Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T2239

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T.2239 of 1989 IN THE MATTER OF an application by the FEDERATED MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA, TASMANIAN BRANCH FOR THE MAKING OF A NEW AWARD

RE: LEATHER, CANVAS AND SHEET PLASTIC FABRICATION AWARD

   

COMMISSIONER R J WATLING

HOBART, 15 December 1989

 

 

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

 

 

For the Federated Miscellaneous
Workers Union of Australia,
Tasmanian Branch

- Mr K O'Brien

 

 

For the Transport Workers' Union of
Australia, Tasmanian Branch

- Mr B Hansch (intervening)

 

 

For the Amalgamated Society of
Carpenters and Joiners of Australia,
Tasmanian Branch

- Mr M Dowd (intervening)

 

 

For The Federated Ironworkers'
Association of Australia,
Tasmanian Branch and the
National Union of storeworkers,
Packers, Rubber and Allied Workers,
Tasmanian Branch

- Mr J Long (intervening)

 

 

For the Tasmanian confederation
of Industries

- Mr T Abey

 

 

DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:

 

 

8 December 1989

Hobart

   
   

This application was made by The Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch for the purpose of making a new award to be known as the `Leather, Canvas and Sheet Plastic Fabrication Award'.

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch, The Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia, Tasmanian Branch and The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia, Tasmanian Branch sought and were granted leave to intervene in this matter and, in addition, Mr J Long representing the FIA, also indicated that he was representing the National Union of Storeworkers, Packers, Rubber and Allied Workers, Tasmanian Branch. However, at that time, he had no formal authority to act as their agent.

Mr K O'Brien for the FMWU commenced his submission by tendering a document (Exhibit MWU1) being a draft of the proposed new award.

After canvassing the scope or incidence clause of the proposed new award, he was granted an adjournment to discuss the implications of the application with his union colleagues intervening in the hearing.

When the hearing resumed, the Commission, as currently constituted, was informed (although there were some slight reservations by the FIA) that all organisations present were of the view that they had no objections to the new award being made and that the content of Exhibit MWU1 should be considered in its entirety. This, I proceeded to do.

The proposal is for an industry award to be made in respect of the processing or manufacturing of articles from canvas and/or leather or their substitute and/or from sheet plastic and/or from rope, cord or twine.

The subject matters examined during the course of the hearing were as follows:

Title, Scope Arrangement, Date of Operation, Supersession and Saving, Parties and Persons Bound, Definitions, Wage Rates, Allowances, Annual Leave, Compassionate Leave, Contract of Employment, Holidays with Pay, Hours, Maternity Leave, Meal Interval and Meal Allowance, Mixed Functions, Overtime, Payment of Wages, Preference of Employment, Right of Entry of Union Officials, Saturday Work, Shift Work, Shop Steward, Sick Leave, Sunday Work and Superannuation.

Virtually all the conditions of employment were identical to those appearing in the Fibreglass and Plastics Award with the exception of the wage rates which were closely aligned to those appearing in the `Saddlery, Leather, Canvas and Plastic Material Workers Award 1987', being an award of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

The wage rates outlined in Exhibit MWU1 included the first part of the State Wage Case decision.

Mr Abey, representing the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries, endorsed the submissions presented by Mr O'Brien and in addition stated that there were members of his organisation whose business would fall within the scope of the new award and they too had examined and endorsed the proposal (Exhibit MWU1).

I indicated to the parties at the conclusion of the hearing that I supported their submissions and I now give my reasons for doing so.

1. The parties established the need for an award to be made in respect of the industry of processing or manufacturing of articles from:

    (a) canvas or substitutes thereof;
    (b) leather or substitutes thereof;
    (c) sheet plastic;
    (d) rope, cord or twine.

2. To the best of the parties knowledge the rates of pay and conditions of employment contained in the draft award were equivalent to those already applying in this area of the work force.

3. The application conforms with the Wage Fixing Principles.

4. No submission was put to me that would have me believe that it was against the public interest to make the award.

5. Because of the level of consent for the application.

In view of the foregoing, I hereby determine that a new award be established to be known as the `Leather, Canvas and Sheet Plastic Fabrication Award' and its contents, including rates of pay and conditions of employment being those set out in Exhibit MWU1.

OPERATIVE DATE:

Being a new award, I am of the view that a prospective operative date should be set thus enabling the companies who fall within the scope of this award time to receive, examine and implement the order.

Therefore, I determine that the operative date of this decision be from the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 January 1990.

ORDER:

The Order giving effect to this decision is attached.

 

R J Watling
COMMISSIONER