TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

Community and Public Sector Union (SPSFT) Inc
(T13367 of 2009)

Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union ‑ Tasmanian Branch
(T13368 of 2009)

and

Minister administering the State Service Act 2000

ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 31 OF THE ACT

On 20 February 2009 and 23 February 2009, The Community and Public Sector Union (State Public Services Federation Tasmania) Inc. and the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union ‑ Tasmanian Branch, respectively, applied to the President, pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, for a hearing before a Commissioner in respect of an industrial dispute with the Minister administering the State Service Act 2000.

The matter was listed for a hearing (conciliation conference) for 24 February 2009. Appearances: Mr M Johnston, with Mr S Yapp and Mr R Ohia, for the CPSU. Mr P Tullgren, with Mr B Honner, for the LHMU. Mr P Baker, with Mr M Stevens, Mr B Charlton and Mr G Barber, for the Minister.

This dispute has at its heart the decision of the Executive Government to require a 2.6% cost saving across Government Agencies. The TPS is not exempt from this requirement.

Management has identified that a significant saving is to cap (in dollar terms) the cost of overtime arising from the recall of staff to cover absences occasioned by sick leave and workers’ compensation.

Discussions between the parties have taken place over the past three weeks. However the matters in dispute remain unresolved.

The supporting statement in T13368 states in part:

“On 17 February members of the LHMU employed at RPC met and determined to reject the Recall decision on the basis that the safety of correctional officers, inmates and the wider public can only be met if all the positions shown on the Disposition Sheet on a particular shift are filled and if they are not then action will be taken to ensure the safety of correctional officers.”

The CPSU maintains that the dispute is in breach of Clause 1 Part V and Clause 1 Part XI of the Tasmanian State Service Award.

After meeting with the parties separately and together in a conciliation conference, the Commission issues the following order pursuant to s.31 of the Act.

Order

1. Representatives of the LMHU and the CPSU shall meet with senior representatives of the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister for Correctional Services not later than Thursday 26 February 2009. Matters to be discussed at that meeting shall include, but not be limited to:

· The nature and extent of the whole of Government cost saving decision and the position of the TPS in the context of this decision.

· The impact of reducing the number of hours available for overtime within the TPS with a view to determining whether an acceptable alternative to that currently proposed can be achieved.

· Any other measures capable of achieving cost savings.

2. The hearing will resume in the Commission at 9.30am on Monday 2 March 2009.

3. In terms of replacing officers absent on sick leave or workers’ compensation, the status quo which applied prior to 17 February 2009 shall continue until the conclusion of the resumed hearing. This includes a requirement to perform normal duties without bans, limitation or other industrial action.

I strongly recommend that the parties approach these discussions with an open mind and without pre-conditions. The problems emanating from the world financial crisis cannot be attributed in any way to prison officers, prison management or the State Government. All parties have a shared responsibility to work through the issues with the objective of minimizing the negative impact.

During the conference management sought an agreed strategy to manage overtime during the currency of the above process. This was not agreed by the unions and does not form part of this order. However I note that on figures provided to the Commission, overtime costs for the coverage of short term absences spiralled in the days following the conclusion of the last conference between the parties. No explanation or analysis of this “spike” was provided. However it would be disappointing if this atypical pattern continued over the next few days as this process is worked through. The necessity to manage costs in the current demanding environment is equally as compelling for management as are the concerns for the health and safety of staff and inmates genuinely held by prison officers and their representatives.

The CPSU notification in T13367 is stood over pending the above process.

Tim Abey

COMMISSIONER