hour week, it must be remembered, was part of a wage and conditions "package" negotiated in 1983 by private employers following abandonment of centralized wage fixation in late 1981.

Ironically, in biting the bullet and agreeing to so many real offsets (most of which are capable of precise costing) the Association may well have put at risk its potential to again return to the "trading post" with a view to procuring a second tier salary adjustment.

The following offsets were agreed to:

1. Non-cash mode of payment to be an award provision.

2. The qualifying distance for payment of a meal allowance to be increased from 16 to 60 kilometres.

3. Only one tie to be issued annually instead of two.

4. Shoes to be issued at 18-month intervals instead of annually.

5. Two uniforms to be issued in a period of 3 years instead of one uniform per year.

6. The higher duties allowance qualifying period to remain at more than 7 days until at least 1.4.1990. (Note: A Full Bench has ruled that the General Conditions of Service Award standard shall in future be reduced to a qualifying period of more than 4 days.)

7. The present 8-hour day will continue to be worked with only 10 and not 12 days annual accrual of extra time (i.e. 2 hours per week) to be taken in conjunction with recreation leave, after 1.1.89.

8. An employee recalled to work during the period he is on "blocked leave" to be paid for actual hours worked up to and including 4 hours at the rate of double time with no further entitlement. For recall involving more than 4 hours the day is to be treated as an ordinary working day with one day recredited.

9. The divisor for the purposes of calculating overtime to remain at one fortieth of the weekly rate until 1.4.1990 when it shall be reduced to one thirty-eighth.

10. Notwithstanding Item 6, no higher duty allowance will be paid to a member relieving another member on "blocked leave" which shall in any case be paid for at ordinary, and not "projected" shift rates.

11. The operative date for commencement of the shorter working week shall be 1.1.88 and not 1.10.87 as earlier agreed.

Other consent matters not in themselves being offsets but more in the nature of implementation procedures were referred to and recorded in Exhibit P.13.

The final charge against the public purse was estimated at $182,820 for a full year. However, I am unsure if that figure included or excluded the savings to be effected in reducing by 12 full-time employees the number of additional recruits necessary to work the 5% extra hours' coverage required consequent on the shorter working week being implemented for the entire work force.

Looked at in the context of Cabinet's insistence on trade offs of such magnitude, it is difficult to see how police officers will be able to trade away at least another 4% of cost savings (short of utilising existing award conditions) in order to secure a second tier adjustment. Coincidentally the value of the foregoing offsets equals approximately 4%. Nevertheless I commend the Association for its objectivity of approach.

The award will be varied to give effect to the agreement reached in respect of both matters.

L.A. Koerbin
PRESIDENT

1 Extract from Exhibit P.2
2 Extract Exhibit P.5
3 Exhibit P.7
4 Exhibit P.9