T2956
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Pasminco Mining - Rosebery PASMINCO ROSEBERY (MINING) AWARD
Award Variation - Wage Rates REASONS FOR DECISION In this matter Pasminco Mining Rosebery (Pasminco) sought the variation of the Pasminco Rosebery (Mining) Award in respect to wage rates for the classifications of Mill Operator and Surface Operator. Mr Evetts for Pasminco submitted that an error was made when constructing the wage rate to be offered to Surface and Mill Operators in the structural efficiency negotiations. He said that the error had resulted in the weekly award rate for the classifications in question being overstated by $21.10 a week. Mr Barr appearing with Mr Evetts said that - "The error occurred in the calculation when the old "B" grade operators rate of $404.10 was converted to the increased 38 hour week rate by dividing by 38 and multiplying by 40". Transcript p.3 Mr Evetts informed the Commission that the mistake had been accepted by the majority of employees in the Mill and Surface Operator classifications and that since the making of the Pasminco Rosebery (Mining) Award operative from 8 August 1990, the weekly award rate had been paid less the $21.10. Mr Best and Mr Hansch appearing for The Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association of Australasia, Tasmanian Branch (FEDFA) and the Transport Workers' Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch (TWU) respectively, argued against the variation to the award. They submitted in essence that the offer made by Pasminco was accepted in good faith and in return for significant offsets which may not have otherwise been given up by the employees concerned. Mr Best contended that given those circumstances it would not be appropriate for the Commission to vary the award. He said that the Commission should have full regard to the fact that the money amount offered by Pasminco was the outcome of properly conducted negotiations between the parties. Mr Hansch supported the submissions of the FEDFA. He also focused on Section 49 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1984 (the Act). Mr Hansch submitted that this Section of the Act required Pasminco to pay the rates in the award. He said: "... I believe that Section 49 of the Act clearly states that once the award has been made and the rates of pay are in an award, then the employer is obliged to pay those rates". Transcript p.37 I do not accept that argument in these proceedings. Clearly the Commission has the authority and legislative power, pursuant to Section 32 of the Act, to vary an award. The prerequisite is that the Commission has before it an appropriate application for the variation and affords the parties the opportunity to be heard. It is then a matter for the Commission to make such determination in relation to the application as it considers proper. Having regard to the circumstances in this matter I am satisfied that an obvious error had been made in the calculation of the wage rates for Mill and Surface Operators. In all the circumstances the award will be varied in the manner requested by the applicant, operative from 8 August 1990. The Order is attached.
R K Gozzi Appearances: Dates and Places of Hearing: |