T2399 T2467 T2469 T2470 T2471 T2472 T2474 T2475 T2476 T2477 T2478 T2479 T2480 T2481 T3200 T2508 T2653 T2654 T2655 T2656 T2657 T2511 T2605 T2504 T2506 T1844 T2264 T3625 - 15 May 1992
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Tasmanian Public Service Association (T.2467 of 1990) (T.2469 of 1990) (T.2470 of 1990) (T.2471 of 1990) (T.2472 of 1990) (T.2474 of 1990) (T.2475 of 1990) (T.2476 of 1990) (T.2477 of 1990) (T.2478 of 1990) (T.2479 of 1990) (T.2480 of 1990) (T.2481 of 1990) (T.3200 of 1991) Health Services Union of Australia, Tasmania No. 1 Branch (T.2653 of 1990) (T.2654 of 1990) (T.2655 of 1990) (T.2656 of 1990) (T.2657 of 1990) Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, Association of Professional Engineers and Scientists, Australia (T.2506 of 1990) Tasmanian Teachers Federation Secondary Colleges Staff Association Printing and Kindred Industries Union, Tasmanian Branch
Structural Efficiency Adjustment - State Wage Case (October 1989) - Public Sector Awards REASONS FOR DECISION [Previous Decision] At the close of report back proceedings on 30 April 1992, the Commission informed the parties that it needed an unequivocal commitment that they were prepared to adopt our decision of 29 November 1991, as we were not prepared to guide the parties through the implementation process contained in that decision if they were not committed to achieving its objectives. Thursday, 14 May 1992 was set aside for the purpose of hearing the responses of the parties. At that hearing, Mr. O'Brien, representing the TTLC and on behalf of those unions which are parties to the awards before the Commission in this matter, tendered an exhibit setting out the unions' response. This was as follows: "The unions are prepared to give a commitment to achieving the objectives of the November 1991 decision and seeking to work through any difficulties that may arise." Mr. Hanlon, for the Minister administering the Tasmanian State Service Act 1984, informed the Commission that in the Minister's opinion there was, amongst the unions, a level of dissatisfaction with the decision which was masked by the undertaking set out in Exhibit TTLC.9. That dissatisfaction, he said, would continue to surface in negotiations and would continue to frustrate the chances of achieving the objectives of the November 1991 decision. Mr. Hanlon submitted that the commitment was not unequivocal. He also pointed out that the unions had not demonstrated goodwill in the negotiations to date on fundamental public sector reforms, including conditions of employment and agency-specific matters. He claimed that the unions' primary concern was to achieve increases in wages and salaries only. This was to the exclusion of the completion of outstanding award restructuring issues. It was stated on behalf of the Minister that he was committed to achieving a cost neutral outcome from the award restructuring process, but was being frustrated by the lack of willingness by the unions to enter into genuine negotiations. The Minister was concerned by the unions' collective inability to embrace the need for workplace reform. Mr. Hanlon argued that not everything the employer wanted to negotiate with unions was available as a result of our decision. The Minister's public sector restructuring agenda extended beyond those matters contained in our decision and included issues which were not within the purview of the Commission. Given the foregoing, the Minister was unable to give an unequivocal commitment to the objectives of the November 1991 decision. Mr. Hanlon also submitted that the Minister might, in the public interest, decide to argue the Government's incapacity to meet the obligations of the model awards if, and when, made. Mr. Hanlon concluded his submission in the following manner: "I just say, Mr President, that the position of the Government is clear, so there's no doubt on anybody's part, that it's not prepared to give that unequivocal commitment to the decision. Its view that the award restructuring process seems destined to result in outcomes which do not satisfy the best interests of the Tasmanian community and which will certainly prejudice the ability of Government, as the employer, to continue to provide the services demanded by the community, and it is the Government's clear view that that process should be abandoned. If there is any other option then we're happy to take on board that option. I certainly have no instructions to consider any other. The hearing was convened for the purposes of responding to those matters raised on the last hearing, and certainly the views expressed at those hearings would lead no one to believe with any degree of certainty that the necessary elements to proceed with the process were there whether it be by arbitration, by negotiation, or a combination. The dissatisfaction was too clear and the experience since November certainly bring the Government to conclude the views in which it has." This submission was in total contrast to submissions made on behalf of the Minister in previous monitoring hearings when we were told that public sector conditions of employment and agency-specific negotiations were progressing satisfactorily. In particular on 30 March 1992 when Mr. Hanlon informed us that "the government is committed to progressing the range of matters which are contained in the November decision"1. It was not until the monitoring hearing on 30 April that difficulties with the implementation process were raised and then, in the main, by the unions. On that day we endorsed a proposal (Exhibit H27, with minor variation) put forward by the Minister's representative which, we were told, would enable the requirements of our decision to be met. The endorsement of the Government's preferred implementation process followed consideration of substantial argument from the unions that their implementation proposal should be adopted. We have considered the submissions of the parties and have arrived at the conclusion that we should not, at this stage, abandon the award restructuring process set out in our November 1991 decision. Whilst noting Mr. Hanlon's scepticism of the TTLC commitment, we intend to test the bona fides of that commitment which we have accepted in good faith. There are, however, some issues which continue to cause us concern. From what has been put to us, it appears that some unions have been pursuing award restructuring on the basis that they wish to gain, first, an understanding from the Government on the amount of wage or salary increase each current employee, or classification of employees, will receive before they engage in negotiations on conditions of employment and agency-specific matters. We note that the unions now acknowledge that the wage and salary rates contained in the four model awards will not commence to operate until the conditions of employment and agency-specific matters have been settled, the awards made in their entirety and, in any event, not before 1 December 1992. Therefore it should be obvious that it is in the interests of all the parties to enter into genuine negotiations on conditions of employment and agency-specific matters with a view to finalising those issues within the established time frame. We consider that it is in the public interest and in the interest of the Minister, employers and unions to grasp and develop the opportunities for fundamental workplace reform as envisaged by our November 1991 decision. This means that a fresh approach to work and work practices will have to be adopted by employees, their unions and the employer, in order to create the efficiencies and productivity gains which will best serve the interests of Tasmania and Tasmanians. Whilst we do not intend to arrest the job redesign and classification process which should be proceeding at this point, we direct the parties to commence immediately the processes outlined in Exhibit H27 dealing with agency-specific items and workplace reforms. The conditions of employment provisions as set out in Exhibit H27 will be varied to require the first draft to be provided to the unions by 15 July 1992. If the parties cannot exhibit a sufficient level of sophistication and purpose to work through the processes we have outlined, we can only wonder at the capacity of the parties to make a success of enterprise bargaining. At the next monitoring hearing, to be held on 17 June 1992, we will require a detailed report on progress to enable the Bench to assess the genuineness of the parties to the restructuring process and to the fundamental reform of public sector workplace attitudes and practices.
Appearances: Dateand Place of Hearing: 1 Transcript, p.1443 |