T5763
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 The Australian Workers' Union, Tasmania Branch Automotive Industries Award
Award variation - increase meal allowance provision - approved - not against public interest - operative ffpp 1.11.95 REASONS FOR DECISION This was an application made under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 by the Australian Workers' Union, Tasmania Branch (the Union) for variations to be made to a number of awards to increase to $13.10 the amount provided in each of those awards for a meal allowance, however described, (the allowance) on those occasions where employees are required to remain after ordinary hours and perform overtime work. The application was amended to apply to the following awards (the nominated awards):
The relevant paragraph of the Commission's guidelines under the Allowances Principle, relied on by the Union, read as follows: "Existing allowances which constitute a re-inbursement of expenses incurred may be adjusted from time to time where appropriate to reflect the relevant changes in the level of such expenses." The Union, with the aid of a number of exhibits adduced the following information:
The Union submitted that an increase in the meal allowance was warranted as meal costs had risen; some time had elapsed since the last general review had taken place and some variations in the allowance had occurred which had created anomalies. It was in the public interest the Union said, that an appropriate amount be reflected in the nominated awards. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Tasmanian Branch and Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union supported the application. The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ltd (the Chamber) opposed the application saying that the amount claimed was preposterous and against the Principles of the Commission. The Chamber submitted that the 1981 decision of the Deputy Chairman of Wages Boards, so much relied upon by the Union, really gave no reasons. The Chamber also submitted that it was not appropriate to seek a public service rate in private industry awards since in that area paid rates was the standard whereas in the private area minimum rates applied. In contrast to the Union's claim for a public service rate, the Chamber sought a method for determining the allowance so that increases could be settled more reasonably and consistently now and in the future. It was reasonable the Chamber said, for awards to be assessed individually in such matters as this, especially where there was only one employer involved; also, some other awards were closely tied to Federal Award counterparts. The Chamber did agree that reference to the CPI (the Weighted Average, 8 Capital Cities, Meals Out and Take Away Foods) was appropriate, but sought for it to be applied on the basis of commencing from the last increase to the allowance in each case and applying the intervening CPI increase. The Chamber then proceeded to apply its preferred formula to each of the nominated awards. This resulted in varying minor increases in each case. In addition the Chamber sought to have the Pasminco Rosebery (Mining) Award and Electrolytic Zinc Award struck out of the application because late advice from the Union had rendered some advice given to Pasminco incorrect and the Chamber wished to liaise further with the Company. The Chamber requested that the operative date for the increase, if any, ought to be from the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 November 1995, as employers generally needed to be advised as soon as possible due to the prospective nature of the allowance. The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Employers Association strongly supported the Chamber's submissions but nevertheless sought in particular, for the allowance provided in the Farming and Fruit Growing Award to be increased, if at all, by 2.8 percent only, because the allowance in that award had been set by consent between the parties from 13 March 1992, being the date the new award was made. It was argued therefore that that agreed amount should be taken as the base for any future increase. In its response the Union submitted that it was 14 years since the allowance had been fully reviewed and in that time the relevant CPI had increased by 130.8 percent, hence a review was necessary. As to the Farming and Fruit Growing Award the Union pointed out that the meal money amount had actually been transferred from the Agriculturists Award which had not been reviewed since 1981 other than for periodic minor adjustments. The Union also submitted that the Principles of the Commission clearly applied in this application. DECISION We are of the view that in this current application it is difficult to adopt any approach other than that taken by the Deputy Chairman in his 1981 decision; we consider that his decision was well reasoned and we adopt and confirm the following excerpts from it:- "Tea money, as variously described in awards of this Authority, was last made subject to a Common Rule Award following a hearing which was conducted on 18/10/79, and a decision was handed down on 8/11/79. In my view, such reviews ought to occur from time to time if the allowance prescribed is to be truly reflective of a proper standard, having regard for each of the indicators available. The frequency of such reviews must of necessity be dictated by the extent to which proper evidence can be collated to substantiate the mounting of a case. In this instance I am satisfied that a review is quite justified and that some increase to the current minimum figure of $3.00 per meal is warranted. It is undeniable that since the last review was conducted the cost of meals has risen as illustrated by the CPI (food group) and other criteria." and further, "Whilst it is proper to have regard for the quantum of `tea money' prescribed by other Tribunals, it is the responsibility of this Authority to make its own impartial and independent assessment based upon the total range of evidence available to it. By having regard to all of the relevant material placed before me and supported by the submissions I am brought to the conclusion that, as a minimum, the amount of $4.00 is now a fair and reasonable amount for `tea money' as variously described." In this matter we add the following comments:-
For all the foregoing reasons, we determine that the allowance as prescribed in all the nominated awards be increased to $9.25, representing a 130.8 percent increase (rounded to the nearest five cents) on the $4.00 determined by the Deputy Chairman of Wages Boards in 1981. This increase is within the relevant guidelines of the Commission and in our view is not against the public interest. In view of the basis for our decision it should be understood that we reject the submission that we should either set aside the Farming and Fruit Growing Award, the Pasminco Rosebery (Mining) Award and Electrolytic Zinc Award or review them in a different way. The amendments to the nominated awards reflecting this decision will operate from the first full pay period on or after 1 November 1995 and will be issued by the individual members of the Commission.
Appearances: Date and place of hearing: |