TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
S.23 application for award or variation of award

Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act
(T.3646 of 1992)

TOURISM TASMANIA STAFF AWARD

Mainland allowance

REASONS FOR DECISION

This application by the Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 was for the variation of the Tourism Tasmania Staff Award to update the mainland allowances set out in subclause (a)(ii) of Clause 16.

Mrs Burgess appearing for the Minister provided the Commission with the median rental costs for mainland capital cities for the quarter ended June 1991 (exhibit B1). On the basis of those costs, it was submitted that adjustments should be made to the existing mainland allowances having regard to the following:

1. Median Rental Costs

2. Average median rental costs - difference between capital cities in (1) and Hobart:

3. Include a factor (1.702%) as determined in T.299 of 1985:

4. The above methodology produces the following differentials in median rental costs when compared to Hobart:

The adjustments proposed to be made to the mainland allowances are in accord with what was determined by the Commission in matters T.2559 and T.2690 of 1990. The decision in those matters introduced median rental costs as the basis for the calculation of the quantum of allowance. Previously median purchase cost information was relied upon. The reason for this was that the Real Estate Institute of Australia had previously not published median rental cost information.

In all of the circumstances the award will be varied in the manner requested operative from the first pay period to commence on or after 17 January 1992.

There are however some observations that I recommend the parties consider in respect of this allowance.

1. In matter T.299 of 1985 a 10 percent investment component was included in the formula. This was not factored into the allowance calculations in matters T.2599 and T.2690 of 1990 or in the amounts determined in this current matter. Whilst, prima facie, the 10 percent appears to have no relevance in the current methodology, the matter should be addressed as it was part of a pre existing formula (T.299 of 1985).

2. On a number of previous occasions, particularly in matters T.2599 and T.2690 of 1990 the issue of the allowance discriminating between mainland and Tasmanian recruited employees has been raised with the Commission. In that regard, and whilst the Commission has held to the view that the allowance should not be extended to non Tasmanian recruited employees, I reiterate that in my opinion the ongoing payment of the allowance to individual employees should be reviewed at least every five years. Clause 16(b) of the Award enables this review process.

3. Notwithstanding my comments in (2) and given that the payment of an allowance to offset rental differentials has apparently contributed to the creation of some animosity between employees in mainland Tourism Tasmania offices, I urge the parties to explore alternatives. Clearly the costs associated with relocating and establishing a new "home" base should be taken into account in any alternative package. In my opinion a one off payment should be made to Tasmanians relocating on the mainland; after that they should be treated no differently to mainland recruited employees. It should be noted that the Tourism Tasmania Staff Award was the product of a comprehensive review including salary levels. It is my understanding that rates of pay in the award are competitive with what applies in the travel and tourism industry on the mainland.

4. In addition to the foregoing I am of the view that mainland allowance should in any event be reviewed as part of the general public sector review of conditions of employment in matter T.2399 of 1990.

Having regard to my comments thus far I do not intend to maintain the allowance for Brisbane at $2655 as requested by Mr Smyth appearing for the Tasmanian Public Service Association. The formula relied upon by the parties provides a significantly lower amount ($442 p.a.) for Brisbane this time around and there is no justification in my view to retain the previously higher amount ($2655 p.a.) of the allowance. In that regard it should be noted that Brisbane is not subject to subclause 16(a)(i) which contains a savings provision.

SubCLuase 16(a)(ii) was specifically inserted to be adjusted by the formula. Accordingly as Brisbane was not previously subject to savings provisions I do not intent to provide for it now.

Finally, the Commission was advised by the parties that in the event the general format for calculating the allowance is maintained, and I trust some changes will be made as a consequence of my comments, the June quarter median rental data as provided by the Real Estate Institute of Australia, will be relied upon for future adjustments.

The order is attached.

RK Gozzi
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mrs W Burgess with Mr G Burgess for the Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act.
Mr C Smyth for the Tasmanian Public Service Association.

Date and Place of Hearing:
1992
Hobart
January 17