Wage Rates - State Wage November 1989 - minimum rates adjustment - new classification structure - granted

REASONS FOR DECISION

In my decision dated 20 December 1990 arising out of application T.2688 of 1990, the Fibreglass and Plastics Award was varied to grant the second structural efficiency increase.

As part of a package to support that application the parties proposed a new classification structure for the award to be tested over a six (6) month period ending on 30 June 1991.

The decision stated:

Notes:

(a) Relativities subject to testing and phasing in of minimum rate adjustments.

(b) Consideration to be given to integration of supervisory and technical grades within proposed classification structure.

As an initial step the parties expressed a desire to broadband the existing award classifications identified in attachment "A"."

This application (T.3102 of 1991) is a continuation of application T.2688 of 1990 and the structural efficiency programme for the industry falling within the scope of this award. It seeks to insert into the award,

(a) the new classification structure and their relativities one to another having been trialled over the previous 6 months and

(b) the first minimum rates adjustment.

Threshold Matter

At the commencement of the hearing I was asked to determine, as a threshold issue, whether the award should be varied to include the first minimum rate adjustment. It was the contention of Mr Clues, representing the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries (TCI), that the National Union of Workers, Tasmanian Branch (NUW) was in breach of the Wage Fixing Principles and in particular the no extra commitment.

He stated that the NUW was pursuing claims outside the principles and he exampled correspondence (Exhibit TCI2) forwarded to a number of employers, (in various industries), requesting they respond to a claim, which, in general terms, is known as Accord Mark VI. This, he submitted, was in contravention of the "no extra commitment" contained in the principles which states:

"It is a term of this award (arising from the decision of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission in the State Wage Case of 30 October 1989) that the union(s) undertake(s), for the duration of the principles determined by that decision, not to pursue any extra claims, award or overaward, except when consistent with those principles." (underlining mine)

In answer to questions from the Commission, Mr Clues with assistance from Mr Richardson, representing the NUW, reported that at least one employer covered by the award, had been sent the claim as outlined in Exhibit TCI2, although the receipt of this, by the employer, was not established.

In support of his submission that I should refrain from hearing the application as it relates to the first minimum rates adjustment, Mr Clues took comfort from a decision arising out of application T.3101 of 1991 in which it was stated:

"but on looking at the commitment and especially the words, "...not to pursue any extra claims, award or overaward..."it is undeniably clear that a claim for increases, made outside the present Guidelines, breaches those Guidelines and therefore this application is unable to be endorsed unless the Union withdraws its overaward claim on the Company or the present Guidelines are changed."(Page 2)

It was Mr Clues submission that the TCI would not consent to the minimum rates adjustments in this award until the NUW had given a written undertaking not to pursue Accord Mark VI and abide by the current Wage Fixing Principles.

In rebuttal to this threshold question Mr Richardson maintained that servicing letters of demand such as those contained in Exhibit TCI2 did not constitute a contravention of the no extra claims commitment.

In support of his submission he tendered a decision of a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (print J4600) in fact the same bench that handed down the 1988 National Wage Case Decision.

That decision stated in part:

"The current wage fixing principles do not prohibit unions from serving claims on employers designed to raise issues about a changed or new system of wage fixation: nor can there by any objection to discussions to clarify such claims. However, both the unions and employers participating in those discussions must bear in mind:

(i) the danger of raising false expectations in the community;

(ii) the obligation to avoid industrial action: industrial action in support of the claims would contravene the wage fixing principles and unions' formal commitments to those principles prescribed in their awards as was stated in the National Wage Case decision of August 1989, those commitments:

"continue to operate until the principles as amended in this decision are reviewed. Upon application, that Review will commence in September 1990"; and

(iii) the necessity for the Commission to approve any agreements that might be reached; approval cannot be assumed - any such agreements will be tested against the principles laid down by the National Wage Case decision of August 1989 or whatever principles replace them after a Review; and

(iv) the possibility that industry by industry settlements might necessitate a change in the current role of National Wage Cases; this would require a consideration of the alterations which would have to be made to the existing coverage of awards." (Page 3)

After hearing submissions on this question I indicated to the parties that I was prepared to continue hearing the application and that I would hand down my reasons at a later date and this I now do:

(1) The mere serving of such claims or letters of demand, does not in my view, contravene the no extra claims commitment, however, industrial action taken by the union in support of the claims certainly would contravene the principles; and

(2) I fully support and adopt the views expressed by the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (Print J4600) referred to earlier in this decision having been submitted by the NUW.

Turning now to the subject matter of this application, I would like to preface my remarks by pointing out that the second structural efficiency increase was granted to this award from the first full pay period to commence on or after 4 December 1990 and this is a continuation of the structural efficiency programme.

It seeks to implement the new classification structure that was tested over the previous 6 months as well as applying the first minimum rates adjustments for certain classifications.

The parties presented an agreed position and all these issues before the Commission and the applicant presented an exhibit (R3) containing draft orders including the operative date of the first full pay period to commence on or after 18 July 1991.

I indicated to the parties at the hearing on the 18 July 1991 that I endorsed the application as it conformed with the wage fixing principles and in particular the structural efficiency principles. I now confirm that position.

The orders giving effect to this decision are attached, operative from the first full pay period to commence on or after 18 July 1991.

R J Watling
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr P Richardson with Mr D Strickland for the National Union of Workers, Tasmanian Branch.
Mrs P Shelley for the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch.
Mr S Clues for the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries.

Date and Place of Hearing
1991
July 19
Hobart