TE1286
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Jan and Gary Goss and Persons employed as full-time and casual JanGar Cleaning Employees THE JANGAR CLEANING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2003
Enterprise Agreement - agreement approved - operative 24/4/03 to 24/10/03 APPROVAL OF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT This application concerns the JanGar Cleaning Enterprise Agreement 2003. The parties lodged the agreement on 10 April 2003 pursuant to s.61H of the Industrial Relations Act 1984. The proposed Agreement seeks to regulate the wage rates and conditions of employment of cleaning employees employed in the cleaning business operated by the partnership of Jan and Gary Goss, 56 Tarleton Street, Devonport, and trading as JanGar Cleaning. The Agreement applies to full-time and casual employees although it would appear that all existing employees are engaged on a casual basis, albeit with a degree of regularity as to employment patterns. The proposed Agreement is to operate for a period of five years. It replaces the Cleaning and Property Services Award in its entirety. Hitherto the business has operated under the Jangar Cleaning Enterprise Agreement 1998, approved by the then Office of the Enterprise Commissioner on 28 April 19981. That Agreement expired on 23 April 2003. The proposed 2003 Agreement is expressed in substantially similar terms to the 1998 Agreement. The Clause relating to "Hourly Rates" has a direct reference to the Award, and, to that extent, is self-adjusting. The Returning Officer's Report indicates that 82% of eligible employees voted in favour of the Agreement and no employees voted against the Agreement. I am satisfied that the statutory requirements as to the conduct of the secret ballot have been met. I am also satisfied that there was no evidence to suggest that the Agreement was made under duress. During the hearing I did raise a number of concerns I hold in relation to the Agreement. These concerns relate to both the content of the Agreement and the clarity of the comparison document presented to the employees. These concerns, prima facie, may have given rise to a finding that the Agreement was not "fair in all the circumstances" [see s.61J[f] of the Act]. As a consequence I chose to meet with the employee and employer representatives separately. From these inquiries I am satisfied that the employees were content to sign the agreement and effectively continue the status quo. I suspect however that the new Agreement was, more likely than not, presented to the employees as a completed document, rather than something that would provide the basis for a genuine bargaining process. I am also of the view that the comparison document did not provide a complete and accurate picture as to the differences between the Award and the Agreement. As a consequence of these conferences, the parties agreed to amend the Agreement to provide for a life of six months, rather than five years as originally proposed. The parties agreed that this period of six months would be used to renegotiate a new agreement taking into account the concerns raised. In particular this process is to address the absence of a loading for casual employees to compensate for the absence of annual leave, sick leave and public holidays. In addition, the comparison document is to fully and accurately reflect all material differences between the proposed agreement and the Award. In considering this matter I have been influenced in particular by the following factors:
For these reasons the Agreement will be approved operative from 24 April 2003 and shall remain in force until 24 October 2003. I hereby notify the parties and the Minister of that approval and, in doing so, inform the parties of their right to withdraw from the agreement under s.61K of the Act, which provides that:-
Tim Abey Appearances: Date and place of hearing: 1 TE568 of 1998. |