T6424 and T6425
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Tasmanian Salaried Medical Practitioners' Society Minister for Public Sector Administration MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (PUBLIC SECTOR) AWARD
Award variation - salaries - allowances - board and lodging - meals - consent matter - applications approved - operative date ffpp 27 August 1996 REASONS FOR DECISION These reasons for decision concern two consent applications, pursuant to Section 23 of the Act, to vary the Medical Practitioners (Public Sector) Award. T6425 of 1996 is an application by the Minister for Public Sector Administration to vary the award in relation to Clause 8 - Salaries, Clause 11 - Board and Lodging and Clause 18 - Meals. T6424 of 1996 is an application by the Tasmanian Salaried Medical Practitioners' Society to vary the award in relation to Clause 10 - Allowances. At the applicants' request I joined the matters and heard them as one on Tuesday 27 August 1996. Mr J. Bone appeared for the Minister in both matters; Mr D. Lowe appeared for the Tasmanian Salaried Medical Practitioners' Society and Mr R. Miller appeared in both matters for The Community and Public Sector Union (State Public Services Federation). Concerning salaries, the applicants seek to vary the award to achieve two objectives. Their first aim is to bring the award up to date in respect of two 1% increases (1 January 1995 and 1 October 1995) arising out of the 1993 State Service Wages Arrangements. Second, the applicants wish to include in the award the salary increase outcomes of the State Service Wages Arrangements Extension (TSMPS) Agreement 1996, i.e. 1.4% from 1 July 1996, 2.1% from 1 January 1997 and 2.0% from 1 July 1997. These latter salary increases reflect the substance of a Section 55 Industrial Agreement approved by the President on 19 July 1996 in matter T6312 of 1996. Even though two of the agreed increases are prospective in their date of operation, the applicants submit that the proposed award variation satisfies the Enterprise Bargaining Principle in that the wage rate adjustments are "based on the actual implementation of efficiency measures designed to effect real gains in productivity" and are not payable in addition to those set out in the registered Industrial Agreement. Mr D. Lowe, for the Tasmanian Salaried Medical Practitioners' Society, confirmed that the award parties of interest continue to maintain and develop their commitment to Watling C in March 1995 (in matters T5326 and T5331 of 1995) to faciliate workplace reform. In this context Mr Lowe said that the introduction of more flexible work practices, which required the giving of substantial offsets, significantly facilitates the manning of public hospitals. In addition, practical experience gained in applying the award shows that, in a number of areas, it is wanting in terms of its structure. The parties are discussing these "minor difficulties" for the purpose of further reforming the award. Mr Lowe further submitted that in light of the continuing commitment of salaried medical practitioners to implementing workplace reform and to demonstrate good faith, the award should show both current and future increases that originate from the State Service Wages Arrangements Extension (TSMPS) Agreement 1996. Each of the applicants, together with CPSU, submitted that the application meets all the requirements of the Wage Fixing Principles, especially Principle 3 regarding Enterprise Bargaining, and the general public interest requirements of Section 36 of the Act. Turning to the matter of expense related allowances, Mr Bone submitted that the agreed changes incorporate similar movements approved in the General Conditions of Service Award by a Full Bench on 3 June 1994 (1.4%)1 and by the President on 9 August 1995 (3.9%)2 and in the General Conditions of Employment Award by Robinson DP on 27 May 1996 (3.7%)3 regarding Training Courses and Conferences Allowance and 21 December 19954 concerning Kilometreage Allowance. In respect of allowances that are adjusted in the same manner as expense related allowances, these being sums that the employer authority may deduct from salary for board and lodging provided and meals on duty, the agreed changes reflect principles established by a Full Bench of the Commission in a decision of 13 May 19915 and a further decision of Robinson DP dated 6 June 1991.6 The variations in detail are: Clause 10 - Allowances 10(e) Training Courses and Conferences, by 3.9% and 3.7%. 10(f)(i)(1) Kilometre Allowance (Required User Category), by 3.7%. 10(f)(i)(2) Kilometre Allowance (Occasional User Category), by 3.7%. 10(f)(ii)(1) Travelling Allowances, by 3.9% and 3.7%. 10(f)(ii)(8)(A) Travelling Allowances (Within Australia), by 1.4%, 3.9% and 3.7%. Clause 11 - Board and Lodging by 3.9% and 3.7%. Clause 18 - Meals 18(a) Meal Allowances, by 1.4%, 3.9% and 3.7%. 18(c) Meals on Duty, by 1.4%, 3.9% and 3.7%. Mr Bone, supported by Mr Lowe and Mr Miller, contended that, on the basis of the above history and having regard to Principle 9.1.1 concerning the adjustment of existing allowances that constitute a reimbursement of expenses, the proposed variations in the present application satisfied both the requirements of the Wage Fixing Principles in that they follow formulae established by Full Benches of this Commission7 and the general public interest requirements of Section 36 of the Act. I am satisfied, but not without some hesitation regarding future salary increases, that the proposed award variations comply with the requirements of the Wage Fixing Principles and that there is nothing in the matters before me that is inconsistent with the public interest in terms of Section 36 of the Act. In coming to my decision concerning salaries, I gave considerable weight to the following facts:
My hesitation regarding salaries arises from the doubts I hold about the desirability of incorporating into an award prospective salary rates that are already the subject of a registered industrial agreement. I agree with the submissions put to me on this occasion that, as a matter of public interest, it is very desirable for purposes of transparency that industrial instruments should reflect all the elements of a current or existing agreement between the relevant parties. However, it seems to me that the circumstances arguably give rise to some duplication that may be unnecessary. For this reason I confirm my direction to the parties of award interest that they give consideration to this issue during the life of their current agreement. For the reasons set out above I approve the applications and vary the award accordingly. I will shortly issue an Order to that effect, operative from the first full pay period to commence on or after 27 August 1996.
B.R. Johnson Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: 1 T.5074 of 1994 for the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994.
|