TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.29 application for the hearing of an industrial dispute

Pasminco Metals-EZ
(T.4360 of 1993)

and

Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees,
Tasmania Branch

ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 31(1) OF THE ACT

BACKGROUND:

The subject matter of this dispute first came before the Commission on 1 April 1993 in matter T.4293 of 1993. It was notified by the Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees, Tasmania Branch (FIMEE) in the following terms:

"The dispute is with Pasminco Metals-EZ Risdon over enterprise negotiations and Management's refusal to negotiate on the Log of Claims.

We seek the Commission's assistance in resolving this matter."

Subsequent to 1 April 1993 further hearings and conferences were held on 8, 15, 16 and 28 April. On 15 April the Commission issued a Statement and Recommendations endorsing a review process designed to facilitate discussions on:

(i)  the log of claims;

(ii)  matters relating to RACE;

(iii)  workplace reform leading to enhanced productivity and efficiency;

(iv)  the bonus;

(v)  the future regulation of the industrial relationship between the parties.

Additionally the Commission endorsed:

(i)  that a representative group of employees who are members of FIMEE be included in the review processes outlined in the April 8 document.

(ii)  that discussions between the parties on the review process and other outstanding issues be finalised by April 28. A report back to the Commission has been scheduled for that date.

(iii)  Employees are to be kept up to date with the discussions taking place between the parties.

(iv)  where appropriate RACE proposals are to be incorporated in the award or industrial agreements.

(v)  RACE proposals will not be unreasonably held up. In the event of disagreement, the disputes procedure will be utilised. Unresolved matters will be referred to the Tasmanian Industrial Commission.

At the Report Back hearing on 16 April 1993 the Commission was informed that the bans on overtime and implementation of productivity initiatives had been removed to allow the review proposals to be undertaken.

At a further Report Back hearing on 28 April 1993 the Commission was informed by FIMEE, supported by other unions, that the review process was unproductive and had not advanced the issues in dispute. As a consequence bans were reimposed.

In the event PMEZ notified the Commission of a dispute matter, T.4360 of 1993, in the following terms:

"In support of the Log of Claims, PMEZ employees (FIMEE and CFMEU members) have placed bans on overtime and the implementation of RACE ideas.

The urgent assistance of the Commission is requested to avert production losses and an interruption to the shipping schedule which will become critical on Tuesday 4 May 1993."

Hearings and Conferences in that matter were held on 3, 5 and 6 May 1993. Recommendations were made by the Commission on 4 May which provided for a revised framework for the consideration of issues of concern to PMEZ and to FIMEE, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Tasmanian Branch (CFMEU) and their members who are employees of PMEZ. Those recommendations, the product of extensive negotiations under the guidance of the Commission, were as follows:

"1.  Cooling Off Period:

There should be an immediate cooling off period to enable the parties to consider their respective positions in a dispute-free environment in respect of the claims made by FIMEE and other unions.

2.  Consultation:

Following the cooling off period PMEZ is to commence discussions with its employees and their union representatives on 5 July 1993 (being the first Monday after the end of the financial year). The discussions will give unions, employees and PMEZ the opportunity to raise any agenda items for inclusion in proposals to be put to employees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, discussions on non wages matters comprehended in the FIMEE claim should be commenced immediately as there is no requirement to await the end of the financial year in respect of those issues.

The Commission will be available to assist with the negotiation processes as deemed necessary or desirable by any of the parties.

3.  Proposal:

The processes of consultation and negotiation which are to commence on 5 July 1993 shall conclude no later than 3 August 1993, at which time PMEZ is to put a proposal to employees and their union representatives on matters including the system of industrial regulation to apply in the future and the means by which employees might be rewarded for their contribution to PMEZ reaching international competitiveness.

4.  The parties are to report back to the Commission no later than 4 August 1993."

Those recommendations were rejected by the employees concerned at a stop work meeting held at 7.45am on 5 May 1993. The proceedings in the Commission resumed at 9.30am on that day and continued until late in the afternoon. The result was a further revision in the time frames during which negotiations were to take place. That is negotiations were scheduled to commence no later than 16 June 1993 instead of 5 July 1993. Similarly the date for conclusion of negotiations was significantly brought forward from 3 August 1993 to 20 July 1993.

When these revised proposals were put to a further stop work meeting at 7.45am on 6 May 1993, they were again rejected.

DECISION:

The Commission is concerned to provide what it regards to be a viable framework for the concerns of the parties to the addressed. It is important that the negotiations commence and that they address the real issues in dispute. To allow that to happen I accept, without reservation, that PMEZ should be given a reasonable time to prepare and consider the proposals it wishes to put to employees and their union representatives.

The Commission is concerned to provide the best possible opportunity for the matters in dispute to be resolved in an amicable way and in an environment which allows that to happen. The maintenance of the bans will further seriously impact on the production requirements of PMEZ and its ability to meet the requirements of its customers. That situation should not be countenanced by employees particularly as a proper framework to address their concerns has been put in place.

It is not an option for the Commission to step aside from this dispute and to let it reach a stage where it could escalate to such an extent as to result in lasting damage to the viability of PMEZ which could then have direct repercussions on employees generally and potentially on this State. That is not in the wider public interest or indeed in the interest of the employees concerned.

The Commission is of the opinion that the framework for negotiations which has been set down will allow the matters in dispute to be progressed in an orderly fashion. The Commission will be available to assist the parties as necessary to ensure that is the case.

Having regard to the foregoing I have decided to accede to the request of PMEZ to issue an Order. I do so as a last resort and after the numerous hearings and conferences detailed earlier.

Accordingly I hereby Order, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, that:

1.  Employees of PMEZ who are members of the Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees, Tasmania Branch, and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Tasmanian Branch, and the representatives of those organisations undertake the pursuit of their claims in accordance with the framework and timetables discussed in this Order; and

2.  Employees of PMEZ who are members of the Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees, Tasmania Branch, and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Tasmanian Branch, and the representatives of those organisations remove all bans imposed in this matter.

3.  The operative date of this Order will be as from the commencement of Day Shift at 7.45am on 11 May 1993.

 

R.K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER