Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T1794

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T.1794 of 1988 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TASMANIAN CONFEDERATION OF INDUSTRIES TO VARY THE WELFARE AND VOLUNTARY AGENCIES AWARD
   
  RE: DEFERRAL OF $10.00 INCREASE
   
COMMISSIONER R K GOZZI HOBART, 21 March 1989
   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   
APPEARANCES:  
   
For the Hospital Employees
Federation of Australia,
Tasmanian Branch
- Mr D Holden
   
For the Tasmanian Confederation
of Industries
- Mr M Sertori
   
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:  
   
14 March 1989            Hobart  
   

This matter concerned an application by the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries (TCI) for the deferment of the implementation of the $10.00 per week wage rate adjustment decided by the Full Bench in the State Wage Case1 to operate from the beginning of the first full pay period to commence on or after 15 March 1989.

The deferment of the increase to the first full pay period to commence on or after 8 July 1989 was supported by the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, Tasmanian Branch (HEF).

Mr Sertori for the TCI submitted that the Commission should endorse the agreement of the parties on the basis of the economic incapacity of the Disability Service Providers (the employers subject to the award) to meet the increased wages cost; and that it would be in the public interest for this to be done.

It was submitted by Mr Sertori that since the operation of the Disabilities Service Act from 1987 federal funding arrangements to the organisations involved (18 were identified in exhibit TCI.1) have altered to block grants on a per capita basis.

That is the formula used by the Australian Government through the federal Department of Community Services and Health provides for a 3.65 per cent annual increase in funding.

Previously under the Handicapped Persons Assessment Act 1974 wages costs, as determined by tribunals, were met from date of operation of the increase. This meant that those costs were able to be offset thus ensuring that the level and quality of service was able to be maintained.

It is obvious that the current funding formula does not in any way provide the necessary resources to meet wages outcomes determined in National and State Wage Cases.

Having regard to the fact that federal funding is intended to make a contribution only to the cost of operating what is an essential community service for those people with disabilities requiring access to and who have a need for residential care, sheltered workshops, day training and activity centres and the like (as set out in Divisions C, D and E of the Award), it is apparent that the providers of those services have great, and in this case insurmountable financial difficulties.

I was informed by Mr Sertori that the contribution made by the State amounts to the advancement of funds for special purposes only. There are no formal funding arrangements, as such, in place. Therefore the situation is not ameliorated in terms of salaries and wages funding from that source.

Mr Holden appearing for the HEF supported Mr Sertori's submissions. He said that t-here are insufficient funds to meet the cost of the $10.00 a week pay increase.

The scenario described by Mr Holden was that if the problem is not fixed the end result would be a reduction in services provided. This would impact on the community including families who currently use the available facilities.

A readily understood example of what Mr Holden was submitting is the case of a two income family who have a handicapped child in day care.

In the event of cut backs in available services it may well be that a day care place for that child will not be able to be maintained.

The end result would most likely be that home or other specialist care would need to be provided.

In those circumstances the family income would most likely be substantially reduced, which in most cases would have strong impact on the welfare of the family unit and in turn on the community as a whole.

I believe it is not necssary to extrapolate further. The repercussions are obvious and are potentially far reaching.

I consider that this area of community services infrastructure is in urgent need of attention and review.

In that regard I am aware of the efforts of the parties to rectify the deficiencies which appear to be inherent in the current funding arrangements.

This is a difficult area and no doubt the demands for funds are great. However it is important not to lose sight of the fact that carers and other support staff in day activity centres, residential homes, those in Multicap, Tasmania Spastics Association, Royal Society for the Deaf and many others who work and provide attention and care for the handicapped in numerous other establishments throughout the State, are entitled to expect to receive at least the wage increases paid to other employees under state awards in Tasmania.

Be that as it may I am not prepared to force a wage increase ($10.00 a week) when the parties, and I suspect the employees themselves, have agreed to defer the operative date for nearly four months.

The willingness of all those involved to defer this increase, the employees and the union in this matter, should be publicly acknowledged.

Their actions will ensure that for the time being at least the status quo in respect of the current levels of service will be maintained.

I am of the view that given the circumstances as outlined by Mr Sertori and Mr Holden I have no alternative other than to endorse their request.

Accordingly the $10.00 a week wage increase will be stayed until the beginning of the first pay period to commence on or after 8 July 1989.

An appropriate award variation will be made at that time to give effect to the increase.

 

R K Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

1 T.1524 and T.1525 of 1988