T3036
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Decision Appealed - See T3578 Industrial Relations Act 1984 Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL)
Award interest - determination REASONS FOR DECISION As part of the second structural efficiency increase for the Electrical/Electronic Trades (Public Sector) Award and the Metal Trades (State Employees) Award it was decided to amalgamate the two awards into one. The new award was to be known as the Tasmanian Government Departments (Mechanical and Electrical) Engineering Award. A hearing was convened for the purpose of making that new award1 and the following registered organisations were notified of the hearing: * Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union. * The Australasian Society of Engineers, Tasmania Branch. * Electrical Trades Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch. * The Association of Righting, Supervisory and Technical Employees (Tasmania Branch). * The Association of Professional Engineers, Australia, Tasmanian Branch. * Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council. * Minister Administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984. The Australasian Society of Engineers, Tasmania Branch (ASE) had a registered interest in the Metal Trades (State Employees) Award but took no part in the making of this new amalgamated award nor did a representative of that organisation attend the hearing. Since the making of the Tasmanian Government Departments (Mechanical and Electrical) Engineering Award an amalgamation has taken place between the Federated Ironworkers Association (Tasmania Branch) and the ASE (Tasmania Branch). The name of the amalgamated union is the Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees (Tasmania Branch) (FIMEE). As a result the ASE (Tasmania Branch) has been de-registered. The purpose of this application (T.3036 of 1991) is to determine whether or not the FIMEE, Tasmania Branch should be granted an interest in the Tasmanian Government Departments (Mechanical and Electrical) Engineering Award. Two organisations have already been granted an interest in this award namely the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch and the Metals and Engineering Workers' Union (M&EWU). The M&EWU intervened in the hearing to object to the application and specifically in relation to section 63(10(c)(iii). FIMEE satisfied me that they complied with section 63(10)(c)(i) & (ii) and this was not challenged by the objecting organisation. However, it must be stated that FIMEE could only demonstrate that they had eight members employed within the scope of this award. Most of the submissions centred around the question as to whether or not the applicant could satisfy section 63(10)(c)(iii) of the Act. In support of his position on this question Mr Glisson, representing FIMEE, took some comfort from the answers given by two witnesses brought by the objecting organisations. Mr Glisson asked them if they had any problems working alongside ASE members and they both as individuals indicated they did not. Its worth noting, however, the evidence clearly indicates that the ASE only had two (2) members in the areas where the witnesses worked and the organisation had been inactive in that Department in recent years. Mr Glisson also presented submissions to demonstrate that the ASE had a past involvement in the public sector and that their presence had not prejudiced the orderly conduct of industrial relations in Tasmania. From the documentation presented by Mr Glisson it seems to me that officials of the Australasian Society of Engineers, Tasmania Branch, participated on a minimal basis in the public sector and the majority of that was within the Department of Forests. Mr P Baker for the M&EWU in opposing FIMEE's interest in the award submitted that the union he represented, (a) had the overwhelming majority of the members within the area of the award; (b) had constitutional coverage of the employees and this had been recognised by the Commission when granting them an interest in the award; (c) had, unlike the ASE, participated in all the structural efficiency negotiations which lead to the establishment of the new award. Mr Baker maintained that by granting FIMEE an interest in the award had the potential to disrupt the orderly conduct of industrial relations because, (a) both organisations had exactly the same constitutional coverage of employees falling within the scope of this award; (b) FIMEE had an entirely different organisational approach in respect to gaining members than the ASE who was very inactive in the Government sector; (c) it was no secret that the two unions actively compete for members (Exhibit B4). During the course of the hearing I asked the parties to consider whether an agreement could be arrived at that would see FIMEE limit itself to the Department of Forests where they had the bulk of the members in the public sector (5 out of 8). However, I was informed by Mr Glisson that whilst his organisation did not see themselves actively campaigning for members in the immediate future nevertheless they wanted the ability to expand their membership in the public sector to the extent of their rules. CONCLUSION Just because an amalgamation has taken place, FIMEE has no automatic right to an interest in this award. Unlike the Australian Industrial Relations Act 1988 the Industrial Relations Act 1984 does not confer any special rights on the amalgamated organisation in respect to award interest. In dealing with an application of this nature I am required to take into account such matters specified in section 63 (10)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984. That section states:
However, the only matter at issue with this application is that I am required to satisfy myself that the organisation by being granted an interest in the award would not prejudice the orderly conduct of industrial relations in Tasmania i.e. (c)(iii) as (c)(i) and (ii) were not contested. The ASE had been de-registered as an organisation under the Act and the Federated Ironworkers Association has changed its name and extended its constitution to cover the employees who were previously eligible for the ASE. FIMEE as it is now known has the same constitutional coverage of employees falling within the scope of the Tasmanian Government Departments (Mechanical and Electrical) Engineering Award as the objecting organisation who has already been granted an interest in that award. In recent years the trade union movement has actively supported the rationalisation of unions through amalgamations and the thrust of the 1989 National Wage Case Decision, which was adopted by this Commission, supports under the Structural Efficiency Principle, the updating and/or rationalisation of award respondents. During the course of this hearing I gave the applicant an opportunity to discuss with the objecting organisation a proposition that would see (a) the work demarked and/or (b) the applicant restrict its membership to the Department of Forests where they have five out of the eight members. However, Mr Glisson for the applicant indicated to the Commission he would not be permitted to restrict his organisation's constitution in that manner. This has made my tasks more difficult as the applicant has indicated that they may wish to campaign for additional membership within the State Government some time in the future and they are not prepared to demarcate the work with the objecting organisation. Given the foregoing and all the circumstances and the submissions presented during the course of this hearing I cannot be satisfied at this time that the granting of an award interest in the Tasmanian Government Departments (Mechanical and Electrical) Engineering Award to FIMEE would not prejudice the orderly conduct of industrial relations in Tasmania. Therefore I decline to grant the application.
R J Watling Appearances: Date and place of hearing: |