TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.29 application for a hearing to settle an industrial dispute

Tasmanian Confederation of Industries
(T.2878 of 1991)

and

The Australian Workers' Union,
Tasmanian Branch

SILICON METAL SMELTING AGREEMENT 1990

Wage rates - overtime - shiftworkers

REASONS FOR DECISION

This was an application under Section 29 of the Act by the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries (the Confederation) for a hearing over a dispute between Pioneer Silicon Industries, Margate (the Company), and The Australian Workers' Union, Tasmanian Branch (the Union).

Mr T Abey appeared for the Confederation and outlined the details of the dispute which related to the application to shiftworkers of the overtime clause (19.4) set out in the Silicon Metal Smelting Agreement 1990 (the Agreement) which has been filed and registered with the Commission.

The relevant words in the Agreement as applying to shiftworkers in this case were as follows:

"... an employee ... who works so much overtime between the termination of his ordinary work on one day and the commencement of his ordinary work on the next day that he has not at least 8 consecutive hours off duty between those times shall ... be released ..."

Nevertheless, at the Silicon works in Margate even in cases where the break between the previous ordinary shift and the overtime period was eight hours or more the practice to date has been to either release the employee from work, but with pay until a break of eight hours has occurred or overtime payment has been made. The Company has decided now, that in accordance with the terms of the Agreement quoted, it is not bound to give time off with pay or pay overtime in those cases where a break of eight hours or more has occurred between the previous ordinary shift and the overtime shift.

The Union, through its advocate Mr V Jacobs, objected to the Company's decision saying that the previous "de facto" system of payment having been established should not now be dropped. However, at the hearing, the Union did accept the interpretation put by the Company on the provision quoted.

I accept Mr Abey's submission that the words of the agreement clearly allow for the break between the work periods to be applied without further penalty whether it occurs before or after the overtime shift. Mr Abey stated that the provision in question is a common one and to my knowledge also that is so.

I find therefore that the Company is entitled in the terms of the agreement to cease practices which are not required by the Agreement.

It is true that employees do regard the eight hour break as inadequate in the circumstances in dispute; I have found that in my own experience elsewhere, but the fact remains the standard is not uncommon and the Agreement is clear on the point.

P A Imlach
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
V Jacobs with S Cooke and C Lancaster.
T Abey with M Ellsmore and G Hannon for Pioneer Silicon Industries.

Date and place of hearing:
1991.
Hobart:
February 20.