Conference Following State Wage Cases B882 of 1999 and B888 of 1999 in relation to Principle 12 – Award Review [2000] QIRC 44 (2000) 164 QGIG 141

9 June, 2000 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 141 ######################################################################################################################## QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 130 – review of awards Conference Following State Wage Cases B882 of 1999 and B888 of 1999 in relation to Principle 12 – Award Review (Case B1733 of 1999) PRESIDENT HALL, COMMISSIONERS EDWARDS AND BECHLY 2 May 2000 REPORT ON DECISION (as edited) In giving a decision from the Bench on 2 May 2000, the Full Bench stated:– -- 1 of 3 -- 142 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 9 June, 2000 “Yes, because we have had the advantage of perusing the written submissions prior to the commencement of proceedings and because the areas of disagreement are within relatively short compass, we are of the view that we can deal with the matter this morning. The point of disagreement is whether the review process should commence with discussions amongst the members of a tripartite committee or should commence with a test case dealing with nominated Awards. In our view, both processes can be accommodated. In the case of the matters of discriminatory provisions, formatting in plain English, obsolete and outdated provisions, obsolete and outdated Awards, we consider that there would be advantage in a tripartite committee meeting under the chairmanship of a member of the Commission, to attempt to resolve a common process to be followed in dealing with those matters in relation to any particular Award. It must be plain that at the end of the day whatever the outcome of the discussions, in the case of any particular Award, the member of the Commission hearing the application to vary in accordance with the outcome of the discussions, would have to exercise his or her discretion as to whether the outcome was appropriate to that Award. Those organisations who wish to be part of the tripartite process are to communicate with the Registry within three weeks of today’s date. In the event that there is disputation as to who should be a member and who should not, or in the event that the group is too large to facilitate communication the Commission will convene to resolve the difficulty in membership. We consider also that the tripartite committee should examine the existing declarations of policy to ensure that those declarations of policy comply with the Act in its current form. We are of the view that the tripartite committee should report in this Courtroom no later than 31 July 2000. In the interim, arrangements will be made for the Industrial Registrar’s office to liaise with DETIR to provide details about the following matters in relation to all State Awards. 1. When the Award was last varied? 2. Has the Award been varied for safety net increases? 3. Was the Award reviewed under section 150 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990? 4. Does the Award contain dispute resolution procedures? 5. Does the Award contain facilitative provisions? 6. Does the Award contain provisions enabling the employment of regular part-time employees? 7. Does the Award contain support provisions for training arrangements? We leave open the date of completion of that exercise but once again would expect that it will be completed by 31 July 2000. In relation to the more difficult matters at sections 126 and 128, such as the matter of pay equity; the matter of secure, relevant and consistent wages and employment conditions; the matter of fair standards and the context of living standards generally prevailing in the community; the sort of provisions complying with section 126(h). We consider that it is likely that a tripartite working group would be able to reach agreement on either the process or the substance of the debate which should occur in relation to any particular Award in the review process. We do, however, think that a tripartite working group ought to be able to agree on a group of five Awards to be the subject of the test case. Once again, if the tripartite working group cannot agree on the five awards, the Commission will have to determine which five awards should be used. But in the interim, we consider that the tripartite working groups should once again try to reach agreement on that matter by 31 July 2000. At least one award should be from within the Public Sector. Commissioner Edwards will reconvene the Commission within the next 10 minutes to make arrangements about the first meeting date for the tripartite working parties. I would indicate that at least in the case of the discussions about formatting and plain English, it will be the intention of the Commission that an officer of the Registry would attend at the discussions. The reason for that is that things have moved on a little bit since the section 150 reviews. Some changes in formatting, particularly in relation to decisions, have occurred. There will be interest in making changes of format for awards, but for reasons totally unrelated to anything that the parties are likely to say, the reason for those changes have been because of the costs of preparing the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette and there are some costs factors. We do not, at this stage, propose to deal with the matter of waiving payment of fees. I propose to consult with the Registry’s administrative officer about the likely cost of the exercise. It seems to us that the appropriate way in which to deal with the matter, if it is dealt with at all, is not by way of purporting to waive compliance with a rule in a generality of unknown cases, but by simply amending the rule relating to fees to say that it does not apply to applications filed in the case of the award review. But a precursor to that would be a report about the likely cost. I notice that although the Crown estimated what the costs might be, they didn’t estimate on which side of the road the cost was to be borne. We adjourn the Court”. Dated this second day of May, 2000. By the Commission, [L.S.] P. SCOTT-HOLLAND, Acting Industrial Registrar. Appearances:– Mr D.R. Dawes for the Queensland Council of Unions. Mr J. Sharpe for The Australian Workers’ Union of Employees, Queensland. Ms J. Jeffery for the Queensland Nurses’ Union of Employees. Mr L. Gillespie for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees. Dr S. Winocur, with her Ms F. Bucknall for the Crown. Ms C. Doyle for Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mr G. Trost for Queensland Cane Growers' Association Union of Employers. Ms S.J. Booth for Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland. Mr J. Patti for the Australian Dental Association (Queensland Branch) Union of Employers, Child Care Industry Association of Queensland, the Consulting Surveyors Industrial Organisation of Employers, the Private Hospital Association of Queensland, the Royal Queensland Bowls Association, Queensland Community Service Employers Association, a number of meat companies, a number of employers in the pathology industry and security industry. Mr A. Rowe for the Queensland Hotels Association, Union of Employers. Mr G. Power for the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry -- 2 of 3 -- 9 June, 2000 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 143 Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers, the Local Government Association of Queensland (Incorporated), The Queensland Road Transport Association Industrial Association, and Australian Sugar Milling Association, Queensland, Union of Employers. Mr R. McPherson for Australian Industry Group, Industrial Organisation of Employers (Queensland). Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers. Mr R. Cullen for the Australian Sugar Milling Association, Queensland, Union of Employers. Mr K. Law for The Restaurant and Caterers Employers Association of Queensland Industrial Organisation of Employers. Released: 30 May 2000 ######################################################################################################################## -- 3 of 3 --