Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T5374

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited
(T.5374 of 1995)

WELFARE AND VOLUNTARY AGENCIES AWARD

 

DEPUTY PRESIDENT A ROBINSON

HOBART, 30 June 1995

Award variation - occupational superannuation - Self Help Workshop - application granted - award varied - operative 28 June 1995

REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter concerns an application which was made by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited (TCCI) to vary the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award as it relates to occupational superannuation.

TCCI sought the inclusion in the award of an exemption provision which would enable a particular employer, Self Help Workshop, to pay compulsory award occupational superannuation contributions on behalf of its employees into "Mercantile Mutual Employer Sponsored Masterfund" (Mercantile Mutual) in lieu of TASPLAN or HESTA.

In explaining the reasons for making the application Mr Flood for TCCI said existing award obligations were being met but that for some time all employees had also been voluntarily making contributions to the Mercantile Mutual fund in conjunction with their employer as part of a private arrangement. The Commission was further advised that these employees, of their own initiative, had requested the award change which was made subject of TCCI's application in order to rationalise the situation and thereby minimalise costs and charges associated with the utilisation of more than one superannuation provider.

The applicant organisation further explained that prior to the employees of Self Help Workshop making a final decision as to their most preferred superannuation provider, their employer arranged for them to receive some basic information relating to the main features of each of the three superannuation provider's schemes which were under consideration.

The Commission was advised that in the result every employee of "Self Help Workshop" had chosen the Mercantile Mutual scheme, and this was supported by exhibit (TCCI [1]). In addition TCCI [2] offered confirmation that the same nominated fund had satisfied the relevant fund conditions set out in the Occupational Standards Act 1987.

Upon being asked by the Commission if there had been pre-hearing discussions with other organisations having a registered interest in the award Mr Flood said no approach had been made to any trade union in relation to the proposed award change as it was felt unnecessary because none of the employees concerned were members of a trade union.

At the hearing held in Georgetown on 15 March 1995 the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch (the HSUA) put forward the view that it was not satisfied that employees had in fact been in a position to make an informed decision based upon the supply of all the relevant facts relating to the best option for them.

Section 32(1B) of the Act provides that:

"(1B) In making or varying an award in relation to payment of contributions to a superannuation fund, the Commission must not refuse to make or vary that award if the superannuation fund -

(a)  is a complying superannuation fund; and

(b)  is one which the Commission is satisfied meets the wishes of employees."

Whilst in the early stage of proceedings I was able to be satisfied that the Mercantile Mutual fund was a complying superannuation fund, there was a doubt in my mind as to whether the employees of Self Help Workshop were at that stage, in a position to have been able to make an informed decision as to the best superannuation options available to them. Whilst I felt that the employer had been helpful in obtaining useful data in this regard it was obvious from submissions made that the information provided to employees "was not complete".

In the circumstances which existed I granted the request of the HSUA for an adjournment.

Following a period of delay employees were spoken to by representatives of HSUA and the three superannuation funds involved, i.e. TASPLAN, HESTA and Mercantile Mutual.

In addition a secret ballot was held on 31 May 1995 and conducted in the presence of a representative of HSUA and the management of Self Help Workshop.

The result of the ballot clearly favoured the Mercantile Mutual fund and I am therefore satisfied that the processes followed dispel any doubts concerning the employees' wishes.

It follows that I am satisfied that the application to vary the award in the manner sought is now justified in the terms of the requirements of the Act, including public interest.

Whilst the matter got off to a bad start the parties are nevertheless to be commended for co-operating to give employees access to a range of information and views to enable them to make an extremely important decision affecting their future.

I now confirm that it is my decision to vary the Welfare and Voluntary Agencies Award by including a provision in Clause 63 - Occupational Superannuation - which will give to Self Help Workshop the option of utilising either HESTA, TASPLAN or Mercantile Mutual Employer Sponsored Masterfund.

Operative Date:

This variation is operative as from 28 June 1995.

Order is attached.

 

A ROBINSON
DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:
Mr M Hall with Ms B Shelley and Ms M Fawdry for the Health Services Union of Australia Tasmania No. 1 Branch
Mr A Flood for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited
Mr B Kingsley for Self Help Workshop

Date and Place of Hearing:
1995.
Georgetown:
March 15
April 4
June 28