T11055, T11056 and T11057
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Cheryl Elizabeth Brown and Tannod Pty Ltd
Industrial dispute - alleged breach of the Cleaning and Property Services Award - order issued REASONS FOR DECISION (1) On 15 September 2003, Cheryl Elizabeth Brown, Roslyn Jane Webb and Julie Anne Gray (the applicants) applied to the President, pursuant to Section 29(1A) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, for a hearing before a Commissioner in respect of an industrial dispute with Tannod Pty Ltd arising out of an alleged breach of the Cleaning and Property Services Award. (2) When this matter came on for hearing on 14 October 2003 the applicants were self-represented. The employer was not represented. However correspondence dated 7 October 2003 from the employer reads as follows:
(3) Correspondence from ACP Insolvency dated 14 October 2003 and received after the conclusion of the hearing reads:
(4) I will return to this correspondence later in this decision. (5) The applicants were employed as cleaners under the terms of the Cleaning and Property Services Award. They were employed as casual employees for the following periods:
(6) The applicants allege that they were paid less than full entitlements under the Award for the duration of their employment. (7) I was informed that the applicants were paid the following hourly rates:
(8) Under the Award a casual Property Service Employee Grade 2 is entitled to be paid the following hourly rates:
(9) It would appear that this matter had it genesis in earlier applications lodged by the same applicants1. These matters were set down for hearing in Ulverstone on 14 July 2003 before Shelley C. However at the request of the applicants this hearing did not take place. On 18 July the applicants jointly wrote to the Commission in the following terms:
(10) I was advised that Mr Michael Best, the mediator referred to in the above correspondence had been instrumental in calculating the amounts owed to the applicants and had facilitated an arrangement whereby the amount would be repaid, initially in instalments with the balance being paid in full on the sale of a certain property. (11) All three applicants signed an Agreement to this effect. The agreement in relation to Roslyn Webb is set out below. Save for different amounts, the agreements applicable to Julie Gray and Cheryl Brown are in identical terms.
(12) A specific term of the agreement was the written withdrawal of the earlier applications to the Tasmanian Industrial Commission. The applicants, by virtue of the 18 July 2003 correspondence, honoured this element of the agreement. (13) I was informed that the applicants received four instalments of $100. (14) No further payments had been received. (15) The applicants advised that the Ulverstone property mentioned in the agreement had been sold. Approaches to both the Directors of Tannod Pty Ltd and the mediator had been unsuccessful. (16) The applicants advised that Mr Michael Best is the General Manager of the Goodstone Group. This company is owned by Mr Kerry Good, the brother of Mr Bruce Good, a director of Tannod Pty Ltd. Further, Tannod Pty Ltd provided cleaning services to the Goodstone Group. (17) The applicants said that at no stage were they informed that the employer was in financial difficulty. The employees now believe they were deliberately misled and improperly coerced into withdrawing the earlier applications to the Commission. Whilst I do not have the benefit of any evidence or submissions from the employer, it is not difficult to understand why the applicants have expressed these views. (18) From my own inquiries I am satisfied that the amounts acknowledged by Tannod Pty Ltd in the contracts as owing, are, after allowing for the $400 already paid, an accurate reflection of the extent of the Award breaches. (19) I turn now to correspondence from the Liquidator. (20) The Tasmanian Industrial Commission is an independent tribunal established under its own statute. To the best of my knowledge it has never been considered a "court". Relevantly s.29[1A][c] reads:
(21) In my view the applications are validly made (See Tata v Watts Communications Pty Ltd [In liquidation]).2 Pursuant to s.31 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 I hereby order that Tannod Pty Ltd, C/- ACP Insolvency, Level 4, Trendwest Building, 130 Bundall Road, Bundall, Queensland 4217, pay to: 1. Cheryl Elizabeth Brown, 8 Stephen Street, Forth, Tasmania 7310 an amount of seven thousand one hundred and ninety five dollars ($7195), together with an amount of one thousand five hundred and fifty seven dollars ($1557) by way of a superannuation contribution payable to Customer No. 7102010, BSB No. 037-930, Account No. 10/2010, Retirement Saver Account, 31-35 Stewart Street, Devonport, Tasmania 7310. 2. Roslyn Jane Webb, 62 Bel-Air Crescent, Devonport, Tasmania 7310 an amount of five thousand two hundred and fifteen dollars ($5215) together with an amount of one thousand five hundred and fifty dollars ($1550) by way of a superannuation contribution payable to Membership No. 10085376, HESTA Superfund, PO Box 600, Carlton South, Victoria 3053. 3. Julie Anne Gray, 6 Woodrising Avenue, Spreyton, Tasmania 7310 an amount of four thousand three hundred and eighty six dollars ($4386), together with an amount of one thousand five hundred and twenty four dollars ($1524) by way of a superannuation contribution payable to Membership No. 122481703, REST Administration, PO Box 350, Parramatta, New South Wales 2124.
Tim Abey Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: 1 T10913, T10914 and T10920 of 2003 |