Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T3014

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

Tasmanian Public Service Association
(T.3014 of 1991)

and

Minister administering Tasmanian State Service Act 1984

 

COMMISSIONER R.K. GOZZI

HOBART, 9 July 1991

Payment of salaries of cadets at the Centre for Precision Technology

REASONS FOR DECISION

In this matter the Tasmanian Public Service Association (TPSA) notified the Commission that it was in dispute with the Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 in respect of the level of salaries paid to Cadets at the Centre for Precision Technology.

The focus of the dispute was the variation made to rates of pay for Cadets contained in Clause 8 - Salaries of the Teaching Service (Non-Teaching Staff) Award as a consequence of the State Wage Case decision38 handed down on 15 February 1988. That decision contained the following:

"4. Junior award rates be adjusted pro rata and in accordance with the percentage each rate bears to the minimum adult rate upon which those rates have been established. Where no such percentages are stipulated, individual Commissioners are authorised to include the appropriate percentages to be applied after consultation with organisations as necessary."

page 6   Underlining mine

As a consequence of that decision individual Commissioners proceeded to vary those awards which did not conform with the requirements of the above Full Bench decision. In that regard the Teaching Service (Non-Teaching Staff) Award was varied (No. 1 of 1988 Consolidated) to include the "age" next to the percentage of the adult rate in the award. The effect of the variation was to stipulate that Cadet employees would be paid the percentage of the adult rate applicable to their age. Previously Cadets were paid on the basis of years of experience. Accordingly irrespective of the age of an employee, he or she was paid at the 55 per cent of the adult rate in their first year of employment, progressing to 63 per cent in the second year and so on through the percentages as applicable to juniors. To illustrate the point the following extract from the award relevant to Cadet rates of pay is helpful:

"Cadet

    Age

    Percentage

    Salary per Annum
    $

    16 years & under
    17 years & under
    18 years & under
    19 years & under
    20 years & under

    55
    63
    73
    84
    93

    9136
    10465
    12126
    13953
    15448"

Having regard to my earlier comments, the effect of including the "Age" column (No. 1 of 1988 Consolidated, operative 5 February 1988) becomes immediately obvious. That is, by way of example, a 20 year old employee in his first year of service should receive 93 per cent of the adult rate ($15448 per annum) notwithstanding that previously that employee in his first year of service would have received the 55 per cent rate, i.e. $9136 per annum.

Since that variation was made to the award operative from February 1988, the Cadets at the Centre for Precision Technology (the Centre) have continued to be paid on the basis of years of experience and not their age, even though subsequent award variations have been made in the same way as determined in 1988. As a consequence significant underpayments have resulted. Therefore the TPSA sought the assistance of the Commission to do what it could to secure compliance with the award. The issue of jurisdiction was not canvassed by either party as both the employer and the TPSA were seeking guidance to resolve the dispute.

In that context the employer argued that the variation to the Cadet rate to provide payment other than on the basis of years of service was not consistent with the training-related progression in the salary scale for Cadets. That is Cadets are trained, gaining expertise as they progress through their cadetship and are paid a higher rate as they acquire skills. I was informed by Mr Payne that the Cadet classification was distinguishable from that of a junior because of the progressive nature of the training which in no way related to the age of the employee. He submitted that whereas junior classifications in the award are part of an ongoing career stream, Cadets complete their training and do not have an adult classification in the award.

In this matter I had several discussions with the parties. Having regard to the submissions and conferences, I have reached the conclusion that this matter can only be settled on the basis of an in-depth examination of the role and functions of Cadets including rates of pay. This would entail an application to vary the award. If and when that application is made and subsequently heard the parties can argue the merits of this case including the operative date of any award variation that may be required to be made.

For the guidance of the parties I am of the opinion, having regard to what has been presented to the Commission in this matter that Cadets at the Centre are not junior employees. As discussed with the parties this file is now closed.

 

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr K. Grey with Mr S. Graves for the Tasmanian Public Service Association.
Mr G. Payne with Mr A. Direen for the Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984.

Date and Place of Hearing:
1991:
Hobart
April 18
June 17