T5741 (3 January 1996)
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 State Public Services Federation Tasmania CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AWARD
Variation of awards - provisions re Supersession and Savings clause; classification standards; salaries for classification levels - matter adjourned REASONS FOR DECISION Application was made by the State Public Services Federation Tasmania (now the The Community and Public Sector Union (State Public Services Federation Tasmania) (the SPSFT) to vary the Clerical Employees Award (now the Administrative and Clerical Employees Award), the Scientific Officers Award, and the Technical Employees Award. The SPSFT sought to include in each of the three nominated awards a revised "Supersession and Savings" provision; new definitions to incorporate classification standards applicable to various classification levels; an amended scale of salaries applicable to each classification level; and some consequential amendments. In his opening address to us, Mr Vines said that the present matter primarily related back to a much earlier case which had been before another Full Bench of the Commission1, and the SPSFT said it was seeking to have the decision that was made on 29 November 1991 implemented as it related to the three awards presently nominated. It relied upon the earlier finding as to the merit of the three streams, the classification structure and the salaries then determined, but now updated to include subsequent increases which have had general application. The present case by the SPSFT was said to be justified on the following grounds:
Mr Vines said that whilst the earlier Full Bench dealing with the four streams case was not satisfied at that time that conditions of employment and productivity and efficiency criteria had been met, circumstances had now changed. In some considerable detail we were apprised of certain changes which were said to have occurred and to have impacted on the work of State employees. These were:
The Minister for Public Sector Management (the Minister) opposed the SPSFT claim. In this regard Mr Willingham, for the Minister, submitted that the type of changes relied upon by the SPSFT had not affected what employees did or how employees worked. He also said that in almost no circumstances had those changes affected the terms of employment or conditions of employment, and in almost no circumstances had they affected employees' security of employment. It was the position of the Minister also that the claim before us was flawed because it was based upon implementing something which had actually been dismissed by an earlier Full Bench; was inconsistent with the Commission's Wage Fixing Principles5; was inconsistent with the direction of agency-specific awards or agreements; and was in contravention with the SSWAG. In addition, the SPSFT was contemporaneously pursuing claims before the Australian Industrial Commission in respect of some of its members. Decision: For reasons of brevity and to meet the expectations of the parties, we have not seen the need to repeat the expansive arguments put to us. We see the issues as relatively uncomplicated. The Full Bench which dealt with the four streams case6 found that as part of the requirements of the structural efficiency principle, there was merit in creating appropriate relativities between different categories of workers within an award and establishing skill-related career paths which would provide an incentive for workers to continue to participate in skill formation. Because the present application is based upon the same detail relating to definitions, classification standards and salary relativities, we find no difficulty with that part of the proposal. The applicant has relied to a great extent upon changes made to the regulation of the State Service, as well as the fact that agency discussions and negotiations were ongoing but frustrating. Whilst we appreciate the impact that some of these changes may have had on the State Service, and that agency bargaining may not always be a simple exercise, we point out that as long ago as 29 November 1991 the Full Bench dealing with the four streams case said, under the heading of "Operative Date"7:-
It is incontestable that the changes sought then, if they were to be arbitrated by the Commission, had to be part of an indivisible package based on those underlined factors. We are not prepared, without the consent of the parties, to depart from the requirements established by that decision. In addition we have a statutory duty to be satisfied before making an award that it is consistent with the public interest (Section 36 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984), and in this regard we have been given an indication by the Minister of the cost of the claim if it were to be approved at this time. That cost is not insignificant. The type of changes provided to us to support the SPSFT case undoubtedly constitute improved management practices and to this extent represent some change. However, we are not persuaded that those changes are of the nature envisaged by the Bench to which earlier reference has been made and given the opposition of the Minister to the claim we are not prepared, unless there is some degree of consensus between the parties, to arbitrate the matter outside the guidelines already established. It is therefore our decision to adjourn this matter and we require the parties promptly to enter, once more, into constructive negotiations and to report progress to us at an early date. With the consent of the parties we would be prepared to assist in resolving any issues upon which the parties were unable to agree, but at the same time we believe it is pertinent to remind the parties of the responsibility placed upon them by the Commission's current Wage Fixing Principles which largely were put to the Commission as a document of consent between the Government, the major employers and the trade union movement. In this regard the introduction to the Principles reads:
We would expect the parties involved in this case to be able to make full use of those principles. We will reconvene the hearing at 11.00 a.m. on Tuesday, 16 January 1996, at which time we would expect details of any progress made in negotiations to be tabled.
Appearances: Dates and place of hearing: 1 T No. 2399 of 1990 and others |