T5452
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union COMMUNITY SERVICES AWARD
Appeal against a decision handed down by Commissioner R K Gozzi on 24 March 1995 in matters T2225 of 1989, T2311 of 1990 and T4146 of 1992 - Community Services Award REASONS FOR DECISION On 24 March 1995 Mr Commissioner Gozzi issued Reasons for Decision1 in relation to variations to the Community Services Award involving a new classification structure, wage rates, relativities and definitions. An appeal against that decision was made by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union pursuant to Section 70(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984. The grounds of appeal (as amended) were:
The Act provides in Section 71(10) that:
Both the appellant and the respondent accepted that it was appropriate for us to follow the principles of appeal established in both the Poon Brothers matter [1983 289 CLARE 269] and in House V The King [ (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504]. We agree that those principles are well established and appropriate for use in deciding the appeal before us. After all it was a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission which decided in the Poon Brothers matter to apply the principles which were established by the High Court in House V The King, and therefore such principles clearly are both authoritative and relevant to deciding industrial issues. Those principles as enunciated in House V The King are to be found in the following extract2
In the matter before us the appeal was against the result of an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner given to him by the Act. There was no denial that he acted within the powers bestowed upon him to deal with the subject matter of a proper application made pursuant to Section 23 of the Act and we conclude that there would be no grounds for such an proposition if it were to be advanced. Upon reviewing the substance of the arguments placed before us by the appellant we have concluded that there has been no discovery of an error having been made when the Commissioner exercised his discretion. We find in the alternative that the Commissioner, in his decision, not only balanced all of the competing arguments put to him during the course of the lengthy case, but properly satisfied himself that the final outcome was consistent with the public interest, which is a statutory requirement. The implicit suggestion put to us was the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles3 effectively contained a fixed regime of wage relativities which must be strictly translated into the same outcomes as might be found to have occurred in settlements reached elsewhere. However we believe such a construction is too narrow and the circumstances of each case needs to be considered on merit. The Commissioner in deciding the matter before him was entitled to consider such matters as the relevance of cited cases; whether like was being compared to like; whether introduced material was the subject of an arbitration or the end product of enterprise bargaining; the skills and qualifications actually required for the positions being determined. In this appeal we are of the view that the appellant has not established that the Commissioner mistook any facts; acted upon a wrong principle; or failed to take into account some material consideration. For these reasons we reject the appeal and confirm the original decision made by Mr Commissioner Gozzi on 24 March 1995 in matters T2225 of 1989; T2311 of 1990 and T4446 of 1992.
Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: 1 T2225 of 1989, T2311 of 1990 and T4146 of 1992 |