T2875 T2884 T2887 T2888
|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Secondary Colleges Staff Association Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984 Tasmanian Teachers Federation TEACHING SERVICE (TEACHING STAFF) AWARD
Hours of Work and Class Sizes - Teaching Service INTERIM DECISION There are four applications before us relating to the Teaching Service (Teaching Staff) Award.1 The first lodged was the application by the Secondary Colleges Staff Association (SCSA) seeking a new award provision to limit the number of teacher contact hours in secondary colleges to 15 per week for scheduled classroom teaching, with a further 3 hours, to make up a teacher's normal teaching load, devoted to scheduled electives, tutorials, pastoral care, and recreational activities involving teaching as distinct from supervision. Lesser contact hours would apply to Senior Masters and Assistant Principals. Where those hours are exceeded, excess payments in accordance with the Secondary College Standing Order No. 1 are claimed. Subsequently the Minister lodged an application to:
Then followed two applications by the Tasmanian Teachers Federation (TTF) seeking award provisions relating to:
During the course of the hearing the Minister was granted leave to have his application adjourned sine die. The TTF was granted leave to have those parts of Application T.2887 dealing with the question of parity in teacher contact hours, held over to a date to be fixed. Similarly leave was granted to hold over those parts of Application T.2888 proposing new formulae for determining class sizes. The Teaching Service (Teaching Staff) Award was granted Special Case status in Anomalies Conference proceedings(2) in mid 1990, and on 23 August 1990 a Full Bench of this Commission handed down a decision(3) granting the second structural efficiency adjustment as an interim measure, pending the finalisation of the Special Case. As part of those interim proceedings a number of structural efficiency measures were raised, including the contentious issues of the duration of the school year, transfer of teacher provisions, and conditions of employment which included such items as contact hours, class sizes and staffing arrangements generally. In respect of those last matters, the Full Bench, in its decision of 23 August 1990, said, in unequivocal terms, that those issues should be dealt with as part of the Special Case. The Full Bench made it clear that those contentious issues should be negotiated by the parties. It was also made clear that failing resolution of these issues, appropriately framed applications should be lodged with the Commission for determination. This was an integral and fundamental part of the Commission's decision. We were informed that since that time there had been no meaningful negotiations between the parties on these important issues. Indeed, the SCSA and the TTF alleged that the lack of consultation in relation to the outstanding issues in general and the Special Case in particular was entirely the fault of the Minister. The Minister asserted that all of the parties were fully aware of the need for action to be taken to meet the problems associated with -
and that there was substantial public debate culminating in a great deal of parliamentary lobbying on these matters immediately prior to the passage of the Appropriation Act. It was submitted that this high level of public debate and awareness should have left no one, particularly in the SCSA and the TTF, in doubt that some fundamental changes would be required for the 1991 school year. Regardless of who is to blame for the absence of any meaningful consultation, it is regrettable that such important issues have not been properly negotiated before this time. We were informed that the Minister, in the absence of any award provision, had made use of statutory powers available under the provisions of the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984, and the Education Act 1932, to unilaterally vary the long-standing interpretation of Standing Order No.1 of 1987 to increase the classroom teaching loads of secondary colleges teachers. We acknowledge the existence of those statutory powers, and, as required by Section 32(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, have had full regard for them. However, we seriously question the use of those powers given the decision of the Full Bench of 23 August that those issues should be negotiated and/or arbitrated as part of the Special Case proceedings. That neither of those courses occurred has given rise to a serious industrial dispute, including the imposition of certain bans and limitations. It is noted that the SCSA has since acceded to our request that they refrain from implementing those actions. In reaching our conclusions in this matter, we are cognisant of the difficulties confronting the Minister following the reduction in education funding for 1990/91. We also appreciate that the voluntary redundancies in teacher numbers - we were informed that some 550 teachers had been permitted to take up the Government's redundancy offer - will have a dramatic impact on previous staffing arrangements. Those reductions obviously impinge also on the Memorandum of Understanding (June 1989) regarding the Common Administrative Structure, which was one of the contentious issues set aside by the Commission in its decision of 23 August. Whilst the TTF is seeking to preserve this Memorandum of Understanding in these proceedings, we are of the view that this issue should be dealt with more appropriately when the wider questions of class sizes and future staffing formulae come before the Commission in proceedings to follow. With regard to the public interest, which the Commission is statutorily required to observe, but which the Minister specifically enjoined us to consider, we are of the opinion that it would be against the public interest, and certainly against the orderly conduct of industrial relations in this State, to permit any party to disregard decisions of the Commission in the manner which has occurred in this case. So far as the Wage Fixing Principles are concerned, we are of the view that the First Awards and Extensions to Existing Awards Principle permits the inclusion in the award of secondary colleges teaching hours provisions as they were in 1990. These provisions will be further considered by the Bench following merit submissions on all matters in the Special Case to which this application and all others before us in this matter have been joined. In all the circumstances therefore we have decided? to accede to the application by the SCSA, as amended, and we are prepared, on an interim basis, to vary the Teaching Service (Teaching Staff) Award by providing that:
This interim arrangement is to remain in place pending the completion of the Special Case. The parties should note clearly that this arrangement will conclude upon the finalisation of the Special Case proceedings and is without prejudice to the resolution of all matters. The parties are to prepare the necessary draft order to be settled by the Deputy President. The draft order is to be submitted no later than 1 February 1991. It will be formalised operative from the date of our decision, only in the case of a demonstrable need to do so. In that regard, our preference is to issue a comprehensive order incorporating all matters, in settlement of the Special Case. Finally, we feel compelled to say we are perplexed by the failure of the TTF and SCSA to follow up the declaration of the Special Case by the lodgment of applications detailing their claims. Accordingly, we require those organisations to finalise and lodge their Special Case applications no later than 15 March 1991 and to become involved immediately in the negotiation and, so far as is practicable, the settlement of all outstanding issues. We will expect to be kept advised of progress of those negotiations by way of a report back hearing on 18 February 1991.
Appearances: Date and Place of Hearings: (1) S132 |