In this matter the Tasmanian Public Service Association (TPSA) seeks to overturn, pursuant to Section 70 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1984, that part of Commissioner Watling's decision in T.701 of 1987, where he decided that it was not open to him on work value grounds "to grant more than a 4% increase arising out of this application which, as I understand, seeks increases of approximately 2% to 14%" (ref. Reason for Decision page 6).

The five grounds of appeal advanced by Mr Vines on behalf of the TPSA are particularised in the Notice of Appeal, and we do not need to repeat them here. Suffice to say that Mr Vines made a collective submission for all grounds of appeal as opposed to addressing each ground separately.

Mr Vines commented that he had some difficulty in drawing his submissions together as the arguments he was putting were interwoven and complex; a fact which we readily acknowledge. Nevertheless the thrust of his submissions are clear and may be summarised in the following terms -

(a) The Principles of Wage Fixation decided upon by the Australian Commission and which are contained in Print G.6800 do not contemplate that every Principle is subject to the second tier ceiling of 4%.

(b) Whilst this Commission, mutatis mutandis, adopted the Principles laid down by the Australian Commission, it arrived at its conclusion for the reasons given in its own State Wage Case decision1.

(c) An examination of the Principles of this Commission and the State Wage Case reasons for decision reveals that not every Principle is restricted by the second tier ceiling.

(d) In respect of the Librarians Award application for new classifications and salary structure; the claim would be advanced primarily on work value grounds, and this Principle is not subject to the second tier ceiling imposed by the State Wage Case decision and Principles.

The arguments of Mr Jarman, on behalf of the Minister for Industrial Relations, are able to be summarised as follows -

(a) The National Wage Case decision of the Australian Commission makes it clear that the Work Value Principle is subject to the second tier.

Mr Jarman quoted the following passage from Print G.6800, at page 14, in support of his contention:

"We recognize that there will be some overlap between these two principles (Restructuring and Efficiency; and Work Value) but whichever is used in particular cases, there should be no double-counting and the second tier ceiling should not be exceeded."

In brackets ours.

(b) In any event the recent decision of Deputy President Hancock2, made following consultation with the President of the Australian Commission, confirms that second tier increases, except in special circumstances, "must not exceed four per cent in total; and the second tier is to take into account `restructuring and efficiency', `work value changes' and `supplementary payments'" (ref. Decision p.2).

(c) Where the second tier ceiling could not accommodate the full extent of the claimed `work value' increases, the above decision again makes it clear that the Anomalies Conference procedure can be invoked for exceptional cases.

(d) This Commission, in its Reasons for Decision in the State Wage Case, made clear its intent. At page 28, the Commission stated inter alia -

"... we have formed an opinion that only in extraordinary circumstances would it be desirable to settle upon objectives manifestly inconsistent with those ... in a National Wage case."

(e) Where this Commission intended to deviate from the Australian Commission's decision this was made clear in the State Wage Case decision. No such deviation was made or contemplated in respect of the operation of the new Work Value Principle.

Mr Westwood, appearing for the Minister for Public Administration, endorsed and adopted the submissions of Mr Jarman.

Decision:

We accept that this appeal by the TPSA was brought before us because of a genuine concern held by that organisation that the State Wage Case decision was incorrectly applied to the Librarians Award matter in respect to how the Work Value Principle is to operate.

However, we do not accept the submission of Mr Vines where he advocated that the Work Value Principle, as detailed in Print G.6800 and adopted by this Commission, is not subject to the second tier ceiling; and that work value claims with potential costs in excess of 4% are not required to be processed through an Anomalies Conference.

Clearly, that is not the case, having regard to both the National Wage Case decision and the subsequent decision of Deputy President Hancock.

Similarly, nothing was put in these proceedings to persuade us that Commissioner Watling erred in finding that he is -

"... prepared to consider applications for wage and salary increases in excess of 4% only after an anomalies conference has determined that the application is of an exceptional nature and there is an `arguable case' that may warrant the awarding of an amount in excess of that prescribed in the second tier ..."

Reasons for Decision pp.6-7

In our opinion, having regard to Principle 1 of the Principles adopted by this Commission, in relation to what is available for wage adjustments, the Commissioner correctly decided that only in exceptional circumstances can more than the second tier ceiling be awarded on work value grounds.

The prerequisite mechanism to enable such a ruling to be made in those circumstances is the Anomalies Conference.

No other option is available.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

1 T.712; T.665 and T.691; and T.675 of 1987, dated 24 April 1987
2 Print G.6854, dated 19 March 1987.