Australian Council of Trade Unions - Queensland Branch v Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others; The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland v Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others [1996] QIRC 867 (1997) 154 QGIG 51

10 1997 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 51 QL'EENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELA TlONS COMMISSION Industrial Relatwns Acr 1990 s. 37 - application for general ruling Au,trnl!an Council of Trade Unions - Queensland ilrarn;h (Nr,, F/1687 of 1996) AND Toe Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland (No Bi 790 ofl996) AND Queensland Chamber of Commerc~ and Industry Limited, lndustrial Organisation of Employers and Others AFTEk~OON AND NIGHT SHIFf ALLOWANCES COMMlSS!ONERS BOUGOURE, BECHL Y AND SWAN 20 December .! 996 Generai Ruling - Afternoon and Night Shift Allowances - MaJority of employer organisations offered no objection - ASMA only objector to quanmm applicalions - Reference to previous cru,e history Reference to ca!cu!atcd increase Allowance increased !o $8 ,88 operative from 27 December 1996. DECISION The Australian Council of Trade Unions Queensiand Branch tACTlJQi and The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland IA\.VU) have each made separate applications for a General Ruling to increase the ,hift allowance (afternoon and nigh!) from the existing $8.60 per shin to $8.88 per shift The said shift allowance was last adjusted from 24July 199:, (149 QGIG 933). c,.mdusion of the hearing we announced that we would incrt:ase the aJtemoon anJ night shift allowance to $8.88 per shift effective from 27 December l 996 and issue brief formal reasons as soon as po8sible. We now issue those rea·:ons. Frn all relevant purposes both applicauons are identical in thlll each seeks mcrea.se hased on the mcrease in the Guaranteed Minimum Wage (GMW) since the last adjustment The applications are based on an increa,L in tl,e GMW froro $250 per week to $258 per week as from 6 May 1996. In making !heir applications, the applicants have adopted the reasoning of the Full Bench in its decision of 24 Juiy 1995. Mr CD, Casey (SDA) supported the applications. !n relation to employer orgamsations, Mr K Walker <RAQ), Ms S. Haire (MT!A), Mr C, Chadwick (MPDSA. RQBA and ADA} nnd Mr R. McPherson (QMEA) all supported the submissions made by Mr M. Patti (QCCI;, who in tum offered no opposition io the applications, bul sought an operative date of 27 December l 996, whereas the app!ica,iw sought an operative date of 23 December l 99fi. The oniy opposition to !he applications came from Mr R. Cullen (ASMA1. Mr Cullen submitted that the increase should be only L8%, Mr Cullen's submission was that the increase should be calculated by assessing the $8 SNA :n.:rease against the current C!O rate in the Engineering Award -State. We were informed that the current CJO rate is $441.40 per week. ',,fr Cullen submitted that an adjustment on the basis submitted by him would be consistcm with the method adopted by the Full Bench for the adjustment of allowances generally in the State Wage Case Decision of 24 October l995 (150 QG!G 1116). Mr Cullen also made a submission supported by Schedules and Graphs that to continue adjusting the shift allowam;e (afternoon and mghl) in the manner sought by the applicants would, over llme, resul.t in such allowance being increa<;ed disproportionately when compared to and le.ading hand allowruices adjusted in accordance Wllh the Stak Wage Decision of 24 October 199 5. That submission seems to as~ume that allowances t"l which reference was made, this of both sets of .nn1m,ss,on would continue the existing basis for adjustment. Of course, if some inappropriate imbalance occurs, this Commission would be at liberty to make appropriate changes. When the matter of afternoon and night shifi allowances was last before the Commission in l 995 !he same appiicants sought an increase of 31.9% based on the movement in the ClO rate between February 1988 and February 1995. 011 that occasion Mr S, Nance, who appeared for the ASMA, strongly submitted that much of the 31.9% figure should be discounted. He submiued that out of the increases granted between l 988 and l 995 only 8.5% should be applied to the afternoon and night shift :illowance. However, had we determined on that occasion lo base the increase on the C lO rate, it is probable that whilst some wage rise factors would have been discounted, we would have granted an increase in excess of the 8.5% proposed by Mr Nance and also r,0ssibly in excess of the flat rote actually granted by us. A, our decision of I0 July 1995 indicates, notwithstanding the suhmissiom: of Mr Nance and the applicants, on that occa,ion we were not persuaded to depan from the past practice in relation to the adjustment of the afternoon and night shift allowance. We therefore made an adJustment ol approximately 14.94%, effoctive from 24 July 1995 based on increases in the GMW since 1988 Whilst a different method of adjustment may have possible merit and legislative changes, which are imminent, may even necessitate a different method of adjustment in future, the submissions of Mr Cullen have not satisfied us that we should make a change in the method of adjustment at this time. We are fortified in that view by the support for the applications by all other parties before us. Furthennore, we are satisfied that the quantum of the relevant allowance achieved in the manner advocated by the applicants is reasonable under the existing circumstances. ln relation to the concern expressed by Mr Cullen that future increases granted in accordance with our decision will result in increases, which are m excess of those applied to other allowance~, we would only comment that the continued granting of percentage increases to any allowance may result in a distortion of the relevant allowance so that the allowance no longer truly compensates for the factors as originally intended. The allowance may ultimately become either too high or too low. Jn that situation we suggest occasions will arise when it becomes necessary to entirely reassess an allowance so that it is relevant to current circumstances and properly compensates employees in the manner intended In I.his particular case, for the rea,,,ons already outlined, we detennine that the afternoon and mght shift aliowances should be increased to $8 88 per shift We will make a General Ruling accordingly effective from 27 December 1996. The Commission orders accordingly, R.W. BOUGOURE, Commissioner. RE BECHL Y, Comm1sst011er. D.A. SW AN, Commissioner App,·aranrcs:- Ms K. Steenstrup for the Australian Council. of Trade Unions - Queensland Branch (ACTUQ). Mr D, D' Arey for The Australian Workers' Umon of Empioyees, Queensland / AWU\. Mr CD. Ca,,ey for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees (SDA) Mr M. Patti for rhe Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers /QCCI), Mr R. Walker for !he Retailers' Association of Queensland Limited, Union of Employers (RAQ), Ms S. Haire for the Metal Trades Industry A,sociation of Australia, Queensland Branch. Union of Employers (MTIA), l\1r R. Cullen for the Australian Sugar Milling Association, Queensland, Union of Employers (AS MAJ. Mr C Chadwick for the Master Painters, Decorators and Signwriters' Association of Queensiand, Union of Employers (MPDSA). the Royal 22220 l.DOC -- 1 of 2 -- "i2 QUEENSLA.!'.;D GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE Quecmland Bowls As,ocia!ion (RQBA) and rhe \cmalian Derctal Association (Quceo,land Branch) Union of Empmyen, (ADA). Mr R McPher,on fer the Quee11s!'.llld Motel Employers Asso~dicn. Industrial Organizati,:,n of Employern iQMEA). Operative Date: 27 December ! 996 Decision - Afternoon and Night Shift A!low:mc:e Released: 20 December 1996 10 January. 1997 -- 2 of 2 --