IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

In this matter the Tasmanian Public Service Association (the Association) made application¹ in the first instance to vary the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Employees Award to indicate in the award relevant librarian salary levels in keeping with those determined² for librarians subject to the Librarians Award.

That award was varied in August 1989 consequential to a comprehensive work value review.

At the initial hearing of this matter I advised the Association that the application to vary the award should be processed through an Anomalies Conference.

This course was followed by the Association with the matter coming before an Anomalies Conference on 19 December 1989.

Subsequently the matter was referred to me by the then President as an "arguable case"³.

In the proceedings emanating from the Anomalies Conference, Mr Grey appearing for the Association made submission aimed at demonstrating that the elements of work value change considered in the Librarians Award work value case also apply to the work of the librarian subject to the award in question.

In that regard Mr Grey advocated that the operation and work of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Library was similar to that which was established for work value change in the Government Library Information Service (GLIS) which was part of the Librarians' Case.

Whilst that comparison is valid to the extent that the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Library is of the same size and has the same budget as some GLIS libraries, I am unable to conclude that in work value terms, the work has changed to the degree it has for GLIS librarians in toto. It must be recognised that the GLIS work value assessment was made across a much broader range of operating circumstances than those evident at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.

Clearly computer technology, access to a wide range of computer data bases, computer aided retrieval and storage systems have not at this stage impacted on the library under review.

More persuasive is the submission made by Mr Willingham that the award could be varied on the basis of an inequity with the Librarians Award.

I support that approach. It is a fact that the award contains librarian rates of pay derived from the Librarians Award.

As indicated earlier that award was comprehensively examined on work value grounds and subsequently varied.

That variation also took account of the Technical Officer salary base carried into the Librarians Award when it was first made, and that this was no longer appropriate given the change in prerequisite academic qualifications (now UGI) and the professional work of librarians generally.

In the circumstances it is now opportune to vary the award in recognition that an inequity was created when the Librarians Award was varied.

Mr Willingham also suggested that the Commission may wish to delete reference to the librarians salary scale in the award or alternatively reduce the extent of the existing scale to only reflect the classification level (Class II) for the present incumbent.

I am not attracted to varying the award in either of those ways. The librarians salary scale was included in the award by a Full Bench when the award was first made subsequent to protracted proceedings.

Proposals to delete the salary scale for librarians and restructuring the award in the manner proposed by Mr Willingham and perhaps in other ways as well, is more appropriately dealt with in structural efficiency proceedings envisaged by the parties in respect of awards generally. This approach was of course endorsed in the most recent State Wage Case decision.

Having regard to the foregoing the existing salary scale in the award will be deleted and replaced by the corresponding salary scale from the Librarians Award. other consequential variations concerning qualifications and definitions will also be made.

The order operative from the date of this decision will issue in due course. In deciding in that way I have not endorsed the submission of Mr Grey who was seeking a retrospective date of operation.

I consider that the processes leading to this matter being referred to me as an arguable case do not constitute "special circumstances" which may allow the Commission to award a retrospective operative date in accordance with Section 37(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984.

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

1 T.2110 of 1989
2 T.1815 of 1989
3 TA.55 of 1989