TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council
(T12395 of 2005)
Private Sector Awards

Wage Rates - State Wage Case 2006 - application to vary private sector awards - Awards rates and wage related allowances to be increased by an amount equivalent to four percent - to increase the minimum wage to $503.80 per week - increase of rates of travelling allowances

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council (TTLC) has made application to the Commission pursuant to s.23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 (the Tasmanian Act) to:

"1. (i) increase all award rates and existing allowances relating to work or conditions, in private sector awards of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission, from a common operative date of, on and from the beginning of the first full pay period to commence on or after 1 August 2006 by an amount equal to four percent.

(ii) to increase the minimum wage that is payable to adults without regard to work performed to $503.80 per week;

(iii) obtain a special increase of rates of travelling allowances in all relevant awards;

(iv) to the extent necessary to effect these changes, amend the Principles of the Commission.

[2] The application was listed for hearing on 29 March, 2006. The TTLC was represented by Mr P Tullgren; Mr T Kleyn appeared on behalf of the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania Number 1 Branch (HSUA).

[3] Mr M Watson appeared on behalf of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TCCI); the Master Builders Association (MBA); the Tasmanian Sawmillers Industrial Association (TSIA); the Australian Retailers Association (Tasmanian Branch) (ARA) and the Metal Industry Association of Tasmania (MIA).

[4] Mr W Fitzgerald appeared on behalf of the Australian Mines and Metals Association Incorporated (AMMA).

[5] Mr K Rice appeared on behalf of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Employers Association (TFGEA).

[6] In accordance with s.27 of the Tasmanian Act the Tasmanian Minister for Industrial Relations (Tasmanian Minister) intervened in the proceedings.

[7] Leave was sought on behalf of the Commonwealth Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (Commonwealth Minister) pursuant to s.27(3) of the Tasmanian Act.

[8] The Commonwealth Minister advised the Registrar, by written notice dated 7 February, 2006, of his intention to seek leave to intervene in the proceedings.

[9] The Commonwealth Minister relied upon the following grounds:

"The Commonwealth is interested in the proceedings given the Australian Government's responsibility for management of the national economy, of which the Tasmanian economy is an important part.

The outcome of the application can affect the scope and incentive for agreement-making at the enterprise and workplace levels and consequently the scope to improve flexibility and productivity. This is a matter in which the Commonwealth has an important interest in view of its responsibility for overall economic management.

Any decision by the Commission in respect of employees not within the Commonwealth jurisdiction may be relevant to the determination of the AFPC later this year and, in turn, the AIRC.

The proceedings are also likely to affect the Commonwealth's workplace relations policy objectives and interests more generally with respect to minimum rates of pay. The Australian Government has major concerns about the potential inconsistency, uncertainty and confusion which may arise from a minimum rates determination made by the Commission. Such a determination may produce disharmony between the Tasmanian and federal workplace relations systems, and as well as potential disharmony between the systems of Tasmania and other States. For example, the rates determined by the Commission (which will continue to apply to non-federal system employees) may differ from those ultimately determined by the AFPC, AIRC and other state tribunals.

Following from the concerns outlined above, a decision by the Commission to adjust wage rates resulting from these proceedings would undermine the principal object of the WRA which includes `encouraging the pursuit of high employment, improved living standards, low inflation and international competitiveness through higher productivity and a flexible and fair labour market'; and `establishing and maintaining a simplified national system of workplace relations'."

[10] Leave to intervene was supported by the TCCI, AMMA and the TFGEA but was opposed by the TTLC and the Tasmanian Minister.

[11] Mr Amendola, for the Commonwealth Minister, submitted that applications for intervention had been dealt with in similar proceedings in Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. He said:

"The intervention that is sought is generally in respect of the proceedings. The reason I mention that is because as the bench may be aware the Minister has sought to intervene in respect of proceedings in Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. In each instance very specifically for the purpose of making an application for an adjournment. And in respect of each of those jurisdictions leave was granted to intervene, although on the substantive application it has been refused on each occasion. And in respect of any submissions that I might make I would seek to deal with those decisions and bring those decisions to the attention of the Commission. But in this instance it would be intervention more generally in respect of the proceedings as well as for the purpose of making an application for an adjournment."1

[12] In support of his application for intervention Mr Amendola referred to a decision of a Full Bench of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Sandwell Pty Ltd and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia [84 WAIG 727] (Sandwell) which addressed the issue of intervention by the Commonwealth Minister and how it is pertinent to the issue of establishing an interest sufficient to permit intervention.

[13] It was noted that the provision in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA Act) is in similar terms to s.27(3) of the Tasmanian Act. The decision in Sandwell found that the WA Act does not confer a right to intervene as a matter of course but at paragraph 17 found that:

"Such a right plainly exists under the Act to enable the Commonwealth Minister to take part in proceedings as an intervener where the Commonwealth has a sufficient interest in the outcome and/or matters of law which affect or might affect the Commonwealth, or matters of industrial relations which affect or might affect the Commonwealth, or, to pout it generally, where the Commonwealth has a legitimate and sufficient interest in the conduct and outcome of particular proceedings in this Commission."

[14] Further Mr Amendola submitted:

"As the Commission is aware late last year the Australian Parliament passed amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, which I can describe as the Work Choices Amendments perhaps for brevity. They were assented to on 14 December and the Act was proclaimed on Monday of this week and the effect of the legislation is, amongst other things, to create a body called the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC), which is to have the responsibility of determining rates of pay for employees within the federal system."2

[15] One of the major changes to occur with the enactment of the Work Choices amendments is a broadening of the ambit of the federal system inasmuch as employees of constitutional corporations are now, by law, part of the federal system.

[16] Mr Amendola said:

"So that the AFPC as a body that has been given the responsibility of setting and adjusting wage rates is more across the board that it was under the Workplace Relations Act. And we would say that that is the effect of it.

And for that reason we say that the Minister has an interest as does the Government - the Commonwealth Government in relation to the national economies and of course the various State economies are important parts of the national economy. And in that sense it has an interest in the outcome in this proceeding as it has in the other State proceedings. It has a particular interest that it would seek to enumerate in relation to the application it would further make today and that is that in order to maintain the history of a national consistent approach that has occurred at least over the last decade, that the AFPC ought to be permitted to make its determination which would then be a determination that could assist and inform this particular Commission as well as the other Commissions in terms of any decisions that it may make in relation to applications to increase rates of pay for those employees who would be covered by the jurisdiction of this Commission."3

[17] He continued:

"......because of the major legislative change it has brought about the necessity to have a serious look at what happens this year in terms of going forward as to how tribunals approach applications to increase minimum wages, but what we would say in reality is. It is merely a situation where one body has been replaced with another body which has certain parameters that it needs to apply in respect of the fixing of minimum wages and it would be our submission that the approach that has been applied by State tribunals across the board should be the way in which it should continue to be approached."4

[18] In general terms Mr Amendola's submission seeks that the Commission await a determination of the AFPC before considering the application before us. In other words where s.35(7) of the Tasmanian Act refers to a decision of the Australian Commission [Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC)], that reference be read to mean a determination of the AFPC.

[19] On behalf of the Commonwealth Minister Mr Amendola continued:

"We say that we are not suggesting that the State or the Commission has brought about the circumstances that we all find ourselves in now, we are not suggesting that, but with all due respect we would say so what. The legislation has been changed, it has brought about a different sort of situation, it doesn't mean that it ought not be sought to be addressed in the meantime and the fact of there being a constitutional challenge to the validity of the legislation, that is the mere fact of it, it is completely irrelevant to the decision the Commission has to make on intervention...."5

[20] We were referred to another decision of the WAIRC which granted intervention to the Commonwealth Minister in respect to an application by the Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia (TLCWA) for a 4% increase to all award rates and related allowances. [2006 WAIRC 03884]

[21] Mr Tullgren referred to the relevant provisions of the Tasmanian Act noting that any variation that may follow an application can only apply to employees whose conditions of employment are determined by the Commission. In respect to the present application he said that pursuant to ss 23 and 35 of the Tasmanian Act Unions Tasmania,

"has a prima facie right to have the application determined, the applicant seeks an operative date of 1 August, 2006, which is 12 months from the date of the last State wage increase, If the Commonwealth is granted leave to intervene and then if the Commonwealth's argument is then for an adjournment of these proceedings and that that was granted, then a fundamental aspect of the Union's claim would be prejudiced."6

[22] Mr Tullgren also said:

"The application to intervene and the application to adjourn these proceedings is nothing more than an attempt, we say, to achieve an outcome that could not be achieved through the parliamentary process. The Commonwealth seeks to stop the Commission from proceeding to hear and determine this application. Issues related to a simplified national system are not a basis for seeking intervention because the Commonwealth has no direct interest in these proceedings per se nor does it employ any one under the awards that are regulated by this Commission."7

[23] Mr Baker on behalf of the Tasmanian Minister supported the submission of Mr Tullgren in respect to the application for adjournment noting that,

"It is a little ironic that with the advent of new legislation that these proceedings ought to be adjourned on the basis of inconsistency - I am, sorry, intervention is sought on the grounds that any decision arising from these proceedings may give rise to some inconsistency of outcome, that is Australia wide as far as the decisions of the various State tribunals are concerned, As has been pointed out by Mr Tullgren that is not a decision that has been brought about by any action of this Commission nor of the State Government that oversights the legislation for industrial relations in the State."8

[24] The application to intervene was considered by reference to s.27(3) of the Tasmanian Act which provides:

"The Minister for the time being administering the Commonwealth Act may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, by giving to the Registrar written notice of his intention to do so, and with the leave of the Commission, intervene on behalf of the Commonwealth in any proceedings before the Commission in which that minister considers that the Commonwealth has a sufficient interest to warrant intervention."

[25] The Commission made the following ex tempore decision in respect to the application by the Commonwealth Minister for intervention:

"We propose to adopt a similar approach to that adopted by the Western Australian Industrial Commission. We reject the application to intervene on the basis of inconsistency. We express the general view that Work Choices is all about inconsistency. We grant leave to intervene as we recognize that the Commonwealth has the responsibility for the national economy, of which the Tasmanian economy is a part and that leave is limited to the argument to adjourn these proceedings."9

[26] The Tasmanian Act requires at s.35(7) that:

"Subject to this section, where a Full Bench is satisfied that, having regard to a decision of the Australian Commission that is applicable to the wages payable generally to employees who are subject to awards of the Australian Commission in Tasmania, a variation should be made to the wages payable generally to employees under awards of the Commission, the Full Bench may order that any such variation be made."

[27] The Tasmanian Act has been recently amended by the Industrial Relations Amendment (Fair Conditions) Act 2005, and now prescribes at s.35(10A):

"A Full Bench of the Commission must convene and conduct a hearing annually to determine the Tasmanian minimum wage specified in section 47AB." [our emphasis added]

[28] In respect to the Commonwealth Minister's application to adjourn these proceedings Mr Amendola said:

"We are not asking that the Commission not exercise the powers that are available to it under the legislation, it is just a matter of when, in our submission, we say the Commission ought to do so."10

[29] The application to adjourn these proceedings was supported by the TCCI and AMMA but was opposed by the TTLC and the Tasmanian Minister.

[30] And further Mr Amendola said:

"And the position we are advocating is one for the - that seeks to maintain a uniform approach in relation to wage fixing and which advocates the maintenance of the sort of co-operative scheme that has applied over a long period of time. There is no legislative mandate, if the Commission pleases, that has the Federal AIRC determine wage cases every year, but that is the way in which it has worked out. And other Commissions have taken the view that they should in a sense wait, see, look at and draw its own conclusions as to whether or not to follow such decisions and it is a sensible approach that has been applied throughout the country in relation to that.

And all that we are advocating is that rather than that body being the AIRC, upon which a State Wage Commission has regard to in terms of making its own decisions, that it should be the Australian Fair Pay Commission because as the Federal AIRC concluded when it adjourned its proceedings on 21 December at paragraph 10 of its decision it said:

`In light of these provisions we accept the Commonwealth submission that under the new arrangements the AFPC will be the body primarily responsible for the fixation of minimum wages for employees covered by the federal system.'11

Under this section the Commission will be obliged, among other things, to have regard to the principle that the wages of transitional employees should be competitive with the wages of employees covered by the wage setting functions of the AFPC. The Commission will also be required to have regard to the wage-setting decisions of the AFPC and any relevant economic statements by that body. In light of these provisions we accept the Commonwealth's submission that under the new arrangements the AFPC will be the body primarily responsible for the fixation of minimum wages for employees covered by the Federal system."12

"We would say that that is consistent that to sort of substitute one body for the other doesn't decry from approaching matters in a manner that tries to maintain a form of national consistency. And if one looks at, for example, the application that has been made by the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council that is before the Commission today, it is entirely consistent with an approach - in terms of an approach that is advocated by the Trades and Labor Council itself when one looks at paragraph 2 of its statement of particulars, and that is for the Commission to consider this matter as one desirable to be dealt with by way of joint proceedings with the industrial authorities in accordance with section 19(f) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984."13

[31] The claim in the TTLC application for joint proceedings pursuant to s.19(f) of the Tasmanian Act was abandoned according to Mr Tullgren. An amended application was provided to the Commission however the application pursuant to s.19(f) was not removed. However it would seem that that part of the TTLC application is no longer pursued.

[32] It is expected that the AFPC, according to indications from the Commonwealth Government, will make a decision by Spring 2006.

[33] Mr Amendola referred to decisions issued addressing similar applications which have been made by the Commonwealth Minister to other State tribunals. All of those tribunals have rejected the application by the Commonwealth Minister to adjourn their proceedings in respect to a State Wage case application.

[34] It was submitted on behalf of the Commonwealth Minister that:

"In terms of this tribunal, and we would say in respect of all the State tribunals , whilst they may not be obliged by virtue of the statute to take such a decision into account of the AFPC, it would nevertheless, given the statutory context of Work Choices and the position of the AFPC in respect of wage fixing, be a sensible thing to do. And one would think that the State Wage Tribunal would see it as being beneficial to be informed by the determination made by the AFPC, whether or not it chooses to ultimately follow them, whether or not it chooses to agree with them. Because of the work that it will necessarily do and have to do in terms of the tasks that the statute sets up for it ."14

[35] In response to the submission of the TTLC seeking an outcome by August 2006, or indicating a possible claim for retrospectivity otherwise some prejudice may follow, Mr Amendola submitted:

"And there are two things to which one can put in response to that and the first is that in a sense that whilst they brought an application and they have a statutory right to bring an application, the issue of prejudice in terms of a proceeding is not just that of the applicant but it is that of the parties and that in considering the issue of prejudice, in my submission, one needs to look beyond just merely the applicant wants, the applicant gets, the applicant seeks and there are other people who put up submissions in relation to that and when one balances prejudice one balances it within that context and the second is, that while we don't advocate it, there is the possibility that a decision could be made to have retrospective application."15

And further:

"However, we would say that, overwhelmingly when one looks at the public interest in respect of the approach that should be taken, something that maintains a sort of national approach and which has regard and takes the benefit of the work that the AFPC will have to do in coming to its conclusions, is an appropriate way to approach the matter. Now, your Honour, it will be no surprise to the members of the Bench that, you know, this application has been made in respect of all the State tribunals and has failed in respect of all the State tribunals. I am not sure whether you wish me to go to all of those decisions or whether you have got those decisions."16

[36] Mr Watson for TCCI supported the submissions made on behalf of the Commonwealth Minister. He provided a history of safety net reviews undertaken by this Commission acknowledging that there has only been one occasion when this Commission had departed from the decision of the AIRC. On that occasion agreement was reached between the parties to apply the increase determined by the AIRC but in two parts. He also noted that the last time this Commission determined by arbitration a State Wage Case it resulted in the same determination as the AIRC. He also relied on the decision of the AIRC [Print PR966840] which determined not to proceed with applications before it to increase rates of pay in various awards, stating that it, (the AIRC) was required by legislation to take into account any determination of the AFPC which will be the body "primarily responsible for the fixation of minimum wages of employees covered by the Federal system." The AIRC did note that it could proceed to hear the application in respect to transitional employees but declined to do so.

[37] This Commission is not required to take into account any determination of the AFPC.

[38] Mr Watson submitted that with the advent of the Work Choices legislation "the bulk of employers in Tasmania actually are covered by federal awards and agreements and there is a smaller percentage covered by State awards."17

[39] In respect to the provision of the Tasmanian Act requiring the Commission to conduct a hearing annually Mr Watson said that so long as the determination is made sometime during 2006 that provision would be satisfied.

[40] Mr Watson continued:

"In summary, our position, as I said at the beginning of the submission, is that the Commission should defer the hearing of this matter until the outcome of the Australian Fair Pay Commission's spring determination is known, on the basis of, one, the Commission's approach to safety net reviews at the State level since the Commission's inception, and the fact that it has religiously followed the Australian Industrial Relations Commission determinations. Two, those matters that I have taken you to in the State Wage Case Decision of 1999. We believe, particularly given that it will be a narrower majority of employees that would benefit from any determination this year, absent any national decision, that those arguments in fact would turn in our favour."18

[41] Employer members of the AMMA are all constitutional corporations according to Mr Fitzgerald and therefore any determination made by us would not affect those members. Nevertheless Mr Fitzgerald supported the submissions of both Mr Amendola and Mr Watson seeking that the application be adjourned until a determination by the AFPC.

[42] Mr Tullgren responded to the submissions seeking an adjournment by arguing that "...The absence of a national wage decision is no barrier to the Commission varying awards in the terms sought."19 He said that the "...provisions of the Tasmanian Act do not require this Commission to consider AFPC determinations or deliberations before determining Tasmanian wage cases." Further that ".....the decision of the AIRC to adjourn the application before it was brought about by the provisions of the Work Choices Act, this Commission does not encounter the legislative difficulties faced by the AIRC in December 2005. ...The decision of the AIRC is not a national wage decision as defined in s.35 of the Tasmanian Act."20

[43] Mr Baker on behalf of the Tasmanian Minister supported the submission of the TTLC, he referred to ss.47AA, 47AB and 35(10(a) of the Tasmanian Act submitting that:

"There is no requirement on the Commission to increase the minimum wage, but there is a requirement to review the minimum wage. Now it would be our submission that any review of the wage would take into account movements in various indices that are consistent with the right, or the obligation of the Commission to set the wage. ...We have addressed the issue in relation to concerns about differing wage outcomes, and as I indicated in my earlier comments before the Commission, that that is not the making of this Commission, nor of this government."21

[44] It was submitted by Mr Baker that "...we would strongly suggest to this Commission that, as I have indicated, that this Commission has an obligation to proceed to determine the matter that is before it, consistent with its own wage fixing guidelines, together with the obligations that are imposed upon it under the Act..."

[45] We reject the application by the Commonwealth Minister to adjourn the application before us in this matter.

[46] It is our view that the Tasmanian Act requires us at s.35(10A) to do two things:

[47] In considering an application before the New South Wales Industrial Commission (NSWIRC) to increase rates of pay in certain awards by 4% the Full bench noted that

"'A decision of the AFPC has no statutory relevance for this Commission and it is only a "National decision" of the Australian Commission that we are required to consider under s.50 of the Act."22

[48] Further the Full Bench of the NSWIRC determined:

"...Accordingly, we consider the balance of convenience lies in favour of dealing with the application by Unions NSW in a timely and orderly way, thus avoiding any injustice that might be caused by what would be an inordinate delay that ultimately may prove to have been unjustifiable." [[2006] NSWIRComm 67 at para 47]

[49] The WAIRC found that the application before it was not an application to give effect to a National Wage Case decision but was an application to increase award rates and allowances for awards of the WAIRC. As such the WAIRC had the jurisdiction and the power to deal with the application and refused the Commonwealth Minister's application to adjourn the proceedings.

[50] The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) found that the Industrial Relations Act 1999 [Queensland] contained a specific obligation that a general ruling about a minimum wage is made each calendar year. The QIRC had before it an application to increase award wage rates and allowances by 4%; not an application to flow on a decision of the AIRC. Accordingly the Full Bench rejected the application by the Commonwealth Minister to adjourn the matter.

[51] The same application to vary its awards by increasing wages and allowances by 4% was made to the Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia (IRCSA). In a Statement issued 27 February, 2006, the Full Bench said:

"On balance, we consider that we should not delay the hearing of this application until the outcome of the AFPC is known. The uncertainty as to its timing, the impact upon our ability to hear this application on its merits in a timely manner, the issues regarding the nature and relevance of any AFPC determination and the prima facie right to have the matter determined under the Act [Fair Work Act 1994 ] outweigh the benefit of potentially being informed by the AFPC outcome." [7603 of 2005 Statement at para 16]

[52] We agree with the findings of the other State tribunals that there is no National Wage Case decision before us for consideration. The December 2005 decision of the AIRC [PR 966840] is a procedural decision.

[53] There is some uncertainty as to the number of Tasmanian employees who would be subject to any determination we may make. We note that the application is only in respect to private sector awards . The Full Bench of this Commission in its decision in the 1999 State Wage Case commented that Tasmanian employees represent the highest number of employees who rely on the safety net increase for their wage movement. Mr Baker said that he was aware of a recent review, although he did clarify it as "not an accurate review," that indicated that some 46% of Tasmanian employees will not be subject to the Work Choices amendments as they are employed by unincorporated businesses. Further he said that over 50% of Tasmanian employers employ less than 5 employees.

[54] We place little reliance on the survey referred to by Mr Baker, which in any case was challenged by the TCCI, but we do acknowledge the uncontested comment of the Full Bench in the 1999 State Wage Case that Tasmania has the largest number of employees who rely on safety net increases. Further it is unclear as to the number of employees who will continue to be covered by awards of this Commission. According to the submissions in this matter, the number is somewhere between 10% and 46% of the workforce; it may well be higher, but there was no data provided to us in support of Mr Watson's assumptions or Mr Baker's survey result. Nevertheless we are of the view that the uncontested statement of a Full Bench of this Commission that a large number of employees in the State rely on safety net increases is a relevant consideration for us to take into account.

[55] Mr Watson's submission that as long as the Commission hears an application before the end of 2006 then s.35(10A) of the Tasmanian Act would be satisfied is rejected. Annually, in our view, means a 12 month period, not, as was submitted by Mr Watson, a period from August 2005 to the end of year 2006. We disagree that this could satisfy the requirement of s.35(10A) of the Act which requires that a Full bench "....must convene and conduct a hearing annually to determine the Tasmanian minimum wage ......" Accordingly we intend to hear and determine the application by the TTLC.

[56] It is our view that to do otherwise would be to ignore our statutory obligations.

[57] Further we consider it would be a serious injustice for those employees who remain under the jurisdiction of the Tasmanian Act, regardless of the number, not to have their claim heard, particularly as it would seem unchallenged that there is a high percentage of employees in Tasmania for whom a safety net increase is their only wage movement.

[58] It is only those employees who have not negotiated an agreement with their employer who will be subject to any increase that may flow from the application before us and are more than likely the only employees who have not received a wage movement since August, 2005. Further any determination of the AFPC will not apply to those employees anyway.

[59] We issue the following directions:

The applicant shall file in the Commission, marked attention Kerrie Parsons, and serve on all parties who have recorded an appearance in this matter, a comprehensive outline of submissions, witness statements and any other documents on which the applicant intends to rely by close of business 2 June 2006.

A party wishing to respond to the submissions of the applicant shall file in the Commission, marked attention Kerrie Parsons, and serve on the applicant a comprehensive response to the applicant's submission, witness statements and any other documents relied upon by close of business 16 June 2006.

The application will be listed for formal hearing at 9.30am on Wednesday 28 June 2006.

Advice as to any witnesses required for cross-examination, if relevant, should be provided by no later than close of business Friday 23 June, 2006.

P L Leary
PRESIDENT

Appearances:
Mr P Tullgren with Mr S Cocker for the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council
Mr T Kleyn for the Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No 1 Branch
Mr M Watson for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited
Mr W Fitzgerald for the Australian Mines and Metals Association (Incorporated)
Mr K Rice for the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Employers Association
Mr P Baker intervening on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Workplace Relations
Mr S Amendola intervening on behalf of the Commonwealth Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations

Date and place of hearing:
2006
March 29
Hobart

1 Transcript PN20-21
2 Transcript PN30
3 Supra 31-32
4 Supra 42
5 Transcript PN101
6 Supra 79
7 Supra 78
8 Supra 90
9 Transcript 107
10 Supra 115
11 Transcript PN119-121
12 AIRC Decision PR966840
13 Transcript PN122
14 Transcript PN141
15 Supra 150
16 Supra 152
17 Transcript PN192
18 Supra 265
19 Supra 292
20 Supra 370
21 PN370
22 State Wage Case 2006 [2006] NSWIRComm 67, para 45