Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T1985

 

IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

 

T1985 of 1989 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY THE TASMANIAN CONFEDERATION OF INDUSTRIES IN RESPECT OF AN INTERPRETATION OF THE BAKERS AWARD IN APPLICATION T1837 OF 1989

RE: PAYMENT FOR PERIOD OF LEAVE

   
FULL BENCH:
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
COMMISSIONER R.K. GOZZI
COMMISSIONER R.J. WATLING
HOBART, 26 July 1989

REASONS FOR DECISION

APPEARANCES:  
   
For the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries - Mr. T. Edwards
   
For the Bakery Employees' and Salesmen's Federation of Australia - Tasmanian Branch - Mr. P. Nielsen
   
For The Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch - Mr. K. O'Brien
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:  
   
24 July 1989                   Hobart  

 

The appeal was brought by the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries pursuant to Section 70 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 against a declaration made under Section 43 of that Act by the President arising out of application T1837 of 1989.

The original application sought an interpretation of the Bakers Award.

The appellant listed eight grounds of appeal.

At the commencement of the hearing, we invited submissions from the parties on the threshold matters of (a) whether the President had indeed made a declaration pursuant to Section 43 of the Act and (b) if no declaration had been made, whether the appeal was properly before us.

That section of the Act states:-

"43(4) A declaration under this section may be made in the President's reasons for his decision but shall be made in the form of an order if, within 7 days of the handing down of the President's reasons for his decision, an organization with members subject to the relevant award or the Secretary so requests."

After considering the submissions on the threshold matters, we have arrived at the conclusion that no declaration has been made by the President arising out of application T1837 of 1989.

It is not our task to read something into the decision that may never have been intended or place our interpretation on the decision. Either a declaration has been made within the meaning of the Act or it has not.

Clearly, it is open to the President to interpret the award without making a declaration.

Therefore, in our opinion, the words "the award is interpreted accordingly" contained in the decision do not amount to a declaration under Section 43(4) of the Act.

As the Act only enables an appeal to be taken on a declaration made under Section 43, and as no declaration has been made, we conclude that appeal proceedings are not open to the appellant in this case.

Therefore the application is dismissed.