Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T10886 T10887 T10927 T10928



Industrial Relations Act 1984
s23 application for award or variation of award

Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council
(T10886 of 2003)
Private and Public Sector Awards

Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council
(T10887 of 2003)
Private Sector Awards

Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council
(T10927 of 2003)
Private and Public Sector Awards

Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council
(T10928 of 2003)
Private Sector Awards

See end of decision for awards varied


HOBART, 10 July 2003

Wage Rates - State Wage Case July 2003 - applications to vary private sector awards in a manner consistent with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission decision in Print PR002003 - Safety Net Review - Award rates increased by $17 per week up to and including $731.80, $15 per week in award rates above $731.80 per week - Wage related allowances increased by 3.24% - Meal allowances increased to $12.30 - Supported Wage increased to $60 per week - Operative date ffpp 1 August 2003 - State Minimum Wage determined at $448.40 - s.35(1)(b) - Model Reasonable Hours Clause approved - Awards will be varied on application.


[1] These are four applications by the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council (TTLC) to:

(1) T No.10886 of 2003 - vary all awards in accordance with the decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) "Working Hours Case" of July, 2002 [Print PR072002];

(2) T No.10887 of 2003 - vary private sector awards to (i) increase all award rates and existing allowances relating to work or conditions from a common operative date of on or after 1 August, 2003, and in accordance with the decision of the AIRC Safety Net Review of May, 2003 [Print PR002003]; to (ii) increase the minimum wage for adults to $448.40; and (iii) to the extent necessary amend the Principles of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission.

(3) T No.10927 of 2003 - to vary all awards containing the provision for a Supported Wage to increase the minimum amount payable from $56 to $60 from a common operative date of on or after 1 August, 2003, and in accord with the decision of the AIRC in Print PR 933936 of 4 July 2003.

(4) T No.10928 of 2003 - to vary all private sector awards containing a provision for Meal Allowance to increase the allowance from $11.90 to $12.30 from a common operative date of on or from 1 August, 2003.

T No.10887 of 2003:

[2] The application by the TTLC to reflect the decision of the AIRC in the Safety Net Review of May, 2003, was not opposed by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited (TCCI) or the Tasmanian Farmers' and Graziers' Employers Association (TFGEA).

[3] The decision of the AIRC determined:

"1. a $17 per week increase in award rates up to and including $731.80 per week; and

2. a $15 per week increase in award rates above $731.80 per week."1

[4] The following Memorandum of Understanding between the TTLC and the TCCI was tendered:

"1. Wage rates in private sector awards be increased by the safety net adjustment of $17.00 for wages up to and including $731.80 per week and $15.00 for wages above $731.80 per week including junior, apprentice and trainee rates (on a proportionate basis) as from the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 August 2003.

The safety net adjustment be reduced to the extent of any over award payment or EBA increase currently being paid by the employer.

2. Wage rates in private sector awards will only increase by the safety net adjustment as from the first full pay period on or after 1 August 2003 where:

  • existing wage rates have been varied to include the arbitrated safety net adjustment arising out of the August 2002 State Wage case, and
  • a period of 12 months has elapsed since the wage rates in the award were increased to reflect the safety net adjustment arising out of the August 2002 State Wage Case

In awards where the variation for a safety net adjustment arising from the August 1999, August 2000, August 2001, August 2002 and August 2003 State Wage Case decision is by consent and does not result in an increase in the wage rates actually paid to employees or increase the wage costs for any employer, any applicable 12 months' delay between variations may be waived.

3. Consequentially, the State Minimum Wage be increased by $17 to $448.40 per week.

4. Existing allowances relating to work or conditions be increased by 3.24% as from the first full pay period on or after 1 August 2003."

[5] The submission of Ms Fitzgerald, on behalf of the TTLC, addressed:

"...the ACTUs claim and the responses to it; the matters considered by the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and its decision on the claim; matters concerning the statement of principle; reasons why the Tasmanian Industrial Commission should flow-on this decision;"2

"With regard to past economic activity the Commission concluded that over the past year the Australian economy has continued to grow strongly, notwithstanding a moderation in growth resulting from the effects of the drought on rural production. The non-farm sector has continued to grow at 4 per cent per annum. Historically, high productivity growth has continued. Labour market performance has improved and private sector investment has been exceptionally strong. Nett export performance has been weak, ...

... in terms of sectoral considerations, the Commission indicated that it is recognised that safety net increases will impact differently on different sectors of the economy and on different enterprises and the likelihood of some adverse effect of award increases on some employers is a relevant consideration to be balanced within the range of considerations relevant to the determination of the claims before us. However, a broad assessment of employment data, including a focus on more heavily award reliant sectors, does not disclose any basis to suggest significant adverse employment effects of past safety net adjustments..."3

"As in the past, we argue that there are a number of valid reasons as to why the Tasmanian Commission should flow on the decision of the Federal Commission. With regard to past practice, or practice and precedent, it is appropriate to reiterate that on no one previous occasion since this Commission's introduction of the current regime of wage-fixing principles in 1985 has the Commission declined to flow on the quantum of wage increases awarded by the Federal national wage case, or safety net adjustment decisions."4

[6] With regard to the Tasmanian Economic considerations Ms Fitzgerald referred to an extract from the Budget Papers where it indicates in terms of past economic performance that:5

"Tasmania's recent economic performance has been characterised by:

  • improved rates of economic growth and solid growth in final demand;

  • sustained growth in overseas merchandise exports, to record levels;

  • higher levels of both full time and part time employment;

  • a modest reduction in unemployment; and

  • a return to population growth, primarily as a result of higher levels of interstate in-migration."

With regard to economic outlook

"Treasury expects that the Tasmanian economy will experience moderate economic growth in 2002/03. Growth is expected to be higher than forecast in the 2002-03 Budget (1.9 per cent), despite the generally negative external environment, including weakness in key global markets, the mainland drought and the uncertain geopolitical environment over the past year."

And concerning labour market:

"On current trends, employment is set to rise by around 0.9 per cent for 2002-03 in annual average terms, following an easing of 1.2 per cent in 2001-02. This equates to an expected increase of 4,400 jobs through the year to June 2003. Consistent with this rise in employment, the participation rate is expected to have increased from an average of 58.3 per cent in 2001-02 to an average of around 58.5 per cent in 2002-03, as more working age persons enter the job market with the confidence of finding work."

[7] Treasury forecasts for key economic indicators are found in the following table:

Table 2.3: Tasmanian Economic Aggregates and Forecasts

  2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
  Actual Estimate Forecast
 State economic activity (real, % change) 2 2.5 3.5
 Employment (year average, % change) (1.2) 0.9 2.2
 Level of employment (as at year end, trend, `000s) 198.2 202.6 205.8
 Labour force participation rate (year average, %) 58.3 58.5 59.2
 Unemployment rate (year average, %) 8.8 8.8 8.4
 Consumer price index (year average, % change) 2.1 2.9 2.3
 10 year Treasury bond rate (as at year end, %) 5.95 5.25 5.90
 Population (year average, % change) 0.14 0.25 0.30

[8] Ms Fitzgerald continued:

"In summary, there has not been any apparent adverse impact on employment of the past safety net adjustments and it is not anticipated that the increase being sought here today will have a detrimental impact on the level of employment in Tasmania. Rather, we would assert that the very, very moderate increase in award wages may, indeed, have some beneficial effect on the Tasmanian economy and perhaps facilitate employment growth. This is a view shared by the Tasmanian Government in its submission to the Federal Commission.


As I have previously indicated, the Commission in the past has accepted it would be wrong in terms of consistency, comity, equity and equal treatment for all Tasmanian workers to refuse to flow on the Federal decision in circumstances where, (1) State awards cover approximately 25 per cent of award workers covered in Tasmania; and (2) where there has been no employer objection to flow on the increases in Federal awards that apply in Tasmania. These arguments are valid today."6

[9] Mr Watson on behalf of the TCCI referred to a TCCI document which he said was a "comprehensive analysis of the Tasmanian economy as at March, 2003." That document stated:

"Tasmania's economic background changed dramatically during 2002.

Tasmanian businesses have enjoyed an extremely buoyant 2002 and the immediate economic outlook for the State is probably the strongest in the past several decades.

All key economic indicators improved during 2002. There now exists a growing perception that the Tasmanian economy is increasingly on track. It is not yet firing at the level that is possible but it is definitely making steady progress."7

[10] Mr Watson said:

"Section 36 of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the economy of Tasmania with particular reference to the level of employment. We again do have some concerns that if granted, the application of the $17 and the $15 per week will do little to improve Tasmania's labour market. However, we say that the $17, and to a lesser extent the $15 per week, is certainly at the absolute limit of what could be described as an affordable increase."8

"... Our decision to not oppose the increase, as I have said, has been taken on the basis of the current Tasmanian economy as a whole. Given the level of the increase, and we said the same last year, we would encourage the Commission to continue to encourage enterprise outcomes and also to remain vigilant to sectoral claims...9

[11] Mr Watson referred to the TCCI document which states:

"Tasmanians now have much to look forward to. TCCI believes that Tasmania is experiencing a period of sustained economic buoyancy.

The TCCI believes the plusses for our economy to include:

  • Significant capital investment on major infrastructure projects including the Basslink Development, Natural Gas and Wind Farm Generation.

  • A robust national economy clearly having a positive stimulatory effect on our State economy.

  • The introduction of two fast monohull ferries and the enormous impetus they are and will have on our State's tourism industry.

  • Extremely buoyant business confidence.

  • Expansionary and business friendly State Budgets.

  • Continuing improvement in the State's financial picture with the complete retiring of public debt now clearly in sight.

  • A low Australian dollar having helped Tasmanian exporters withstand a soft global environment.

Favourable seasonal conditions and prices for the State's primary industries.

However we must also be mindful of the challenges in which our State continues to face. These include:

  • Tasmanian businesses continue to suffer from an insurance climate that has seen both massive and exponential increases in their premiums or extreme difficulty in securing coverage.

  • Tasmania's labour market remains an area of concern. As is clearly evident this indicator is some distance away from significant recovery.

  • Tasmania's population in reality has only just recommenced growing and ongoing attention needs to be paid to our State's less than desirable demographic structure.

  • Corporate failures remind us that many areas of the State Economy are fragile and many businesses with substantial labour forces are not in a robust condition to withstand large shocks both external and internal.

  • A bearish global outlook at present including severe stock market uncertainty and the possibility of international conflict.

  • The pulling forward of demand in housing activity that has occurred following the First Home Owners and Builders Grants. Inevitably the State will have to withstand a tapering effect unless there is population growth.

  • We must ensure that the Reserve Bank pays sufficient attention to regional areas such as Tasmania in determining monetary policy. There is significant criticism that Tasmania's economic climate has suffered considerably due to interest rates set according to more robust mainland growth rates.

Despite these many challenges Tasmania's economy is set to continue its very encouraging progress.

Of course the silliest thing we could do in the wake of this good economic news would be to rest on this improvement and become complacent.

More needs to be done and we must all ensure the economic and business policy settings are squarely focused on maintaining Tasmania's growth momentum into the future.

TCCI suspects that Tasmania is on the cusp of a strong economic future if we can reinforce this promising news."10

[12] It was submitted on behalf of the Minister for Industrial Relations that:

"...The position of the State Government in these proceedings is one of full support to the application made by the Trades and Labour Council. We are again heartened by the level of consensus which has emerged between the Council and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry as to the terms of settlement of the application, which are expressed in the memorandum of understanding contained within the TTLC exhibit.

The Government's position of support has been influenced by (1) the position that it adopted in the Federal proceedings; (2) the outcome of those proceedings; (3) local economic considerations; and (4) the position of the peak organisations."11

"...In his budget speech of 22 May, the Treasurer, Dr Crean, stated at the outset that the budget was being delivered in the context of, and I quote:

Record jobs, record private investment, record building and construction activity, record tourist numbers and because of these records historic levels of demand, Tasmanian goods and services."12

The AIRC "decision to award increases in award rates in the minimum wage was borne of their view that...

`The Australian economy can afford further reasonable improvements in the safety net of minimum wages of the level we determine in this decision.'

In the application before this Commission we submit that the current and forecast economic circumstances of the State are not in any way so demonstrably different from that prevailing nationally, as to warrant an outcome in any way distinct from the national decision. Notions of equity and fairness will be well served by granting of the application...

Thus, in the absence of evidence, the safety net wage increases past, or present, have had, or are likely to have a detrimental effect on employment and unemployment. The provisions of section 36 to which the bench must have regard are not offended by the application, in our submission. We submit that the Commission give effect to the terms of the application and in so doing ensure the continuing relevance of principle 4, the award safety net."13

[13] We advised the parties that we would grant the application sought by the TTLC and we are of the view that in doing so the public interest requirements of s.36 of the Act are satisfied. Accordingly awards will be varied in terms consistent with the MOU referred to above to take effect from the first pay period on or after 1 August, 2003.

T No.10928 of 2003:

[14] This application seeks to vary awards which currently provide a meal allowance of $11.90 by increasing the allowance to $12.30 effective from the first pay period on or after 1 August, 2003. The increase represents the movement in the CPI, March, 2002, to March, 2003 and is not opposed.

[15] We noted in our decision of 11 July, 2002, which considered a number of similar applications by the TTLC that "we believe it to be more efficient and effective to review this allowance at the same time as the State Wage Case hearing." We grant this application and are satisfied that it is consistent with the Wage Fixing Principles and the methodology previously adopted by this Commission.

[16] The Building Trades Award and the Building and Construction Industry Award will be referred to Commissioner Abey for separate consideration.

T No.10927 of 2003:

[17] This application seeks to increase the Supported Wage, in awards where it is prescribed, in the same terms as any increase granted by the AIRC. The application was not opposed. At the date of hearing this application the AIRC had not heard and determined the application before it. We agreed to grant the increase sought conditional upon the AIRC determining the same increase. A decision was issued by the AIRC on 4 July, 2003 [Print PR933936] which increased the supported wage from $56 to $60 per week. Accordingly awards of this Commission which include a Supported Wage provision of $56 will be varied to increase the amount to $60 per week effective from the first pay period on or after 1 August, 2003.

T No.10886 of 2003:

[18] The TTLC seeks by this application to insert in awards of this Commission the `model' clause found in the decision of the AIRC in Print PR072002. That decision considered, amongst other things, a claim by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to vary a number of awards "to insert in them as a test case standard provisions relating to hours of work."

[19] The application is not opposed.

[20] Ms Fitzgerald submitted that "The ACTU's claim in their reasonable hours test case was to establish an award benchmark for determining reasonable hours however they may be configured." She referred to the AIRC decision which outlined the ACTU claim as follows:

"In outline, the ACTU's case in favour of its claim for a test case standard is:

(1) there is a problem with working time in Australia;

(2) a large number of Australian non-managerial award employees work long hours;

(3) this number is increasing;

(4) this number is relatively greater than in all but one other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country;

(5) other countries have successfully regulated long hours;

(6) the CEPU (Electrical Trades Division (ETU)) in the Victorian construction industry has successfully regulated long hours;

(7) hours of work may be unreasonable, not only because of their length, but also for other reasons;

(8) long or unreasonable hours have deleterious effects on employees, their families, their communities and the public;

(9) the present regulatory framework is making things worse;

(10) the Commission has, in the past, appropriately regulated hours of work;

(11) the costs of the claim do not warrant refusing it;

(12) the subclauses claimed are allowable; and

(13) the subclauses claimed are appropriate to be awarded as a test case standard."14

[21] The AIRC considered a number of studies, surveys and reports about working hours. It said:

"The relationship between working hours and family and community life is complex. In some cases, earnings from longer working hours relieve the stress resulting from financial difficulties. In other cases, long working hours have negative consequences. Whether negative consequences occur often depends on a range of factors such as the extent of an employee's family responsibilities and his or her engagement in community activities."

[22] Further the AIRC said:

The relationship between extended hours of work and productivity is complex. It can depend on how one measures productivity. In some circumstances, the direct cost of hiring additional employees to relieve workload pressure may be greater than the cost of having existing employees work for longer periods, at overtime rates. Employing additional employees usually entails extra training and administration costs. There is also some evidence to suggest that a payroll tax based on the number of employees, rather than hours worked, is more likely to increase the incentive to keep employee numbers down but hours up

[23] The AIRC determined:

We have decided to award a test case provision of a more limited kind than that sought by the ACTU. The evidence satisfies us that there are problems that occur when employees are required to work long hours. Long hours of work can adversely affect the health and safety of employees and have a negative impact on their family and community life. Whether any of these effects occurs depends upon things such as the nature of the job, the timing and duration of work and non-work periods and the arrangement of working hours. The evidence suggests that a number of highly variable personal factors may also be significant, including the employee's non-work activities. Long hours will generally arise when the working of overtime is required. Award provisions requiring an employee to work reasonable overtime are common. The ACTU submitted that, by implication, an employee has a right to refuse to work unreasonable overtime. In our view, it is appropriate to award a test case standard which will confer a right on an employee to refuse to work overtime in circumstances where the working of such overtime would result in the employee working unreasonable hours. It will permit the employee's ordinary hours to be taken into account in deciding whether overtime is unreasonable, but the right of refusal it confers will only operate in relation to overtime.

In our opinion, it is desirable that the test case provision should provide some guidance to the parties on the matters which should be taken into account in deciding whether the working of overtime would result in an employee working unreasonable hours. We have considered whether the factors listed in subclause 1 of the ACTU's claim should be included. We have already indicated that the absence of any factors referable to the circumstances of the employer is a serious defect in the ACTU list. We shall include reference to the circumstances of the employer. We are also conscious that the provision must be capable of application to a broad range of situations. For that reason we think it is preferable to deal with matters on a general level rather than to attempt to list every factor which might possibly be relevant. We do not intend that the provision should, as a general rule, be applied so as to interfere with rostered overtime particularly when the roster has been agreed in advance. Partly for that reason we shall include reference to the amount of notice (if any) which has been given of the requirement to work overtime and to the amount of notice (if any) given by the employee of the intention to refuse the overtime. The provision is only intended to be included in awards that specify ordinary time and provide for overtime. It will include a reference to the well established right of an employer to require an employee to work reasonable overtime. The provision we have decided on is the following:

1.1 Subject to clause 1.2 an employer may require an employee to work reasonable overtime at overtime rates.

1.2 An employee may refuse to work overtime in circumstances where the working of such overtime would result in the employee working hours which are unreasonable having regard to:

1.2.1 any risk to employee health and safety;

1.2.2 the employee's personal circumstances including any family responsibilities;

1.2.3 the needs of the workplace or enterprise;

1.2.4 the notice (if any) given by the employer of the overtime and by the employee of his or her intention to refuse it; and

1.2.5 any other relevant matter.

An employee's right to refuse to work overtime in circumstances where the working of such overtime would result in the employee working unreasonable hours is implicit in the existing award provisions dealing with the obligation to work reasonable overtime. But we think that there are a number of advantages in making such a right explicit and moreover the evidence before us supports the creation of an award right of the type we have determined. The provision of an explicit right to refuse to work overtime in the circumstances specified will provide employees with a firmer basis upon which to refuse to work unreasonable overtime. In this context the ANOP Study recounts that some of the employees in the focus groups expressed the view that providing employees with the right to say no to working overtime was a positive step.

The creation of an explicit right also has the advantage of providing an opportunity for overtime issues to be raised at an early stage. Any issues about the appropriateness of the exercise of such a right can be quickly determined through the dispute settlement mechanism in the relevant award. A weakness in the current reasonable overtime provisions is that an employer may be found to be in breach of the provision some time after the working of the overtime in question. The new award right will provide the potential for greater certainty for both employers and employees.

[24] Ms Fitzgerald submitted further:

"And as to why the Tasmanian Commission should adopt the principle and endorse the model clause, section 35(1) gives the Commission the power to deal with the matter of this application. The application does not offend the wage-fixing principles. It does not extend the safety net. It is in the public interest as it addresses both the needs of employees with respect to occupational health and safety matters, personal circumstances, including family responsibilities and any other relevant matter, and the needs of the workplace, or the enterprise, and Federal awards that have application in this jurisdiction have, indeed, been varied to include this clause - to incorporate this clause..."15

[25] The TCCI and the TFGA did not oppose the application. TCCI said it reflected a "national test case decision."

[26] Mr Pearce representing the Minister for Industrial Relations said:

"...On behalf of the Minister for Industrial Relations it is submitted that the Government lends its in-principle support for the submissions of the Trades and Labour Council, the purpose of which is to persuade this bench to endorse the model clause prescribed in the application. I note the matter is one of consent between the peak organisation. Once again, this is a most welcome outcome."16

[27] We have endorsed the position of the parties in respect to this application. Awards will be varied to insert the following `model' clause by separate application for each award.

"Requirement to work reasonable overtime

1.1 Subject to clause 1.2 an employer may require an employee to work reasonable overtime at overtime rates.

1.2 An employee may refuse to work overtime in circumstances where the working of such overtime would result in the employee working hours which are unreasonable having regard to:

1.2.1 any risk to employee health and safety;

1.2.2 the employee's personal circumstances including any family responsibilities;

1.2.3 the needs of the workplace or enterprise;

1.2.4 the notice (if any) given by the employer of the overtime and by the employee of his or her intention to refuse it; and

1.2.5 any other relevant matter."

[28] The Commission's Wage Fixing Principles have been amended where necessary to reflect the terms of this decision.

[29] Members of the Commission will issue orders in their respective areas of responsibility to give effect to this decision.


P L Leary

Ms L Fitzgerald for the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council
Mr P Tullgren for the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - Tasmanian Branch
Mr T Kleyn for the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No 1 Branch
Mr I Paterson for the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical & Services Union
Mr P Griffin for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Tasmanian Branch
Mr M Watson for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ltd
Ms B Roney for the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association
Mr T Pearce intervening on behalf of the Minister for Industrial Relations (T10887 and T10886)
Mr T Pearce for the Minister administering the State Service Act (T10886 and T10927)

Date and place of hearing:
July 1

1 AIRC Decision PR002003
2 Transcript PN20
3 Transcript PN 25 - 26
4 Transcript PN82
5 Exhibit A1 Budget Overview 2003-04
6 Transcript PN 116 - 118
7 Exhibit TCCI1
8 Transcript PN146
9 Transcript PN160
10 Exhibit TCCI1
11 Transcript PN196 - 197
12 Transcript PN202 - 203
13 Transcript PN 207 - 210
14 AIRC Decision PR072002
15 Transcript PN423
16 Transcript PN452

Awards Varied:
Aerated Waters
Architects (Private Industry)
Australian Cement Holdings Enterprise
Automotive Industries and Correction (11.8.2003) and Correction (5.9.200)
Baking Industry
Barristers and Solicitors
Bootmakers and Correction Order
Broadcasting and Television
Building and Construction Industry and Correction Order
Building Trades
Business Services and Correction Order
Butter and Cheesemakers
Catholic Education and Correction Order
Child Care and Childrens Services
Clay and Mud Products
Cleaning and Property Services and Correction Order
Clerical and Administrative Employees (Private Sector)
Clothing Industry
Community and Health Services (Public Sector)
Community Services
Concrete Products
Custodial Officers
Dairy Processing and Correction Order
Dental Employees
Disability Service Providers
Draughting and Technical Officers (Private Industry)
Electrical/Electronic Trades (Public Sector)
Estate Agents
Farming and Fruit Growing
Fibreglass and Plastics and Correction Order
Fish, Aquaculture and Marine Products
Fuel Merchants and Correction (23.7.2003) and Correction (25.7.2003)
Furnishing Trades
General Conditions of Employment
Governor of Tasmania Staff
Health and Fitness Centres
Hotels, Resorts, Hospitality and Motels
Ice Cream Makers
Independent Schools (Non-Teaching) Staff and Correction Order
Independent Schools (Teachers) Tasmania
Laundry and Dry Cleaning
Leather, Canvas and Sheet Plastic Fabrication
Licensed Clubs
Meat Processing Industry
Meat Retailing
Medical Diagnostic Services (Private Sector)
Medical Practitioners (Private Sector)
Metal and Engineering Industry
Metal Trades (State Employees)
Miscellaneous Workers
Miscellaneous Workers (Public Sector)
Mobile Crane Hire and Correction (15.9.2003) and Correction (13.10.2003)
Monumental Masons and Correction Order
National Training Wage (Tasmanian Private Sector)
North West Water Authority Enterprise
Nursing Homes
Optical Industries
Parliamentary Staff
Photographic Industry
Plant Nurseries
Port Arthur Authority
Printing Authority of Tasmania
Professional Engineers and Scientists (Private Industry) and Correction Order
Public Accountants
Public Vehicles
Quarrying and Lime Processing
Restaurant Keepers
Retail Pharmacy
Retail Trades
Rubber Trades
Security Industry
Shearing Industry
Shellfish Industry
Silviculture and Afforestation
Southern Regional Cemetery Trust Staff
Surveyors (Private Industry)
Tasmanian Ambulance Service
Timber Merchants
Totalizator Agency
Transport Workers General
Veterinary Services
Wholesale Pharmaceutical
Wholesale Plant Bakeries
Wholesale Trades