In this matter the Transport Workers' Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch (TWU) appealed the decision of the Deputy President arising from applications T.1952, T.1953, T.1984 and T.1990 of 1989.

In that decision the Deputy President varied the Chemists Award to include, inter alia, 3 per cent occupational superannuation provisions in Division F. That division applies only to Drivers.

When the matter was before the Deputy President the TWU, in the earlier part of proceedings, made it clear that it was opposed to the variation of Division F.

In support of their appeal against the inclusion of occupational superannuation in Division F the TWU advanced the following five grounds of appeal:

1. There were no applications before the Commission to include classifications in Division F.

2. The T.W.U. from the outset of proceedings clearly stated that persons employed in the classifications contained in Division F should be excluded from any decision.

3. The Commission erred in its decision in that it failed to place sufficient weight on the T.W.U. submission.

4. As a result of the Commission decision to reject the T.W.U. submission, employees who are eligible to become members of the T.W.U. are severely disadvantaged.

5. Any other grounds the Commission deems fit.

In respect of the first ground of appeal it is clear from the transcript of proceedings held before the Deputy President that the applicant unions had phrased their applications in the broadest possible terms enabling the award to be varied in the manner it was.

Indeed the Deputy President at page 19 of transcript invited one of the applicant unions to vary its application to make it specific to the particular division of the award. In fact none of the applicants sought to limit the scope of their applications.

Later in the proceedings (page 21 of transcript) the Deputy President confirmed that the applications before him had relevance to the whole of the award.

Nothing that was said by Mr Hansch in this appeal hearing substantiated the contention by the TWU that there were no applications before the Deputy President to vary Division F in respect of occupational superannuation.

Demonstrably that was not the case and accordingly the first ground of appeal is dismissed.

Similarly grounds of appeal 2 and 3 are rejected by this Bench. It appeared to us that those appeal grounds are consequential to the first ground of appeal. In any event they were not addressed in any significant way.

The fourth ground of appeal was promoted on the basis that State award regulation, in this case Division F of the Chemists Award, would disadvantage employees eligible to become members of the TWU.

Primarily the TWU contended that federal award coverage for those type of employees could result in respondent employers being required to contribute at a level in excess of 3 per cent of ordinary time earnings.

Clearly the Deputy President did not err in making a decision consistent with this Commission's Wage Fixing Principles to which the TWU have given a commitment.

This ground of appeal is also rejected.

Accordingly the appeal is rejected in its entirety.