Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T2016

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

T.2016 of 1989 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA, TASMANIA BRANCH TO VARY THE WELFARE AND VOLUNTARY AGENCIES AWARD
   
  RE: 3% SUPERANNUATION
   
COMMISSIONER R K GOZZI HOBART, 22 August 1989
   

REASONS FOR DECISION

   
APPEARANCES:  
   
For the Hospital Employees
Federation of Australia,
Tasmanian Branch
- Mr R Warwick
   
For the Tasmanian Confederation
of Industries
- Mr M Sertori
   
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:  
   
26 July 1989                 Hobart  
   

This application by the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, Tasmania Branch seeks the inclusion of 3 per cent occupational superannuation provisions in Divisions A, B, C and D of the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award.

Mr Warwick appearing for the HEF submitted a draft order which he said reflected the outcome of lengthy negotiations between the parties on the introduction of occupational superannuation into the award.

Exhibit HEF2 details the proposed variations including contributions to be the equivalent to 3 percent of ordinary time earnings, which has been appropriately defined.

The Commission endorses both HESTA and TASPLAN as being the relevant funds in this matter. The exemptions clause which enables a departure from the above schemes if determined by the Commission, is also accepted by me as being the appropriate mechanism to be adopted in the event an employer wishes to contribute to an alternative fund.

The expiry date for notifying by the HEF of the intention to seek an exemption is 18 September 1989.

The operative date of the variation endorsed by the Commission will be from the beginning of the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 October 1989.

Mr Sertori appearing for the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries supported the HEF application and the comments made by Mr Warwick.

He also made submissions in respect of that part of exhibit HEF2 which contained a letter from the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health concerning funding arrangements to service providers who will as a consequence of this decision be required to meet 3 percent occupational superannuation commitments.

The letter, signed by the Assistant Secretary, Employment, Development and Strategic Planning Branch, Disability Programs Division, indicated, in part that in the event of a shortfall in funds consequential to the implementation of this decision

    '... it would appear that those services will have no difficulty in demonstrating to the Department that supplementation is required."

However Mr Sertori indicated that in order for funding to be made available, the 3 per cent superannuation award would only be recognised by the Department if made under the principles of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

Mr Sertori referred to the letter from the Assistant Secretary where it was stated -

    "You indicated (Mr Sertori) difficulty in understanding references to the August 1988 National Wage Case. These references do not mean "The Principles" of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission, as amended in its 5 September 1988 State National Wage Decision. Consistent with the Disability Service Program being a Commonwealth funded program our references are to the National Wage Case decision handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission."

    In brackets mine.

Given that qualification by the Department of Community Services and Health, the concern of Mr Sertori is understandable.

However the facts are that the awarding of superannuation provisions in this award has been made in accordance with the wage fixing principles of this Commission.

In the event the Superannuation Principle is the same in this State as it is in the principles of the Australian Commission.

It would be unacceptable in my opinion for the responsible Commonwealth Department in this matter to ignore the reality of a decision made in accordance with wage fixing principles supported by the Federal Government. Albeit that in this case those principles are as determined to apply in the State of Tasmania.

Should the parties encounter funding problems because this decision emanates from a State Tribunal, leave reserved is granted for that matter to be brought before this Commission.

My order is attached.

 

R K Gozzi
COMMISSIONER