T567 and T570 (9 March 1987)
|
IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 See end of Decision for Awards varied
These applications by the Tasmanian Public Service Association and the Police Association of Tasmania seek an adjustment to the current maximum amount payable to State employees for recreation leave allowance. .Although only the General Conditions of Service and Police Awards are before us, the Commission has been asked to apply its decision to all relevant awards having a recreation leave allowance provision included within their framework. In prosecution of their respective claims the Police Association and the T.P.S.A. relied upon the history of the methodology that has been employed to adjust this allowance over the years. Reliance was also placed upon a recent decision of the Commission in Matter T.205 of 1985, in which C.P.I. movement was again accepted as a valid reason for adjustment of the allowance. In practical terms the claims before us, if granted would, by applying C.P.I. movement for the September and December 1985 quarters, together with March and June 1986 quarters (totalling 8.430 , elevate the present maximum permitted payment of $362 per annum to an amount of $393 per annum. The effect of this would be to extend the "cut-off" salary level upon which 17.5 percent of 4 weeks' pay could be attracted from approximately $26995 per annum to around $29230 per annum. The actual cut-off level can be determined by multiplying 29230 by 1.345 percent. This multiplier is arrived at by expressing as a percentage of annual salary 17.5 percent of 4 weeks' salary of any given amount up to $29,230 (approximately). Above that level the percentage on-cost naturally diminishes to the point where it represents only 0.54 percent of (say) a Grade 15B Head of Agency's salary. Neither the Minister for Public Administration nor the Commissioner for Police opposed the claims which, if granted and appiiea generally, would cost, we were told, between $80,000 and $85,000 per annum. However, Mr. Stevens made it clear that in not opposing the T.P.S.A. application, the controlling authority should not be seen to be supporting the philosophy of recreation leave allowance per se. In fact Mr. Stevens foreshadowed the likelihood of an application being made to specifically address the question of the method of adjustment to be employed in future having regard for the current uncertainty of wage indexation. This submission while clear enough on face value and as to intention, only serves to remind the Commission that the (then) Public Service Board with its wage fixing hat on in its decision of 4.8.831 refused to vary the recreation leave allowance provision. Instead it opted to "stand over for future consideration by all interested parties2 the entire question of recreation leave allowance including form and whether or not the award should, during its life, state the method by which the present allowance shall be adjusted". Fifteen months later, in an apparent volte-face, the Public Service Board of its own motion and without hearing any party or conducting any enquiry, further increased the recreation leave allowance in all awards affecting State employees. It appears that this somewhat curious state of affairs was not brought to the attention of the Full Bench of this Commission in Matter T.205 (ibid). That Bench, in good faith, further increased the maximum amount payable having regard for C.P.I. movements to June 1985. This Bench now finds itself in the position of, having suspended payment of existing recreation leave allowance for 12 months (due to the likely consequences of economic difficulties found to be bedevilling the State), being informed by the same employing authority who successfully prosecuted that case that it is prepared to agree to an upgrading of the maximum amount payable. Admittedly the agreed increase is of modest proportions. But paradoxically it is intended to apply only to those higher paid State employees who enjoy salaries above $26995 per annum. Moreover, while the cost of the agreed increase has been put at between $80,000 and $85,000 per annum in real terms, the net cash benefit to individuals will range from $1 per annum to a mere $12 per annum. From 45 to 56 percent of the overall cost will be a compulsory taxation deduction, and a further 5.5 percent will invariably go as mandatory RBF contributions. Although we can understand why the applications have been made by the employee organisations, we are none the less at a loss to understand why the upper-level wage and salary earners, being the only persons affected, have on this occasion been favoured in this way. After all, apart from eventual pension entitlements, the money amounts which flow from these applications are so paultry as to raise questions of triviality. Nevertheless in the circumstances we will allow the awards to be varied by agreement. Had we been required to arbitrate we would have required the parties to make submissions on the issues we have raised in this decision. As it stands we have decided to approve of the agreement reached, and we direct that all awards relating to State employees be similarly varied to reflect the new standard. However, should any controlling authority wish to be heard in relation to the award to which that authority is respondent, it may do so by initiating an appropriate application. Any such application should be lodged with the Commission no later than 31 March 1987. After that date and unless the Commission is persuaded otherwise by a non-consenting party, the following will apply: 1. The maximum recreation leave allowance payable shall be increased from $362 to $393 per annum; 2. The operative dates for the revised maximum shall be: (a) For those State employees employed in agencies wherein for all employees recreation leave allowance falls due on 1 October each year, the increased maximum shall apply from 1 October 1986; (b) For police officers the increases shall apply from 1 January 1987; (c) For hospital employees and employees subject to the various teaching awards whose leave now falls due on the anniversary of each employee's date of commencement, the revised limit shall apply from 1 January 1987; 3. The operation of recreation leave allowance has already been temporarily suspended in part until 31 August 1987. Having regard for the fact that the administrative cost of making retrospective adjustments to those otherwise entitled would far outweigh any monetary advantage to the individual, no retrospective adjustments will therefore be made. This will apply in circumstances where an employee has already been paid the residue of what he would have been paid but for the suspension order to which reference has been made. However, employees entitled to unencumbered recreation leave allowance subsequent to 1.10.86 shall be entitled to be paid the maximum prescribed by the award under which those employees are paid. For example, an employee who has already foregone one year's recreation leave allowance entitlement and who qualifies for another on or after 1 October 1986, shall be entitled to be paid therefor up to the maximum of $393. Likewise, an employee who has yet to forego a year's entitlement based upon a notional salary as at either 1.10.85, 31.12.85 or 1.1.86, shall forego only the difference between 17.5 percent of 4 weeks' salary calculated at these dates and the revised maximum as at 1.10.86 or 1.1.87. Subject to any applications being made seeking adjustment at variance with items 1 to 3 above, individual Commissioners will, of their own motion, vary those awards falling within their assignments in order to give effect to the foregoing. 1 P127, P128, P130, P131 of 1980 Awards Varied:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||