T1817
|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984
This application seeks to vary the Prison Officers Award (the Award) in the following manner: "1. Delete from the Prison Officers Award the following: Clause 14 - Proficiency Allowance, items 1 and 2 Clause 20 - Special Duty Allowance 2. Add to the annual salary rate for all classifications in the Award an amount of $490.00 per annum. 3. Delete from Clause 19 of the Award the following:-
4. Renumber clauses in Award as result of Item 1 above ...... " Claim 4 goes on to detail a disputes procedure clause agreed by the parties as appropriate for inclusion in the award. Claim 3, if granted, will result in the hourly divisor for the calculation of overtime and allowances being reduced from 1/40th to 1/38th. The Minister for Public Administration (the Minister) supported the application. This application and the agreement reached are the results of detailed negotiations which, if approved, will resolve two long standing issues. They are the reduction of the divisor from 1/40 to 1/38 and the removal of the First Aid Allowance provision from the Award. On 15 January 1986, I issued a decision1 introducing a 38 hour week for employees covered by the Award. However, the parties at that time had agreed that the 40 hour divisor for the calculation of overtime and allowances would remain. Subsequent applications to reduce the divisor and delete the First Aid Allowance from the Award have been refused or adjourned, without resolution. Detailed discussions over a long period have now resulted in agreement, not only in relation to those two claims but also on other matters which are seen by the parties as a genuine attempt to rationalise the Award. Simply put, the position sought is that the First Aid, Proficiency and Special Duty Allowance provisions will be deleted from the Award in return for a salary increase of $490 per annum and a 1/38th divisor. The Disputes Procedure, while part of this application, is not part of the above agreement particularly for costing purposes. Exhibit J.1 details the costing of the various proposals. From that document the cost of reducing the divisor from 1/40th to 1/38th is estimated at $33,775.00 per annum. However, if the total package is costed i.e. the allowances are discontinued and employees receive in lieu an increase in salary of $490.00, plus a 1/38th divisor for the calculation of overtime and allowances; the total cost is estimated at $11,111.36 per annum. Thus notional savings, or a cost offset, against the introduction of the 1/38th divisor of $22,663.64 per annum is achieved if the package is endorsed. I was advised that 161 Prison Officers are employed under the conditions of the subject award. Of that number 53 are not receiving the First Aid Allowance, 9 are not receiving the Proficiency Allowance and 20 are not receiving the Special Duty Allowance. All of the factors which might be said to justify the payment of the above allowances are part of the training and the normal work experience of all or the vast majority of Prison Officers. It can therefore be appreciated why the current situation is anomalous and the cause of much discontent. Decisions of the Commission have dealt with some of the ramifications of that discontent. In a decision dated 23 March 19872 dealing with an application by the Tasmanian Public Service Association (T.P.S.A.) to reduce the 1/40th divisor, I said: "I would be amongst the first to agree with Mr Vines appearing for the T.P.S.A., that he has every right to seek to vary an award at any time. However, this particular award provision was varied by Order No 2 of 1986 in T.267 and T.301 of 1985 as part of the reduced working hours package. The forty-hour divisor which was left in the Award represented a substantial cost saving, thus becoming an integral part of the agreement of the parties at that time. I believe for me to now allow a substantial alteration to that agreement could put at risk any number of similar arrangements. I am not prepared so soon after the settlement to alter its conditions as sought." and later "I therefore will not dismiss the T.P.S.A. application but refer the parties into conference." In a later decision dated 11 January 19883 relating to significant aspects of the same subject matter as this application, I said: "For the reasons detailed in my decision in T.664 of 1987, I am not prepared to vary the current divisor for overtime, shift allowance and weekend penalties from 1/40th to 1/38th. In respect to T.702 of 1987, the application by the Minister to delete Clause 14(1) First Aid Allowance from the Award, that application is also refused." and later: "Having so decided, it seems to me that the parties should again confer in a genuine attempt to resolve the issues before them." The above extracts from previous decisions of the Commission clearly demonstrate the period of time and the extent to which matters addressed by this application have been a source of dissatisfaction. I believe the parties on this occasion have genuinely addressed the issues and arrived at a sound compromise which will result in a long term resolution of a difficult and anomalous situation. Although the proposals involve an across the board increase in salaries of $490.00, I accept that the spirit of the Wage Fixation Principles has not been offended. From the above figures, it can be seen that the savings achieved by the deletion of the allowances from the Award exceed the cost of the salary increase by $22,663.64 per annum. This amount is then offset against the cost of the 1/38th divisor. Although some Prison Officers will gain out of this agreement there is no doubt some will suffer. a minimal reduction in take home pay. This is an inevitable result of a compromise solution. The proposal is also a first step in the rationalisation of the Award, a prime aim of the current Principles. I endorse the agreement and will therefore vary the Award to reflect the necessary changes. In accepting the proposals, I also compliment the parties in achieving what I consider to be a very satisfactory resolution to a number of long standing issues. The date of operation for the Disputes Procedure provision will be the first pay period commencing on or after the date of this decision. The remaining matters will come into effect from the first pay period commencing on or after 1 July 1989. For reasons which are obvious, the Commission order in this matter will not be issued until after the National Wage variation effective from the first pay period commencing on or after 15 March 1989.
JG King 1 T.267 and T.301 of 1985
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||