IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

We are required to respond to two threshold matters which were raised in the course of today's proceedings.

The first concerns the imposition of bans and limitations on work at various hospitals around the State by members of The Hospital Employees Federation of Australia Tasmania Branch at the present time.

This is the second occasion on which such unwarranted industrial action has been brought to our attention and we are disturbed to find that our earlier strong recommendation in this regard has not been taken seriously.

Our concern is now compounded by the report that such industrial action may in itself create an environment which is dangerous to health.

Our earlier comments delivered on 11 January 1990 are equally relevant today as they were then and therefore bear repeating and we said this:

"This morning we were advised that the HEF members are engaged in industrial action for no other reason than HEF's objection to the lodgement of an application by the employing authority to vary certain provisions of the Hospital Employees (Public Hospitals) and General Conditions of Service Awards relating to meal charges.

The industrial action involves bans on the preparation and provision of some meals at certain hospitals and strike action has been threatened.

Not only is such industrial action precipitous in the extreme, but has been taken in spite of the fact that the subject matter is before this Commission for hearing and determination according to all proper criteria.

Whether or not such application is successful is therefore entirely a matter for us to decide, and it should be recognised by the HEF and its members that this Commission is an independent and impartial statutory body which will not be influenced by any attempt to exert duress upon it, no matter who is involved.

The parties concerned should be cognisant of the fact that registration of organisations and their participation in an orderly system of industrial relations imposes obligations as well as benefits.

Principal among the obligations of unions and unionists is the need to refrain from exerting industrial muscle, particularly in areas of essential services.

We therefore urge the HEF and its members to accept our strong recommendation to remove all bans and cease all industrial action forthwith."

We again now stress that it is a serious matter for any registered organisation and its members to ignore a ruling by a properly constituted, independent and impartial tribunal such as this one.

The Commission is not an arm of Government and is obliged by law to deal fairly with applications for hearings from any party entitled to submit such applications.

We can see no good purpose in the imposition of the present bans and limitations and they will certainly not influence the eventual outcome of the present claim before us.

We also emphasise that it does little credit to the image of health workers paid out of the public purse to act irresponsibly.

If the Commission receives any application by the employer pursuant to Section 29 of the Act, then consideration can be given to whether or not the issuing of an Order, as requested, is appropriate.

In the meantime, we direct the HEF heed our advice given in Chambers before lunch and to advise its members who are involved in the present industrial action to lift all bans and limitations forthwith; and not take any similar action in the future whilst this matter is before us.

The second matter requiring a ruling and raised by The Tasmanian Public Service Association concerns its request that we refuse to further hear the claim by the Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 to remove award provisions relating to meal charges from the award.

As a secondary argument the TPSA said meal charges cannot properly be increased by more than the extent of change since the last adjustment, measured by movements in the Consumer Price Index.

Both propositions relied upon the current Wage Fixation Principles; certain comments made by State and Federal tribunals in their Reasons for Decision; and decisions of Commission members.

It is accepted that Principle 6(a)(i) is the relevant principle concerned. This provides as follows:

"Existing allowances which constitute a reimbursement of expenses incurred may be adjusted from time to time where appropriate to reflect the relevant change in the level of such expenses."

We do not believe that this principle is as restrictive as is suggested by the TPSA.

The Commission has made it clear that the expression "existing allowances" includes both employer and employee expense allowances. Therefore meal charges and meal allowances both fall within the ambit of the same part of the Principles.

It is also clear that the relevant Principle allows for reviews "from time to time".

Furthermore the adjustment of existing allowances in 6(a)(i) is to "reflect the relevant change in the level of such expenses".

It is for the Commission to decide what is the relevant change, and it is significant that the Principle does not state the words from the last review, as suggested.

Extracts read to us from the current Principles relate to negative cost cutting measures being against the intent of the current Principles.

We cannot disagree with that, however, we point out that such quote is selective.

The wording of the quote, to be found at page 11 of the August 1989 National Wage Case decision (Print H9100) is as follows:

"Proposals for changes of this nature should not be approached in a negative cost-cutting manner and should as far as possible be introduced by agreement."

We point out that it is in fact an integral part of the Structural Efficiency Principle and relates directly to proposals for change in that regard.

Accordingly we have decided to continue to hear the case on merit, taking into consideration also public interest criteria and the Principles of Wage Fixation.