T2212 (6 June 1990)
|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984
1990 This was an application by the Minister Administering the State Service Act (the Minister) to vary the Hospital Employees (Public Hospitals) Award and the General Conditions of Service Award) the Awards) to increase the charges for meals provided to employees covered by the Awards in State Government hospitals. From the start the Minister, through is advocate, Mr M Stevens, advised that the Government was subsidising the cost of the meals to staff by an amount of $2.5 million per anum being the difference between the actual cost of providing the meals and the amount recouped through the current award charges. A feature of the hearings was the number of times the Minister changed the details of his application. Initially the Minister's claim was to increase the charge for a three course meal to $5.00 (from $1.55) and by so doing to recoup the full cost of the meal. At the start of the hearings, however, on 11 January 1990, Mr Stevens sought and was granted leave to amend his application to have the meal charges provision deleted from the Awards. Mr Stevens stated if the application was not successful, then his secondary submission would be that the charges be increased to the following:
Provided that a minimum charge of $1.50 (from $1.10) applies for each meal taken. In his full and well researched submissions Mr Stevens outlined the history of the charges to the meal changes dating back to 1961. In particular he referred to the decision on 31 October 1980 when the then Public Service Board (Industrial) Commissioner, Mr L A Koerbin, increased the meal charges from 45 cents per meal to 75 cents, this being the last occasion the Award provision was fully examined. Mr Stevens also produced an exhibit2 showing statistics including the number of meals produced, the costs involved, the numbers of staff involved and finally the estimated cost of a single meal at each hospital. The evidence adduced from the Minister's witness was not shaken during the course of cross examination by the unions. Mr Aiken on behalf of the Tasmanian Public Service Association (TPSA) rejected (a) the application to remove the meal charges from the Award (b) that meal charges should be increased in all and (c) the costing documentation presented by the Minister's representative. It was also his submission that if the matter was to be discussed then it should be the subject of structural efficiency negotiations. Mr Warwick representing the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, Tasmania Branch (HEF) after presenting his opening submissions requested an adjournment. On resumption of the hearing on 19 April the hearing was further adjourned to allow the HEF to hold meetings of its members throughout the State to enable them to consider a proposition which emanated from private discussions between the Minister's representative and the unions during the period of the earlier adjournment. When the hearing resumed on 25 May 1990, the HEF advised the Commission that agreement had been reached with the Minister as to the proposed meal charges structure.1 As a consequence Mr Stevens once again sought a final amendment to the Minister's application, that is the meal charges provision be deleted from the Awards, and if that application was not successful, then his secondary submission was that the agreement reached between the Minister and the HEF be reflected in the Award. The TPSA would not accept the Government's proposition in any form. Decision On the evidence and submission presented to it by Mr Stevens the Commission is satisfied that a strong case has been made out for a substantial increase in the meal charges. After careful examination of Exhibit S6 we are satisfied that the estimated cost of a single meal was conservative and that factors tending to inflate the cost of a meal had been generously discounted. Having arrived at those conclusions, however, we are not prepared, at this stage, to remove the meal charges provisions from the Awards as little if any cogent evidence was put to us that would warrant such action being taken. This brings us now to the Minister's secondary position which was to include in the Awards a provision to cater for the following:
It was Mr Steven's submission that this was an agreed position between the Minister and the HEF however it was opposed by the TPSA. He said that it was the Minister's view that (a) the previously mentioned agreed charges were only an interim settlement and (b) it was his intention to ultimately achieve meal charges which represent full cost recovery. We consider that the agreement is defective in itself. It is based on the principle of capacity to pay in that it provides for an employee on a higher salary to pay more for the same meal compared with one who is on a lower salary. Many employees below the arbitrary salary line may well be able to afford the full meal price and many above the nominated salary line may not be able to afford it - all for subjective reasons. If the agreement was designed to assist those who could least afford to pay then our endorsement of the agreement would enshrine in the Awards the principle that the employer is prepared to subsidise the cost of the meal to certain groups of employees and this of course conflicts with the employer's stated intention. Secondly we believe it is an inappropriate method of assessing the employees' capacity to pay. Whilst recognising the Minister's secondary position is a compromise settlement with one of the parties to this application nevertheless for the reasons mentioned previously we are not prepared to endorse the agreement between the Minister and the HEF. In all the circumstances we therefore decide that the meal charge provisions in the Awards subject to this application will be increased on an interim basis only to the following:
Provided that a minimum charge of $1.60 from ($1.10) applies for each meal taken. In arriving at this conclusion we are of the opinion that although a prima facie case for an increase has been made out by the Minister, it's implementation needs to be given further consideration by the parties. In this context the Commission considers that the subject of this application would be more appropriately dealt with during the negotiations under the structural efficiency principle. Mention was made of this during the course of the hearing but it was not taken up by the parties other than the TPSA in any serious way. We are of the view that such a course would still be the most satisfactory and beneficial way of resolving the problem that needs to be overcome. Whilst on the one hand the Minister is justified in seeking to recoup the cost of meals (where they are provided) employees should also be able to purchase a basic meal of their choice at a minimum cost. Therefore during structural efficiency negotiations further consideration should be given to the following:
We also take this opportunity to refer the parties back into conference. Should there be no settlement of this issue during the course of structural efficiency negotiations then we would be prepared to further consider the meal charges in light of our finding that a prima facie case has been made out by the Minister's representative during the course of his application. The new interim charges will operate from the first full pay period to commence on or after 6 June 1990. The orders giving effect to this decision are attached.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||