Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T2951

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.29 application for hearing in respect of an industrial dispute

Tasmanian Confederation of Industries
on behalf of Tioxide Australia Pty Ltd

(T.2951 of 1991)

and

The Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia,
Tasmanian Branch

 

COMMISSIONER R.K. GOZZI

HOBART, 19 March 1991

Wage rates - percentage relativities

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Tasmanian Confederation of Industries (TCI) as agent for Tioxide Australia Pty Ltd (Tioxide) requested the assistance of the Commission in respect to an industrial dispute between Tioxide and The Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia, Tasmanian Branch (FIA).

The dispute related to the refusal by the FIA to become a signatory to the Tioxide Agreement because it contained wage rates based on percentage relativities to the Tradesperson wage rate specified in the Agreement.

The concern of the FIA was that in the event a flat money amount increase is awarded by the Commission, the consequential maintenance of percentage- based wage relativities in the Agreement would result in a lower amount of increase for those employees in classifications which are less than 100 per cent of the Tradesperson's wage rate.

The following hypothetical example illustrates that point:

    100% = $100 Tradesperson Wage Rate $50 Flat Increase = $150

    90% = $ 90 Relativity to Tradesperson $50 Flat Increase = $135

    $90 Flat Increase + $50 = $140

In the above example maintenance of the 90 percent relativity to the Tradespersons wage rate results in an increase of $5.00 less than if the $50 flat increase is applied to the $90.00, i.e. $135 compared to $140.

The FIA contended that if a flat amount of increase was to reflect a cost of living adjustment, then the additional living costs incurred are equal for all employees notwithstanding individual classifications.

Whilst I recognised the disquiet of the FIA on this issue I recommended in the proceedings that the Agreement be signed by it as it reflected no more than what was endorsed by the Commission in earlier proceedings1 in satisfaction of the Structural Efficiency Principle.

The parties also understood and accepted the fact that it will be a matter for the Commission in any future State Wage Case proceedings to determine how wage increases, if and when made, are to apply to award wage rates including those in Agreements registered in the Commission.

The recommendation of the Commission having been accepted, I anticipate that the Tioxide Agreement will now be brought forward to the Commission for processing.

 

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr T. Edwards with Mr E. Van der Ploeg for Tioxide Australia Pty Ltd.
Mr J. Glisson for The Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia, Tasmanian Branch.
Mr A. Sierink for the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch.
Mr D. Price for The Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union.
Mr B. Best for The Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association of Australasia, Tasmanian Branch and
The Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch).

Date and Place of Hearing:
1991.
Launceston:
March 5.

1 T.2808 of 1990