T2469, T2471, T2475, T2480
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 The Tasmanian Public Service Association ARCHITECTS AWARD KEYBOARD EMPLOYEES AND OFFICE ASSISTANTS AWARD QUANTITY SURVEYORS AWARD VETERINARY OFFICERS AWARD
Structural Efficiency Principle - Special Cases REASONS FOR DECISION These four matters concern State Service awards within my assignment which have been declared as "special cases" in accordance with the terms of the Wage Fixation Principles. None have commenced to be heard as to merit and even though dates were set for inspections in respect of some of those matters, those inspections were subsequently postponed at the request of the applicants. During the same period of time that these files have been with me a Full Bench has been dealing with a large number of other State Service awards concerning on-going structural efficiency changes. And in its "Reasons for Decision"1 issued on 22 February 1991 the Full Bench issued seven directives to the parties, including the following at page 3:
As a consequence a hearing was convened on 19 March 1991 to enable the parties to be apprised of the circumstances and to be afforded them the opportunity of making submissions as to the future of these four separate applications. The Tasmanian Public Service Association (TPSA) was able to add to the sequence of events following the Full Bench's directives as they are involved in proceedings. Mr Mazengarb said that the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council (TTLC) was co-ordinating union responses to matters requested by the Full Bench and to this end preferred structures and rates of pay for each occupational stream had been submitted to the TTLC. It was expected that meetings between the TTLC and various unions would follow and then final positions would be documented and forwarded to the Full Bench by 30 April 1991. The TPSA said it accepted the Full Bench's directions of 22 February and had already met its obligations in this regard. The only comment by the TPSA was that in present circumstances it accepted that it would be procedurally correct for me to remit my four files back to the president to enable them to be joined with associated Full Bench matters, where hopefully there would be a consent settlement. However Mr Mazengarb said that in the event the present matters still needed to be arbitrated, then in the opinion of his organisation it would be more expedient that they be dealt with before a single Commissioner. The Hospit Employees Federation of Australia, Tasmania Branch (HEF) also acknowledged the fact that other events had now overtaken application No T.2471 of 1990. Ms Crotty said the HEF did not fully understand the reasons why the HEF matter needed to be dealt with by the Full Bench. Whilst the HEF was not making a strong objection to this change of events at this time, it hoped no precedence was being set for the future regarding matters being differently handled by the Commission "half way through". Having been allocated these four applications for hearing and determination pursuant to Section 15(1) of the Act I have given all interested parties full and proper opportunity to express their views as to the future course of events to be followed in settling the issues contained in those applications. Those issues are complex and even though the Commission as constituted has been available to embark upon any hearings and/or inspections reasonably required, other events have caused the applicants to prefer to wait. But more particularly a Full Bench has before it for consideration issues going to a possible major restructuring of the State Service as a whole. And from decisions issued2 it is clear that the overlapping of claims by State Service Unions need to be co-ordinated and rationalised if possible. Having conducted a hearing in relation to what should occur procedurally in relation to these four matters before me I rely upon the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Act which provides as follows:
refer the application to the President in order that he may determine whether or not it should be referred to a Full Bench." I have also had regard for the comments and reservations expressed by the TPSA and the HEF, but consider that, at this time, the present matters, or part of them, have the potential to affect other public sector awards. As a result I have decided to refer those applications to the President in order that he may determine whether or not they should be referred to a Full Bench.
A Robinson Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: 1 T Nos 2399, 2508, 2511, 2586 and 2605 of 1990 |