Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

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

T4110 T4111 T4112

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.70 appeal against decision

The Ambulance Employees' Association of Tasmania
(T.4110 of 1992)
(T.4111 of 1992)
(T.4112 of 1992)

 

FULL BENCH:
DEPUTY PRESIDENT A ROBINSON
COMMISSIONER R J WATLING
COMMISSIONER P A IMLACH
HOBART, 19 February 1993

Appeal against decision in matters T.2586 and T.3779 of 1992 - Tasmanian Ambulance Service Award - Clause 23(b) - a provision that 28 days notice of roster change need not be given in certain circumstances - Clause 23(f) - stand down between 2400 and 0700 hours - inclusion of new classification of Ambulance Technician - appeals dismissed

REASONS FOR DECISION

These three matters were appeals by The Ambulance Employees' Association of Tasmania against decisions of a Commissioner sitting alone to include provisions in an award pursuant to Section 70 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984.

All three matters concern decisions of Gozzi, C. to vary the Tasmanian Ambulance Service Award contained in "Reasons for Interim Decision"1 issued on 11 November 1992.

The matters were joined for hearing and concerned structural efficiency measures going to:

(a)  Shift Work - stand down between 2400 and 0700 hours.

(b)  Inclusion of new classification - "Ambulance Technician".

(c)  Shift Work - period of notice required to change of roster.

After hearing the appellant we issued a decision in transcript without requiring the Minister to respond.

Our decision pointed out that the Act requires an appellant to specify the grounds upon which an appeal is based.

In this instance, whilst the grounds of appeal were notified the appellant failed to address a number of grounds and did not satisfy us as to those which were addressed.

On the evidence and material before us we were unable to find that the Commissioner:

(a)  allowed extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him;

(b)  mistook the facts; or

(c)  did not take into account some important material consideration; or

(d)  misdirected himself as to some established principle; or

(e)  made a decision which was not reasonably within his discretion on the evidence before him.

We pointed out that there is a clear requirement on an appellant to satisfy the onus of proof, and we did not believe that obligation was discharged in the instance case.

For all of these reasons the three appeals were dismissed.

 

Appearances:
Mr P Nielsen for The Ambulance Employees' Association of Tasmania with Mr R Doddridge and Mr P Templar.
Miss J Cox for the Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act with Mrs W Burgess and Mr R Byrne.

Date and Place of Hearing:
1993
Hobart
February 15

1  T.3779 of 1992 and T.2586 of 1990