Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T11178

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
(T11178 of 2003)

RETAIL PHARMACY AWARD

 

DEPUTY PRESIDENT R J WATLING

HOBART, 15 December 2003

Award variation - wage rates - work value case for student and trainee - reasonable overtime - Full Bench Decision T10886 of 2003 - consent matter - application granted - award varied - operative date ffpp 3 December 2003

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This application was made pursuant to s.23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, by The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (the applicant).

[2] It sought, with the consent of the parties, to vary the Retail Pharmacy Award by:

(a) Deleting the current wage rates and classification structure for students and trainees and replace it with a new four level structure for students and two level structure for trainees along with increased rates of pay; and

(b) Insert a new clause dealing with the requirement to work reasonable overtime.

[3] For the first part of his application, Mr D Pyrke, for the applicant, relied on the Wage Fixing Principles and in particular Principle 9 - Work Value Changes and Principle 10 - First Award and Extension to Existing Award.

[4] He also relied on the decisions arising out of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission1 on 16 October 2002 and 5 June 2003 which varied the Community Pharmacy Award 1998 (federal award), by granting increases to pharmacy students and trainees arising out of a work value case.

[5] The period for reviewing the work value changes was stated to be, for:

  • Students - May 1996 (being the date this classification appeared in the Retail Pharmacy Award) and 1 August 2003 (being the date on which the federal award was varied for students); and
  • Trainees - May 1996 (being the date this classification appeared in the Retail Pharmacy Award) and 1 November 2002 (being the date on which the federal award was varied for trainees).

[6] Mr Pyrke presented an exhibit2, which summarised the work value changes as follows:

1. Trainees

1.1 Length of Undergraduate Course

  • Changed from a three-year course to a four-year course in the late 1990s
  • Subsequent graduates have greater breadth and depth of knowledge, including knowledge of patient counselling techniques

1.2  Quality Care of Pharmacy Program

  • Introduced by the Pharmacy Guild in 1998
  • Under the programme, pharmacy staff undergo accreditation against a set of industry standards
  • The aim is high-quality advice as service to the community
  • The programme applies to pharmacy trainees

2. Students

2.1 Changes To The Duties Undertaken By Pharmacy Students

  • Pharmacy students increasingly undertake pharmacists tasks (under appropriate guidance)
  • These tasks include acting as dispensary assistants

2.2 Quality Care Pharmacy Program

  • The points outlined above applies equally to pharmacy students

[7] When compared with the current Retail Pharmacy Award, Mr Pyrke submitted that, in effect, the federal award decisions established the wage relativity for students and trainees [based on 100% relativity equalling the award Base Rate of $417 20] as follows:

STUDENT % RELATIVITY
first year 70
second year 80
third year 90
fourth year 95
   
TRAINEE  
first half of traineeship 100
second half of traineeship 115

[8] It is these relativities and the classifications that Mr Pyrke sought to be included in the Retail Pharmacy Award.

[9] He said the parties agreed that any increases arising out of a favourable decision should be paid in two instalments: the first instalment being operative from the first full pay period to commence on or after 3 December 2003; and, the second instalment (being the subject of a separate application) from 1 November 2004.

[10] Mr Pyrke submitted a draft order (exhibit A 1) showing the effect of the first instalment. However, he emphasised the fact that the above-mentioned relativities would not be fully realised until the second instalment was inserted in the award.

[11] The second part of the application sought to give effect to the decision of the Full Bench in T10886 of 2003 wherein it determined a model clause dealing with the requirement to work reasonable overtime.

[12] Mr P Gourlay for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited and Mr R Korn for The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, Tasmanian Branch fully supported the submissions of the applicant.

[13] Having heard the submissions and at the same time noting the degree of consensus between the parties, coupled with the changes in the nature of the work now being undertaken by students and trainees, I am satisfied that the Retail Pharmacy Award should be varied in the manner set out in the draft order (Exhibit A.1) presented by the applicant. I also accept the award should be varied to include the suggested provision relating to the requirement to work reasonable overtime. In approving the application, I am satisfied it is not contrary to the public interest test required pursuant to s.36 of the Act and the Wage Fixing Principles.

[14] In approving the application I also note the wage increases will be a phased arrangement and the relativities approved in this decision will not be fully realised until the second instalment is inserted in the award via a separate application to be made in 2004.

[15] The Order giving effect to this decision is attached and will be operative from the first full pay period to commence on or after 3 December 2003.

 

R J Watling
DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:
Mr D Pyrke for The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
Mr P Gourlay for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited
Mr R Korn for The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, Tasmanian Branch

Date and place of hearing:
2003
December 3
Hobart

1 Print N 7370
2 Exhibit A6