T12801 and T12802
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Tasmanian Branch BUILDING TRADES AWARD
Award variation - meal allowance - applications approved - operative date 5 October 2006 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 22 September 2006 applications were lodged by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Tasmanian Branch (CFMEU), pursuant to Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, to vary the Building Trades Award and the Building and Construction Industry Award in respect to meal allowance. [2] When these matters came on for hearing on 3 October 2006, Mr A Benson appeared for the CFMEU and Mrs S Haas appeared for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited. [3] These applications seek to increase the meal allowance from $10.90 to $13.60, the amount determined by the Full Bench in the State Wage decision1, and which applied to awards of this Commission generally. [4] Mr Benson explained that historically these awards had a nexus with counterpart federal awards so far as the adjustment of allowances are concerned. It was for this reason that the awards were not part of the Unions Tasmania meal allowance component of the State Wage application. [5] Mr Benson submitted that as a consequence of the Work Choices Legislation and the subsequent State Wage decision, this nexus has been clearly broken. The future of wage and allowance adjustments in the relevant federal awards was now in the hands of the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC). [6] He said that it would be unfair to expect employees to be subjected to further delays and uncertainties associated with the AFPC deliberations. [7] Mr Benson said the appropriate course was to bring these awards in line with the standard established by the Full Bench and applicable to virtually all awards of this Commission. [8] Mrs Haas opposed the application citing the AIRC Full Bench decision in the Glass Merchants and Glazing Contractors Awards2 as providing the proper basis for the adjustment of allowances. [9] Mrs Haas noted that the Full bench in the State Wage decision had determined that meal allowances would be increased (to $13.60) "in accord with the agreed formula". She submitted that the application of the agreed formula would result in a CPI based adjustment of 3.54%, taking the meal allowance in these awards to $11.30. Decision [10] I am satisfied that the nexus between these awards and the relevant federal awards has been broken. [11] This Commission has for a number of years determined a common standard for meal allowances across awards generally. The only reason these awards have not been varied in line with this common standard is that they have been withheld from the application, by the parties and for their own reasons. [12] These circumstances have now changed and there is every reason why the awards should be brought in line with the prevailing standard of this Commission. [13] I agree with Mrs Haas as to an adjustment "in accord with agreed formula". However in my view this presupposes that we are coming off the same base. To apply a formula to a demonstrably inadequate base only serves to perpetuate an inequity, for no good reason. [14] The applications are granted. Assuming circumstances do not change, it would be expected that these awards will be adjusted in line with the agreed formula as part of future State Wage decisions. [15] The operative date for these variations shall be 5 October 2006. [16] Orders reflecting this decision are attached. Tim Abey Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: 1 T12395 of 2005
|