T3117
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Meat and Allied Trades' Federation of Australia MEAT TRADES AWARD
Award variation - Exemption from TASPLAN for Perry's Butchery REASONS FOR DECISION In this matter the Meat and Allied Trades' Federation of Australia (Tasmanian Division) (MATFA) sought the variation of the Meat Trades Award to include N. T. Curbishley - trading as Perry's Butchery as an exempted employer from Tasplan. In lieu MATFA requested that Perry's Butchery make their employer occupational superannuation contributions to the AMP Superleader Plan. The exemption from Tasplan was opposed by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, Tasmanian Branch (AMIEU). Mr Trethewie appearing with Mr Edwards for MATFA submitted that Perry's Butchery had provided superannuation for employees since 1974. Since then superannuation arrangements have been progressively modified and upgraded into the AMP Superleader Plan (Superleader) in May 1986. I was informed that Superleader complies with the relevant conditions set out in the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987. (the Act) To ensure the ongoing conformity of Superleader with the Act the onus is on the trustee to furnish annual returns to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. These have been provided by the trustee of Superleader and Exhibit T3 dated 3 January 1991 demonstrated that the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner was satisfied that for the period 1988/89 Superleader met the relevant conditions of the Act. In the proceedings Mr Trethewie said that Perry's Butchery were not aware that they had not received an exemption in matter T.1980 of 1989 where the question of exemption from Tasplan for certain nominated employers including Perry's Butchery was first considered by the Commission (Reasons for Decision dated 15 June 1989). As a consequence employer contributions had continued to be made to Superleader and not to Tasplan. Mr Trethewie informed the Commission that two employees are employed by Perry's Butchery. He submitted that it was the express wish of those employees to continue to have employer contributions remitted to Superleader. Letters from the employees concerned were available to the Commission. It was apparent to the Commission, having regard to the submission of Mr Trethewie that over a long period of time he had provided personal service to employees of Perry's Butchery. The genuine concern that he displayed for the ongoing welfare of those employees was obvious. Mr Trethewie made it clear that in the event an exemption was not granted then the funds relating to Perry's Butchery employees in the AMP Superleader Plan would be transferred to Tasplan without penalty. Mr Swallow for the AMIEU opposed the application for exemption. He submitted that the "Exemption Case" (T.1980 of 1989) had been "run and lost" and that no new circumstances had been placed before the Commission to warrant a different approach being taken in this case. He informed the Commission that Tasplan was the fund unanimously endorsed by the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council and the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries following the examination of many proposals from various insurance and superannuation organisations. Mr Swallow submitted that there was no valid reason to depart from Tasplan. In this matter the submissions by Mr Trethewie in support of the exemption were well presented albeit that they were not inconsistent with what was canvassed in the exemption issues considered in matter T.1980 of 1989. In the circumstances it was appropriate for Mr Swallow to draw the attention of the Commission to that fact. Whilst Mr Trethewie was persuasive, I consider that an exemption is not sustainable. In reaching that conclusion I have taken into account that in maintaining the existing Superleader fund for the employees concerned the real gain for them would be the continuing good service provided by Mr Trethewie. However on the basis of fund performance, Tasplan vis a vis Superleader, I understand that there would be miniscule difference; certainly not enough to prefer one fund over the other or to depart from Tasplan which is regarded as the industry fund for this award. In that regard Tasplan was established as the industry fund in the Meat Trades Award at the request of the AMIEU, TCI and MATFA (T.1722 of 1989). At that time I indicated that the Commission saw benefit in an industry fund given the generally small number of employees employed in enterprises where that award has application. To grant an exemption to Perry's Butchery would result in a departure from the industry fund (Tasplan) for no apparent change in circumstance from when this matter was considered in T.1980 of 1989. It would be a fragmentation of the industry fund, albeit small, that would be difficult if not impossible to resist in similar circumstances including those that were encountered in T.1980 of 1989 in respect of the employers involved at that time. In this matter the application for exemption, in the strictest sense, is a re-run of an earlier case. If the decision in T.1980 of 1989 had been acted upon that may have been the end of the matter. Be that as it may, the submissions of Mr Swallow in this matter are incontrovertible insofar as the material presented to the Commission was not sufficient to fly in the face of what was determined earlier. Accordingly the application for exemption is refused.
R K Gozzi Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: |