Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T2758

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

Metals and Engineering Workers' Union
(T.2758 of 1990)

ARCHITECTS (PRIVATE INDUSTRY) AWARD

 

DEPUTY PRESIDENT A ROBINSON

HOBART 20 December 1991

Making of new award

REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter concerns an application by the Metals and Engineering Workers' Union (MEWU) for the making of a new occupational award in respect of architects.

The present application is opposed by the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries (TCI) on the grounds that the MEWU is allegedly ineligible to make such an application because it cannot demonstrate that it meets the requirements of the Act.

On 8 September 1986 the former President of the Commission made a declaration pursuant to Section 33(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 that:

"Appropriately qualified architects, including naval architects, carrying out all forms of professional architectural work in private industry are engaged in an occupation in respect of which the Tasmanian Industrial Commission has jurisdiction.

I further declare that employees so classified by private employers are classes of employees in respect of whom an award could be made by the Commission."

Subsequently the MEWU lodged an application for the making of an Architects (Private Industry) Award.

The particulars of the interest that the applicant has in the making of the award were stated to be simply that:

"ADSTE (as it then was) has an interest in the making of the award"

In explaining his reasons for seeking this award Mr Baker made reference to the fact that since the Commission has created awards covering surveyors, engineers and drafting and technical officers, architects are the only sector of professional employment without separate award coverage.

Mr Clues for TCI put forward a proposition "on behalf of the Association of Consulting Architects" (ACA) which is an unregistered organisation so far as Tasmania is concerned.

Whilst TCI does not oppose the creation of an architect's award, it opposes the application by the MEWU for the making of such an award pursuant to subsections 23(1)(d) and 24(2)(b) of the Act.

In particular 23(1)(d) provides, inter alia:

    "23 (1) An application for an award or the variation of an award made to the Commission shall -

(a) .......

(b) .......

(c) .......

(d) contain a statement giving -

    (i) .......

    (ii) in the case of an application by an organisation referred to in section 24 (2) or 25 (2) - particulars of the interest that the applicant has in the making of the award"

and 24(2)(b) provides, inter alia:

    "24 (1) The hearing of an application made as provided by section 23, other than an application in respect of a matter to which section 35 (1) relates, shall be conducted by the Commission constituted by a Commissioner sitting alone.

(2) An application referred to in subsection (1) may be made to the Commission by -

(a) .......

(b) an employee organisation with an interest in the award to which the application relates;"

Mr Clues argued that the MEWU application is not valid because it has failed to provide particulars of its interest.

Decision

I advised the parties early in proceedings that I would only deal with:

1. The reasons as to why an award should be created. Then if so satisfied -
2. The name of such an award
3. The scope of such an award
4. A savings provision

They were told that when that process was completed the matter would be adjourned to allow the proper processes to be followed before determining the question of award interest. Then the MEWU and any other registered organisations wishing to do so would have to demonstrate interest and any objectors would be given the opportunity to be heard.

Other organisations have long since recognised the deficiencies of the Act in relation to the making of new awards and accepted the logic and fairness of the Commission's established procedure in this regard.

For Mr Clues not to oppose the making of the award in principle but to oppose the present application by a particular registered organisation on behalf of an unregistered organisation is hypocritical.

And to rely upon one aspect of the Act to the exclusion of the more relevant parts (such as section 65A) is to adopt a very narrow approach.

For these reasons I have decided to dismiss TCI's objection to the application by the MEWU on the grounds that, in accordance with Section 21(c)(i) of the Act, it is trivial.

It follows that it is my substantive decision to grant the application for a new award so far as it goes to the question only of:

1. Name
2. Scope
3. Operative date
4. Savings clause

As indicated earlier organisations may now make separate application for the determination of award interest on proper criteria.

Date of Effect

This new award shall have effect from the 1 January 1992.

Order is attached.

 

A Robinson
DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:
Mr P Baker for the Metals and Engineering Workers' Union
Mr S Clues and Mr D Eastman for the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries

Date and place of hearing:
1990
Hobart
November 1
1991
November 28