TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association,
Tasmanian Branch
(T.6065 of 1996)

RETAIL TRADES AWARD

Award variation - increase tea money provision - application granted - award varied - operative ffpp 1 March 1996

REASONS FOR DECISION

This application was lodged Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Tasmanian Branch (the applicant) for the purpose of varying the Retail Trades Award by increasing the amount of money appearing in Clause 38 - Tea Money from $4.90 to $9.25.

The submissions presented by Mr Griffin, for the applicant, can be summarised as follows:

• That the Retail Trades Award was one of the awards subject to the Common Rule decision of the Deputy Chairman of Wages Boards, Mr A Robinson, on 8 October 1981, which resulted in the meal money being increased to $4.00.

• Even though the meal money has been adjusted irregularly from that date there had been no general review.

• The movement in the Consumer Price Index of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Weighted Average, 8 capital cities, Meals Out and Take Away Foods) had increased by 130.8 percent since 1981 up to and including the June quarter 1995.

• The review of 26 awards by the Full Bench of the Commission (T.5763 of 1995) which resulted in the meal money being increased to $9.25 in those awards.

Mrs Dowd, for the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, supported the submissions of Mr Griffin.

Ms Thomas, for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, opposed the application and her submissions can be summarised under the following headings:

• Any increases in the tea money would contribute negatively to the performance of the industry.

• The quantum of meal allowances applying the retail industry in other states of Australia.

• The Tasmanian Survey of Business Expectations for the March quarter 1996 and the performance of the retail/wholesale industry for the December quarter 1995.

• The overtime worked by employees for the December quarter 1995 and the expectations for the March quarter 1996, being a survey of 38 firms employing 1684 employees in the retail industry.

• Public interest.

Ms Thomas, as a secondary position, put a submission that if the Commission was not to look favourably on her opposition to the claim, then the tea money should only be varied by the movement in the Consumer Price Index from the last occasion it was varied. She also suggested that a new subclause should be inserted in Clause 38- Tea Money which would see the allowance only being paid if the employer gave less than 24 hours notice of intention to work overtime.

Mr McDougall, for the Tasmanian Chamber of Retailers, supported the submissions of Ms Thomas and also expressed opposition to the claim.

I have considered all the submissions presented, however, I have not been persuaded to depart from the Full Bench decision arising out of application T.5763 of 1995 as I am of the view that the circumstances and principles enunciated in that decision would equally apply to this award. To that extent I adopt the Reasons for Decision of that Full Bench as my own in the granting of this application.

Given the foregoing, the award will be varied in the manner sought by the applicant and will be operative from the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 March 1996.

The Order giving effect to this decision is attached.

R J Watling
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr P Griffin for the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Tasmanian Branch
Mrs H Dowd for Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
Ms J Thomas for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited
Mr D McDougall for the Tasmanian Chamber of Retailers

Date and place of hearing:
1996
February 29
Hobart