T3452
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 The Australian Timber and Allied Industries Union and Northside Wood Supply
Industrial dispute - underpayment of wages REASONS FOR DECISION This was an application for hearing made under Section 29 of the Act by the Australian Timber and Allied Industries Union No. 6 (Tasmanian) Branch (the Union) in relation to a dispute with Northside Wood Supply of Bridgewater (the employer). The dispute concerned the alleged non-payment of overtime worked and the underpayment of annual leave entitlements due on termination to a previous employee, one Mr J Bester (the employee). The employer failed to appear at the first hearing, but following the issue of a summons by the President in accordance with Section 30 of the Act, a compulsory conference was convened for the second hearing day at which the employer did appear. The Union's claim was in three parts:
The facts of the case were that by mutual arrangements the employee commenced work with the employer on 21 May 1991 under the Commonwealth Government "Job Start" scheme which in essence meant that of the $344 per 38 hour working week for which the employee was paid, the employer was subsidised $230. The employee claimed that he was required to leave home at 5.00 am each week morning and travel by truck into the highlands of the State there to cut and load fire wood and then return to the wood yard by between 4.00 pm and 6.00 pm each evening. The employee finished working for the employer on 24 July 1991. The Union brought the employee forward as a witness and he attested to the facts claimed. The employer was represented by its manager/proprietor Mr Spaulding who agreed to pay the outstanding annual leave amount and the balance owing after $50 cash had been paid (by agreement, he claimed) for one only Saturday worked by the employee. As to the other items claimed by the Union, Mr Spaulding denied requesting the employee to work on the other two Saturdays or a Sunday (whether directly himself or indirectly by an agent). He also said that the employee had only ever been required to work and travel within the ordinary eight hour working day. The times claimed by the employee outside the ordinary spread of hours had all been voluntary and not at the employer's request. The employer claimed that it had been agreed from the beginning that the job would start at 8.00 am in the wood yard and finish at 4.30 pm in the wood yard. Some private conferences did take place, but a complete settlement was not reached. Eventually I declined to adjudicate on the claim because of the conflicting statements made by the employer and the employee. I was not prepared to commit myself to allocate responsibility because of the dearth of acceptable evidence. I was concerned at this unsatisfactory result, but no other course was available in the circumstances. The matter was closed.
P A Imlach Appearances: Date and place of hearing: |