IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

The two claims before us are couched in identical terms and both seek to vary the General Conditions of Service Award by inserting the following new provision in Clause 8:

"Q. Site Allowance

An employee who is required to perform work on any site in relation to which the Tasmanian Industrial Commission or the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has determined that a site allowance shall be paid shall receive such allowance for each hour of work performed on that site."

If we were unable to grant the claim in the terms sought, then as a secondary position, we were asked to give an "in-principle" decision supporting the concept of "white-collar" State employees receive a site allowance payment in appropriate circumstances.

We have some reservations concerning the giving of a "carte blanche" decision for the reason that it may be open to different interpretations and thereby be used to either deny an entitlement or confer an entitlement in circumstances which are entirely inappropriate.

However, as we understand the parties to this particular matter our general expression of opinion may help to overcome a situation which has already been preceded by amicable discussion.

In such an atmosphere we are prepared to offer what limited guidance we can.

We therefore indicate that where employees whose salary does not already take account of working conditions actually being encountered, then as a matter of equity, they should not be precluded from receiving the benefit of a properly arbitrated site allowance by reason merely of the fact that they are "white-collar" workers.

Our comments are qualified to the extent that we would think it may be appropriate to preclude from an entitlement employees who:

1) Do not physically encounter the disabilities concerned for any reason, such as:

(a) Working in an office on site and/or
(b) Travel around the site in an enclosed vehicle.

2) Visit such a site only very briefly from time to time.

3) Are provided with protective clothing and/or footwear adequate to substantially negate the conditions which would otherwise be encountered.

We emphasise that our general comments are no more than that, and are given in response to the request of the parties that we give an in-principle" decision. Any specific claims that may arise can only be judged by the Commission on all of the relevant circumstances prevailing at the time.

It is also proper that we point out that there can be no automatic flow of matters determined by another tribunal because of statutory limitations in this regard.

Given our response on this threshold point, we see a need for the parties to give further consideration to the question of processing site allowance claims.

We hope that, as intimated during the hearing, the parties may be able to arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement to overcome questions associated with this long standing problem.

In the event that our response, together with further discussions between the parties fails to produce a solution, then leave is reserved for further recourse to the Commission as presently constituted, either in formal session or in private conference.

Adjourned sine die.