TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

Minister for Public Sector Administration
(T7089 of 1997)

and

Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union
- Tasmanian Branch

Industrial dispute - strike action by School Attendants - recommendation

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 7 July 1997 the Minister for Public Sector Administration (the Minister) lodged an application with the Commission pursuant to s.29(1) of the Act in the following terms:

On 7 July 1997 the Department of Education, Community and Cultural Development received a copy of the attached facsimile transmission addressed to all School Attendants advising them that "You are now on strike. Stop work now. Do not return to work until instructed to do so by your Union."

The employees concerned undertake cleaning duties in schools and, having regard to the open ended instruction the Union has given to its members, there is the potential for school closures, particularly where matter of hygiene and safety of students and staff are at risk.

In the circumstances, it is requested that an urgent hearing be held at the earliest possible time where the Minister will seek that the strike action cease immediately.

The matter was listed for hearing on 8 July 1997 at 9.00 am.

The submissions of Mr G Payne for the Minister can be summarised as follows:

1. The Department of Education, Community and Cultural Development was notified of an industrial dispute on 7 July 1997, via a facsimile sent to School Attendants, directing them to stop work and to go on strike for an unspecified time.

2. There was a potential for school closures, particularly when matters of hygiene and safety of students and staff were at risk.

3. At least 90 schools had been closed at the time the hearing commence and it was estimated by the evening of 8 July 1997, all other schools would be unsafe and unhygienic and therefore be forced to close.

4. The surprise action had thrown the school system into chaos and impacted on the teaching program for students.

5. Upward of 70,000 students would be directly affected and not able to attend school and, in the circumstances, the Minister sought an order from the Commission directed the striking School Attendants return to work.

Ms P Shelley, for the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - Tasmanian Branch (the union), the organisation having constitutional coverage of School Attendants, responded by saying that :

"Strike action is not something that our organisation would undertake capriciously or without a great deal of provocation from the employer ..."

Ms Shelley presented lengthy submissions on the sequence of events which culminated in the strike action.

From those submissions, I gained the clear impression that the strike action undertaken by members of the union, was borne out of some sense of frustration due to the fact that:

1. The Minister was not prepared to extend the application of Appendix A in the Miscellaneous Workers (Public Sector) Award; and

2. Consultants had been appointed to review the work of School Attendants. This was done during a time when the union had agreed to a four-week moratorium on industrial action - the purpose of which was to enable them to participate in discussions with the Minister's representatives, over the use of consultants to conduct the review and the nature of the consultancy; and

3. With consultants appointed to review their work, coupled with the Minister's reluctance to extend the work arrangements identified in Clause 33 of the Miscellaneous Workers (Public Sector) Award, School Attendants were fearful of their position being made redundant and their work then being undertaken by contract cleaners.

I said at the time, and I repeat now that it was understandable, in the current climate of high unemployment, that when consultants were engaged to review the working arrangements of employees, there would be fear or apprehension about job losses. However, there was a need to get this dispute on a proper footing and for both sides to be involved in the review of the duties carried out by School Attendants. This, I said, should be carried out through an appropriate and transparent mechanism.

At the conclusion of the day's hearing I made the following strong recommendation:

1. The special provisions relating to the Department of Education, Community and Cultural Development, appearing in Clause 33 of the Miscellaneous Workers (Public Sector) Award, be extended and this should be effected by either party making application to vary the award. The actual length of the extension should be the subject of consideration during the course of hearing any application.

2. As the Competitive Tendering and Contracting process has commenced, consultation should take place at all stages during the course of the review and after the final reports are made available. Such consultation shall be between representatives of the Minister, the union and employees and other appropriate stakeholders.

3. There to be no job losses between now and the time the review process is completed.

4. This application will remain open and the parties are to report progress on a monthly basis. During this time either party would be at liberty to raise any issues appropriate to this application.

5. During the consultation process the union should not participate in any industrial action, however, the Commission recognises the right of the union to consult its members at appropriate times.

6. The parties to the Miscellaneous Workers (Public Sector) Award should participate in the award review pursuant to the Structural Efficiency Principle.

7. In accordance with the award provision the full implementation of the School Attendants classification structure should continue.

8. The Minister should not implement any of the options arising out of the reports until such time as there has been adequate consultation with the union.

9. It is the Commission's strong recommendation that there be a return to work by employees currently on strike to enable the above processes to take place and, in any case, I would expect the return to work be no later than the commencement of business on Thursday, 10 July 1997.

For the sake of the record, at stop-work meetings held by the union on 9 July 1997, at various places throughout the state, members of the union rejected the abovementioned recommendations and the strike action continued.

On the 14 July 1997 the Minister for Public Sector Administration and the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - Tasmanian Branch lodged an application with the Commission to register an agreement pursuant to s.55 of the Act. That agreement brought to a conclusion the strike action and employees returned to work on that same day.

During the course of hearing submissions on the s.55 agreement (T7104 of 1997), Mr C Willingham, for the Minister, advised the Commission that no good purpose would be served by continuing with application T7089 of 1997. Given that submission the file is now closed.

R J Watling
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr G Payne with Mr T Pearce, Mr R Gerathy and Ms A Watt for the Minister for Public Sector Administration
Ms P Shelley with Ms J Archer for the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - Tasmanian Branch

Date and place of hearing:
1997
July 8
Hobart