Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T2706

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.23 application for award or variation of award

Health Services Union of Australia
Tasmania No. 1 Branch

(T.2706 of 1990)

WELFARE AND VOLUNTARY AGENCIES AWARD

 

COMMISSIONER R.K. GOZZI

HOBART, 12 August 1991

Structural Efficiency Principle - second stage

REASONS FOR INTERIM DECISION

In this consent matter the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch, (HSU) sought the variation of the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award to reflect the second instalment structural efficiency adjustment.

Mr Sertori appearing for the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries informed the Commission that a great deal of work had been undertaken by the parties in respect of the classification structure. He said that draft proposals had been exchanged between the parties and that discussions were continuing. Mr Sertori indicated that a comprehensive skills audit would be undertaken in the workplaces subject to the award and, depending on funding arrangements TAFE may be involved in this process. A further benefit would be to clarify exactly which providers of services are subject to the award, a difficulty in this area given the allocation of funds which has a bearing on award coverage. It was submitted by Mr Sertori that it was proposed to establish appropriate relativities in the award having regard to minimum rates adjustments.

In addition to the negotiations between the parties on classification structure, Mr Sertori outlined a number of proposed award variations, Exhibit S1, which would enhance flexibility and provide the framework for more efficient working arrangements. Exhibit S1 presented as a draft order also contained consequential cross-referencing of clauses, partly to reflect some of the proposed award changes and to update clause references which for one reason or another were out of kilter. The proposed variations were supported by Mr McLane for the HSU who also urged the Commission to vary the award in the manner requested.

It is not my intention to canvass all of the arrangements put forward by the parties in this matter, suffice to say that they concern time off in lieu provisions where penalty payments are concerned or where public holidays are worked and an alternative day is subsequently taken (at the equivalent penalty time); the time of taking a meal break has also been extended where this may become unavoidably necessary. I concur with the parties that one of the more significant variations related to the

extension of hourly hire from 2 weeks to 3 months. Whilst that is a long period I agree with Mr Sertori and Mr McLane that 3 months is a reasonable period for both the employer and employee to properly assess whether or not the work entailed with caring for intellectually, sensory and/or physically handicapped persons is such as to suit those who have not previously been involved in caring for people with these kind of disabilities.

In this matter the parties have co-operated positively to update the award, albeit more work will be required to modernise it, and a number of flexible working arrangements have been negotiated. In that context I am satisfied that the awarding of the second structural efficiency principal adjustment is consistent with the wage fixing principles and that the increases in wage rates will not offend the public interest. On that point I was assured by Mr Sertori that funding for the wage increases was available.

Accordingly the award will be varied as an interim measure, operative from the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 August 1991.

The order is attached.

At this time I do not propose to set down a further hearing. I understand that the parties will continue their negotiations on the classification structure and that the Commission can expect further proceedings in that regard in around three months time.

Also, I anticipate on resumption of hearing that the parties will address the Commission on the method of adjusting employee and employer-related expense allowances, apprenticeship provisions, junior rates and scope of the award.

 

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr C. Stringer (8.10.90), Mr D. McLane and Mr J. Kennedy for the Hospital Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch.
Mr S. Clues (9.10.90) and Mr M. Sertori (19.7.91) for the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries.

Date and Place of Hearing:
1990:
Hobart
October 8
1991:
Hobart
July 19