Australian Council of Trade Unions - Queensland Branch v The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland [1995] QIRC 552 (1995) 150 QGIG 1116

ZETTE l3 ~owrnber, 1995 GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GA QUEENSLAND - ----· __._______ 1116 --------- ####################################################### QCEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION s. 3 7 s. 38 industrial Relations Act 1990 . k .n advanc" or the hearing to the adjustment arc nown I . . .., d ts and to the Comm1ss10n. respon en. . . i this course of action we emphasise that ~e In dec1dmg upo1 • hi d afctv net adjustment. Vv e have not abandoned the _t .r / ·1 t~ allow it to he more have deferred cons1derat10~ o i. ~ t ·t nf prevailing . - . d red m the -.,on ex • ~ appropriately cons1 ~· conditions:' (p. 326 ) a lication for declaration of a general rulm~ ~;plication for declaration of a statement ot policy re safety net wage ad1ustment Australian Council of Trade Unions . . . - . , us are in response to these The two apphcat10n:,, before '., f the third $8 arbitrated I dd.tion to the (Trant11,g o . h Queensland Branch statements. n a I ."" . .. ght ·1 number of ot er • d. t t the apphcattons :-.ou < d) safety net a JUS men ' . ·1 1· 1· adc llnions (Qucenslan (No. B 1268 of i 995) Th A "trahan Counc1 o r • f outcomes. e ~s , Th \ ·tralian Workers· Umon ° (ACTllQ) applicat10n and that by e' ~1s tl fo'lowing identieai •u · 11 of Fmployees. l d (AWU) are m .1e 1 , Employees, Queens an . The Australian Workers nm " terms:- Queensland (;\o. B136'."o(I995) AND ·I d Confederation of Industry Limited, Queens an Union of Employers and Others STATE WAGE CASE , ARDS FISHFR BECHLY COMMISSIONERS EDW ' • , ' 24 October 1995 . . . $8 Arbitrated Safety Net Adjust~1ent State Wage Decision -~hm:I M del Clause - Section 150 RcvJCWS Lapse Period A~sorpt1on de~ Guaranteed Minimum Wage Subprinciple 1:orm of Orf F . t ng Stage Wage Principles Allmvanccs l:xtens1on o ,x1s l Principles. DECISION <l - : of 20 December 1994 ( 14_8 h St te Wa(Tc Case ec1s1on --- . d $8 In t e ,. a . ,,., 1 ,<l· c ·d consideration of the thir per C, 320) the Full Bene 1 e1errc . . QGl J • - r tment saving the followmg.- wcek arbitrated sa1ety net aqus • " . . . of the third $8 per week safety net adjustment a: lhe issue d I I has proven to be a more l t •se and awar eve bot 1 en erpn. • i\.CTC(Q) and the AWU urge us to difficult one. Both the , h . J tl. - inatter To do so would IRC ' proac 111 11s • adopt the A 5 ap , for man)' employers .d d' t bihtv of wage outcomes • provi c pre ic a . • d MTIA contend that availability ot and employees •. ()~I an . ros ective time is risky despite a third mcrease at :,uch a p p . . ,k· to challenge h, AIRC's allowance for appltcat,ons see mg .. . . -- t e . b made prior to the third mcre,1:>e the third ad_1ustmcnt to e becoming available. . i. w the risks associated vvith As flagged ~bove tn tou~ , ;e 12 months hence and thus dec1dmg an mcrease •0 PP ) . d 'd d e do not . • ks we have ec1 e Vv raising expectations are ns d , is to defer . k Our preferre approacn wish to _ta c.. . - er week safetv net adjustment consiclerat10n ot the thmlb$8 p\99- 5 ·1·11·1<; is ·one month prior · r th Octo er • - • until no ear ier a~ , he enterprise level assuming we to its becommg av ailahlc at t . d nined by the had proceeded to mirror the timescales_ . eten J\IRC in its September 1994 Review dec1s1on. f tl applications relating to We therefore adjourn that partt o Ra1tehor than simplv relisting • d • t t ad· ustmen " ' - the thir sa1e y ne -' • A 1· ts at the re\,.vant h , uest of the t\.PP ican ~ the matter at t c n.:q , •·cations be filed so that . . , ·Id refer that new app11 , time we wm, P • , . ·h· l th, applicants f f' ts ano issues upon v. ic 1 e the statement o dC • . f the third safety net would rely to support the grantmg o RELIEI<' sorGHT: ~tatem~J Policy . • State n' age Case , f the ex1st111g "" l The re-endorsement o . b l 1995) to Julv L • c ·rv on Novem er , - Principles (due ior expi - 1996. with ,some consequential amendments. _ , . , . State Wage Case Principles 2. The amendment of the 1:xtstmg , D . . - of December ~ h St t Wage Case ec1s1011 generated trom t e a c 1- •I , vment of a QGIG 320) to accommodate or L 1c pa_ 1994 (148 . , d. •t ent (third) S8.00 per week satety net a JUS m • . . ·t· State wage Case Principles 'I'l , dmcnt ot the exts mg • • 3. 1e amen . . . r i\.llowances and Service . - 1 1 2 3 (h) (Ad1ustment o , h Pnnc1p e - • • , . • d r . an adjustment to sue Increments) to accomrno ate ot " • l f 9 9%. allowances and service mcrements to a kve o • G~neral Rulin~ . . r ll wances paid for afternoon and 4. The adjustment of flat sh1/ at~ $8 90 per shitt to $8.90 per night shifts from a rate e!; . ~~ . \1a 6 I 996. shift (an adjustment of 3.2 io) as c I - y , -..,1- • Wane for adult f the Guaranteed '" m1mum to 5. fhc adjustment O k s25 g 00 per week in the employees from $2S0.00 pc~ wee . to ~ • · • • • ol May· 6 1996 South Eastern D1vis10n as •• I d ; advance of the ··Third Safety These applications were 1ear .n . ., Octom;r J 995 decision • \ 50/\ Review -- . Net Adjustment and Sectwn . • . : , AIRC). As this • . d •, I Relations Comm1ss,on ~ of the Australian In ust~ia . the ,eriod of our deliberations, the decision was released ourmSg - I "d1· ngs were contacted by the . d in the tale proce" . Parties who appeare . d • .. of their desire to . l R • t ar wit\, a request to a v1sc Acting lndustna eg1s r_ . • f I AlRr'<; decision No party b • • smhuho t1e '- - d put further su mission . b • . Onlv the Queenslan I. · of the heann\:!.S. - • requested a re istmg . . d -Union of Fmplovcrs (QCI) • f lndustrv L1m1te • " • . . Confederat1on o • • b . . s before the Comm1ss1on to f I b ·ef wr·tten su niisston . placi:d urt 1er n ' • . • . . These later comments have which the J\CTCQ responded m wnt'.ng. , . also been taken into account in reachrng our deci:,ton. , , " t A,1, .. ..tmcnt Third Arbitratcd..S~~--~ -- - . Full Bench to grant the third arbitrate_d The reluctance ol the " rtaintv about the economic safety net adjustme~t stemmc,~lf~o2m un1.,thes '11er1~e Rather than raise . . h. h ht prevat I mon • cond1t10ns w ic m1g . .. h to the issue vvas adopted. expectations a more caut1ow, approac . . • , ·)ache<s to submissions in Wage Consistent with their rece,1t abpp~~d . -..-.,1·ew of the state of the Cl-uQ -ent"d a roa ove,. , Cases. the A pr~s1 d..,d . d thi, issue in detail. The AWU s h•1 the A\\ l; a resse - " • economy w lie d tl e collection of economic . . " iargelv base on 1 . • sub1mss10ns w.xc • 1 d lr"asurv publication, indicators contained in the Queens an ... , - 16899 I.DOC 3 November, 1995] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 1117 --Queensland Economic Review·· for the June Quarter I 995. The economic data provided by the A WU was supplemented by material presented by the Crown. The "Queensland Economic Review" reports that " ... the outlook f()r economic growth in Queensland remains positive for 1995-96. ". (p.5). Employment growth continues to be strong and other indicators such as retail turnover, private and business investment an<l tourism expenditure were positive. Balanced against this is the drought which continues to be a risk to economic activity. The slowing in housing sector and continuing unacceptable levels of youth employment also remain sources of concern. On halimce we have reached the conclusion that the economy can sustain a further $8 per week arbitrated safety net adjustment. In reach:ng. this conclusion note has also been taken of the growth in the number of enterprise agreements which have been certified by the Commission. !'his grov.1.h disproves the view that employees v,ill be unwilling to participate in enterprise bargaining preferring to rely on a\vard adjustments. Moreover, in the context of the economic effects of the granting of the third $8 per week arbitrated safety net adjustment, the increasing number of agreements means that the economic impact will be less than when either the first or second adjus;lments were made available. In deciding to make available the third arbitrated safety net adjustment we have also taken into account the views expressed by the Crown and the various employer organisations represented at the hcarin?,. The Crown, noting that the Commission had adopted its call for prudence in deciding to defer consideration of the third arbitrated safety net adjustment. argued that ,w economic impediments existed to the granting of the third adjustment at the enterprise and award level. The ()Cl adopted what might best be described as a neutral view to the matter of the third arbitrated safety net adjustment. At the outset of the proceedings the QCI indicated it wished to reserve its rights in respect of any matter emanating from the National Wage Case. In light of this, the QC! decided not to make any submissions on the quantum of the increase except that any increase in excess of $8 p;::r \\eck would he opposed. In making that submission the QC! acknowledged that the applicants had only sought an amount of $8 per week. The substance of the QCl's submission related to ab:;orption This matter will be addressed later. The Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia. Queensland Branch. Lnion of Employers (MTIA) supported the concept of wage rncreascs from time to time which are necessary to maintain the minimum safety net. The MTIA also supported the amount and timing of the proposed safety net of $8 subject to those increases bemg capabk of absorption. The Commission was informed that the factors which 111fluenccd MTIA 's position were the need to maintain safety net rates of pay at a reasonable and relevant level, subject to the state of the economy and, in particular, having regard to inflation and employment levels. The Retailers' Association of Queensland Limited, Union of trnployers (RA()) supported the submissions of the QC! and the \1 f'IA. Because ali sugar mills have enterprise agreements with their employees, the impact of the third arbitrated safety net adjustment on ~e sugar milling industry would he negligibie. Acco;·Jingly, the , ust ral!an Sugar Mill mg Assoc1ahon, Queensland, Union of Employers (ASMA) made no submissions on the issue of whether th e third arbitrated safety net adjustment should be granted except 111 respect of a clause dealing with absorption should the adjustment be made availabic. Having considered the totality of submi~sions m<1de we have decided that no impediment exists to making available the third ~8 per week arbitrated safety net adjustment at enterprise or award level. Accordingly, we have made provision in the Principles for access to the adjustment. We should add that in making available the third arbitrated safety net adjustment we intend the whole of the amounts to be made available to juniors and apprentices in a pro rata way in accordance with the relevant principles. Access to the adjustment at enterprise level shall be available no earlier than 6 November 1995. Granting of the increase shall be subject to the same tests expressed by the AIRC in its "Safety Net Adjustment and Review'' decision of September 1994 except in relation to provision (E). Given our position in relation to absorption detailed later, paragraph (E) is consistent with that issued for the second safety net adjustment at enterprise leYel. Subject to certain matters to which we will shortly tum, access to the third arbitrated safety net adjustment at award level shall be available no earlier than 6 May 1996 provided the same tests as set by the AIRC in its decision referenced above arc satisfied. The matters which we wish to add some further commentary are the lapse between the second and third arbitrated safety net adjustment. absorption, and s. 150 Reviews. ~ Paragraph (B) of the proposed subprinciple provides a lapse period of at least 12 months between the second and third award level safety net increases. The J\CTUQ. supported by the A WU, submitted that this lapse period should be compressed in circumstances where the granting of the secoml arbitrated safety net adjustment was delayed as a result of:- the delays in accessing the second safety net adjustment due to the proceedings leading to the May 1995 decision: instances where retrospective operation may have been sought but not granted again as a result of the proceedings leading to the May I 995 decision: the outcome of claims for retrospectivity being operative dates post 8 .\fay I 995. The Commission is aware that retrospectivity was not awarded in a limited number of circumstances as a result of proceedings leading to the May 1995 decision despite applications having being made in advance of 8 May 1995 to secure award level adjustments from the date. Concern over the compounding effects was expressed by Fisher, C., in the decision relating to the granting of the second $8 per week arbitrated safety net adjustment in the Security Industry (Contractors) Award State. (149 QGIG 877). In that decision the following comments were made. '·It has not been easy to determine the matter in view of the competing claims of the parties; it was finely balanced. Under the Full Bench decision of 25 May, a single Commissioner has the discretion to depart from an operative date of 8 May 1995. By doing so I am cognisant that the decision now reached will disadvantage employees in the short term. To protect the longer term futures of employees covered by this Award I have been persuaded by the employers' arguments relating to the uniqueness of this industry to grant a prospective date of operation. No dispute exists that the remaining criteria of the principle have been satisfied. Accordingly. the secon<l $8 per week safety net adjustment shall apply from I July 1995. Due to the nature of the environment 111 which this industry operates, safety net adjustments, rather than enterprise bargainmg, are the source of wage mcreases for employees 16899_1DOC -- 1 of 4 -- 1118 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [3 November, 1995 under this award. In these circumstances the deferral of the operative dale for the second safety net adjustment will have compounding effects in the event further safety net adjustments are awarded by the Commission. The parties to this Award may wish to consider raising the particular circumstances of this Award with the next State Wage Case Bench to try to minimise the perpetuation of Lhe effect of Lhe dccision now given.". By raising this issue in these proceedings the ACTUQ and the AWL have noted these concerns and arc attempting to have this Bench address the matter in an endeavour to minimise the compounding effects of retrospcctivity not being granted. We are smisfied that the number of cases in which applications were filed prior to 8 May 1995. activity commenced but outcomes delayed pending the decision of 25 ~ and then retrospectivity not awarded would be minimal. In such cases we an: prepared Lo make an exception to the test of at h:ast l 2 month!> between the second and third arbitrated safety net adjustment. In such cases the third arbitrated safety net adjustment at award kvel may be accessed from 6 May 1996 provided that applications arc made and hearings sought in advance of that date. Any departure from the lapse period of at least 12 months in these circumstann:s will be left to the decision of the individual Commissioner concerned. None of the parties have sought to revisit the decision of the Full Bench of26 ~ (149 QGIG 1128) relating to this matter. The issue has arisen in the context of an appropriate clause to be included in awards as a result of the granting of the third arbitrated safety net adjustment. Reference was made by the ACTUQ to the variety of award clauses issued hy members of the Commission in relation to the second arbitrated safety net adjustment in the absence of a standard fonn of wording included in the rekvant subprinciple. General consensus was reached between the parties that a standard clause dealing with the absorbability of safety net adjustments was preferable There the consensus ended with competing propositions being advanced by the unions (and supported by the Crown) and the employer respondents. The proposal submitted by the QCI was supported in concept by the MTIA but actual content of a paragraph seemed to be a moveable feast. We are inclined to the view that. to the extent possible, given the decision of 26 July 1995, consistency· is preferable, hence a standan.l clause is lo be inserted as part of the awarding of the third $8 per week arbitrated safety net adjustment. The fonn of that clause remains to be determined. Jhe ACTlJQ proposed a clause which in large part rnirron:d the clause included in the AIRCs Sep_Lember 1994 decision. That clause had been amended to not oniy take into account relevant QIRC decisions and datum points but also the 26 July l 995 Full Bench decision dealing with absorption. The ACTUQ proposed that this clause reference both the second and third arbitrated safoty net adjustments and suggested that such a clause referencing only the second arbitrated safety net adjustment replace the variety of clauses which had been issued to date. The essential element of the ACTIJQ's proposition is that absorption may only occur where overaward payments have been approved by thl'. Commission. In supporting the ACTUQ's proposed clause the CrO\vn contended that it met the aims of the September 1994 decision, that is. to deliver total wage increa5es of i24 across the life of the Pnnciples For its part the QC! proposed the extension of the clause, inserted as a consequence of the first arbitrated safety net adjustment, to the second and third arbitrated safety net adjustments subject only to an order arising out of the application of 26 Julv I 995 decision. This proposition allows for absorption into overaward payments which may have not necessarily been approved by the Commission. The November 1994 interim decision (147 QGIG 1092) and the views expressed on 30 November 1994 recorded in the December 1994 decision provided that the first and second arbitrated safety net adjustments were fully absorbable. The 26 ~ Full Bench decision did not finally settle the question of absorption. In these circumstances we are of the view that henceforth any clause accompanying the award of the second arbitrated safety net adjustment should be in the same terms as the clause approved for the award of the first arbitrated safety net adju!:>tme11t. It would be logical to have one clause referencing both the first and second arbitrated safely net adjustments. The issue of an appropriate clause for the third arbitrated safety net adjustment remains. We think there is value in consistency of application of each of the safety net adjustments while recognising that claims for non-absorption remain open. In these circumstances and where absorption is not in issue or opposed, we have decided to adopt the concept of one cumulative clause referencing all three of the safety net adjustments. The clause is in the following tenns:- "The rates of pay in this award or industrial agreement include the first, second and third $8 per week arbitrated safety net adjustments payable under the November 1994 State Wage Case decision and the October 1995 Stale Wage Case decision. Increases made under previous State Wage Case Principles or under the current Statement of Principles arc not to be used to offset arbitrated safety net adjustments. The first, second and third $8 per week arbitrated safety net adjustments may be offset to the extent of any other wage increase, whether an award increase, an over award payment or an increase by ,vay of an entaprisc arrangement received since l february 1992. Pre- February 1992 over av,ard arrangements arc to be applied according to their terms.''. Clearly where claims for non-absorption are made and granted an alternative clause will need to be inserted. Any claims for non- absorption should be detailed in applications for the third $8 per week arbitrated safety net adjustment at award level. Section 150 Reviews At the time of hearing these applications. the AIR("s decision with respect to the third arbitrated safety m:t adjustment and s. 150A review was pending. The subprinciple detailing the tests which needed to be satisfied to acce~ the third arbitrated safety net adjustment made reference to the award being varied to incorporate the outcome of the August l 995 proceedings. As a consequence the ACTUQ proposed a draft clause while encouraging this Commission to list the hearings relating to the s. 150 review process. The October 1995 decision of the AIRC altered the tests to be satisfied for the third arbitrated safety net adjustment to be available at award level in light of the outcome of the s. 150A R,:vicw. While pilot award reviews are underway in this _jurisdiction, the position is not as advanced as th-: fe<h:ral n:vww. In its decision of 20 December 1994, the Full Bench said:- !6899_LDOC 3 Novemher, 1995J ~UEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDCSTRIAL GAZETTE ------------------- 1119 ··A Full Bench will be constituted to . l . p · rnomtor t 1c Review rog.ram 111 or about October/November 1995 I . (C) that the award has been var1·ed to . Re\'e\, f> • h , o assess the •' \ rogram 111 t e hope that bv 'r~ating th, p rncorporate the outcome of the Section 150 Pilot A d . ward Review i-- • . • . . • .1 ''- c rogram as a ,<-am_ mg exercise, pnnc1ples mav be developed h b . • .. procee mgs: h• •h I • , • on t e as 1s 0 , w tc comp et10n of the Review pr . • • , • occss envisaged by s 150 may be entrusted to single Commissioners.". • (D) that in addition t) th l , • the a d . l e cause referred to at 3.2.6(a)(iii) war contams the following clause: Given that granting of the third arbitrated safety net <f t at av.ard level is d''pend t (. . a ~us mcnt ~ en .111 part) on the mcorpo , ( 1- h outcome of the s. 150 p·i t A . . ra ton o t c 'The rates of pay in th· d . th, fi is_ awar or mdustrial agreement include 1 0 \\ard Review proceed· 1 rmx:eedings need to be t- 1• d . , tngs, suc,1 ; . :-; . ma ise 111 advance of 6 Ma, 19 ncarmg w1d be listed in November I 99'i t , ) _9C,. A c trst, second and third SS per week arb. . adjustments payable under the ~1trated safety net decision and the Octnhor I 09c Sm State Wage Case • 0 commence tne revie\v. I . ~ tale Wage Case decision ncreascs made under previous State Waoe C p . . I • und th o ase r111c1p es or h1r ~resent purpo':es we believe it to be en .. t . ·- leS( which will bt: of . , . . 1·Propnd.e to l:i::iue a . , . . . . . _an mtcnm basis to clearlv show the er e current Statement of p • • I o~fset arbitrated safety net ad1· us::~fs cs Tahree nfiot tto - be usdcd _lo th d $8 . • Ifs - -,econ and to trthe p;r wee; arbitrated safety net adjustments may be off~~t Comm1ss1on s 1111.ention m terms f . . . - • . 0 makmg available the th· ct '.lfbttrakd safety net adju,;;tment We tr increas:\~nt o any ~ther wage increase, whether an award , , . : over awar payment or an increase bv wa . of an c_nterpnse arrangement received since l February - l 99i p I·cbruary 1992 over award arrangements ar • _rc- accor<ling to their tem1s. "'. e to be applied d f ( .· h . . • . _ • propose to adopt the ACTUQ's ra t v. it one mmor moddtcation) and • . d . , opposition to this clause:-- 111 so omg note the lack of ..(C) that the award has been varied to . of the Section 150 Pilot Award R, . . t~corp~rate ~he outcome cv1cw pt occedmgs.' It i~ anticipated that proccedin . • h. . . . . co~11plcted in suflicient time to cnabr: a1ice~t1c!~~~~~~~1;n ~vill be safely net ad1ustment by the nominated date. Cle l ar Jtrated d h ar v in those rroccc tngs c _e terms of the relevant test contained , :mbpnnc1ple \viii need to be addressed. m the new Set out below is the new subp • • l , - arbitrated safotv net ad· t nnc1p_ e now approved tor the third ' . . , - !JUS ment. Prov1s1on has been mad 'th· h suopr111c1ple for industrial agreements t~ be e w1 m t c appropriak. varied where "(il f~nte112ric:P lev,J· tl • d $S ~:·1st --""'--t _!,;l_J. ba m per week arbitrated safety net J" men Wt e available at e t ·-. 1 , - earlier th 6 N. ' n erprt!:>C eve!, from no an ovember 1995 subiect to th . t· 11 . ' J e o owmg tests: (;\) that the award has been varied for tl f- ·i S8 k . te 1rst anl second , per wee - satety net adjustments; {B) that the union appl • t l . . ,can ms genumely sought to rea I agreement with the emplo"er but has b c 1 an .1 een unsuccessful; f C) that there is no likelihood that within . . . bi Peri 1d r · a tcasona e c , ,u11t1er conciliation or negotiation w·11 . l . an ao ., . I resu t 111 on.. erncnt covering the employees concerned· ( Di that the employees concerned f1ave not b received the enefit of an arbitrated safety net adjustment in pre\ ious I 2 months: the ( C )(iv) ~n :>rder providing for an award level safety net aldJustmcnt s~all also provide for the relevant offsett1·ng cause to b d • .: e mserte mto the award [sec 3 2 6(a)( ••·) d (c){11)(D)I. • • 111. an _Gy_aranteed .'\1ini~ ·1 he appli , 1· k ea wns see. that the Guarar1teed M . . , • • · . 1111murn Wage f; auuJt employees tor employees in the South Fast D' . . or ~a~~~: ;~creased bykway of General Ruling t~ome~;S~.~1 i1 ;:r ~::: ,..., • per wee as from 6 May 1996 Th . reflects the quantum of the third arbitrat • e mcreas: sought available at award level. e<l safety net ad_1ustment , Th_e ~9-1 and the De~_embe-r J094 Cornm1ss10n mcreased the Guarantee~ dWecisions of this week I mimum aee by $8 per . on eac 1 occasion to reflect the firs1 and ~·d r adjustments. ·' sccon sa1ety net While the continued relevance of the G . ~ . . Wage was once again questioned b certain c uar~nt1;ed ~11111_num no opposition of substance to thi~ as ,1 mplo) er or~amsat1ons, mounted. fn accordance with , ~ ~ec. of_ the ap~hcat1on was recent past practw· and 111 th f f =~;~s~nce of o~position. the Guaranteed Minim:m Wage ;o/:~u~t incrca;ee;sb;i~:y\;~:~er~7s~e7~ Divisiln of the State shall be from (i May J 996 u mg to S 53.oo per week operative (EJ that the amount of the arbitrated safety net. d. . . reduced to th . • .. a Justment 1s . e extent of any wage increase as a result of . Two matters relating to allowances b . , . . for consideration, viz.:-- are eforc the Comm1ss1on agreements reached at enterprise level s1·nce I r· b. 1 90, · - • ·e ruary •, : ... , !~solar ~~ that wage increase has not previous! bt:en used to o1fset an arbitrated safety net adjustment y (1i) A'a.fild "'. ;, d·, ·, l -- . =-s<l._JL_.\Ll~nt level;_ a third <-s k arb1trat ·d .. f . . .D per wee , ~ sa cty net adJustmcnt will be available .. t , d icv0 l t 1. • a awar . ,. • rom no ear ter than 6 Mav I 096 b. lollowing tests: - , , su 1ect to the (;\) th,at the award has been varied J..<)r the $8 first and second per week safety net adjustment: (B) that at least p h 'lnd tl . d ,_ mont s has elapsed betv,een the second , 1!r award lc\cl safety net increase: .... ,. (i) the amendment ofth, All . . increase of9 93/. to ee·· (owa~ces pnnc1plc to provide for an or condition.s o h. t1sh111~ a owances which relate to work . • w ic i a\e not changed and to . ~~;ement payments (hereinafter '·existing allowa~~:::;~ (ii) to increase by way O f General R 1. f1 : h h · u mg at afternoon and n1g t s tft allowances to $8 90 per shift fi 6 • as rom May 1996 The existing Principle 1 2 3 Ad. t _ s . r • . . JUS Jl\\.:nt of Allowai ' ' • erv1ce ncrements provides that:- • ices and '·(b) .Adjustment of existing allowances which relate t . coudn1ons which have not changed an<i of . . o work or - service mcremcnts for 16899_IDOC -- 2 of 4 -- 1120 QUEENSLAND GOVER;\MENT INDUSTRIAi, CiAZETTF [3 ~ovcmher, 199:5 monetary safety net increases will be determined in each case by the Full Bench dealing with the safety net adjustment.". When this Principle was approved in the l )ecember 1994 decision, the Full Bench expressed some uncertainty over how the AIRC intended this Principle to operate. At that stage the AIRC had been awaiting the outcome of proceedings in the ACT Retail Award and until such proceedings had been finalised were relu<.:tant to express a view. In an endeavour to have the matter addressed in this jurisdiction, the Full Bench suggested that an appropriate vehicle might be an application to vary the flat afternoon and night shift allo\~ances issw.::d by General Ruling. While the AC flJQ 1:1cccp1ed the rnvirntion offered it appear:; thm the respondents did not address the application in the manner envisaged hy the Full Bench in the December 1994 decision. In the result the Full Bench dealing with the General Ruling application responded by increasing afternoon and night shift allowances having regard to the particular history of those allowances. (149 QG!G 933 ). The Full Bench in that matter did not express any viev, as to how flat allowances might be adjusted to take account of monetary safety net increases. The ACTUQ and the AWU now set:k that the matter be dealt with hy the Full Bend1 as constituted and in acconlance with Princirie 3.2.3(6). We consider that it is appropriate and necessary for us to settle the issue of adjustment of flat rate allowances for monetary safety net adjustments. We shall discuss the application relating to shill allowances separately. The ACTUO. supported by the A WU, proposed the addition or a ne,v provision to paragraph (b) of Principle 3.2.3 in the following terms:-- "Such adjustment ,,.ill be at kast consi:-iknt with the: pi.;n:entage increase to the Guaranteed Minimum Wagt: as adjusted in accordance with the February 1994 State_~~_!,'ase decision (145 ()Gl(j 314): the ~e Case (148 <)GIG 320) and (insert) ~;ise decision (insert) .... This proposal enables allowances (other than flat shift allowances granted by General Ruling) to be increased by 9. 9%,. Except for the MTIA which saw no need to vary the existing principle. the employer respondents and the Crown were generally supportive of the concept of a new provision to deal with the adjustment of existing allowam:es. The Crown advocated leaving the method of adjustment to the Commission\; determination whilst a vanety of op1rnons were offered by the employers. ()Cl opposed any linkage with the (iuaranteed Minimum Wage and proposed that Commission be granted the discretion to adjust allowances to reflect the increase resulting from the safety ne1 adjustments based, for example. on a key classification MTIA . in the event the Commission saw merit in the claim. also advocated the selection of a more relevant wage rate upon which to base any percentage increase. AS\1A were not opposed to increasing existing allowances hut opposed the quantum sought. It suggested a 6.5% increase Lo existing allowances no earlier than 6 May 1996. This percentage was calculated on the basis of the relationship the second and third is safety net adjustments had to the Guaranteed Minimum Wage applying at the relevant time. In ASMA "s view no acC()unt should he taken of the first safety net adjustment given that the AIRC had not provided for any adjustment in its September 1994 decision. From this plethora of positions (and in the absence of any \ IC\\ expressed by the AIRC) we proceed to arrive at a conclusion. It is a matter of concern that several employer organisations having shied away from addressing general principles of adjusting allowances ,,hen the opportunity was previously afforded no,...,· seek to do so and moreover put proposals which in respect of the flat shifl allowances which are at odds with submissions made in earlier proceedings specifically on this point. The ACTIJQ provided as exhibit /4 details of the manner in which existing allowances have been able to be adjusted under Wage Principles since March 1987. This exhibit re,eals that where flat money increases were granted to award ratt.:s of pay no adjustment of existing allowant.:es was available. Such allowances and seP,icc increments were capable of adjustment when percentage increases to ahnrd !'Blt-·"l of pny were granied It is against this background and in light of the provisions of the current principle and the ahscnce of specific opposiiion to the adjustment of existing allowances that we consider the application. The s. 150 review process may bring into question the continued relevance of certain allowances. Equally the deve!opment of new c'3ssification structures based on skill acquisition raises doubts about the ongoing validity of service increments. These are not however matters lo bt: addressed here. Rather the issue confronting the Commission is one of whether exi-.ting allowances and service increments shPuld be capable of adjustment. The answt:ring of this question in the affin11ative then leads to a consideration of the appropriate method or adjustment. Having weighed all of the factors highlighted in this decision ar;d especially noting the absence of opposition to the general proposition we are prepared to provide for the adjustment of existing allowances and service increments b:, way of a ne,\ paragraph (b)(ii) to Principle 3.2.3 Adjustment of Allowances and Service Increments. \Ve have decided not to base the percentage increase on the relationship of the arbitrated safety net adjustment to the Guaranteed Minimum Wage as propost:d b:, the applicants. We are attracted to the approach of linking the incrcast: lo a "key·· classification viz: the CI0 rate of the Engineering Award State. in so doing we hav<.: had regard to the reservations expressed by the Full Bench in the atlcmoon and night shift allowances case but noneth<.:less. we believe the approach we arc now proposing to adopt is an appropriate response in the circumstances now confronting us This approach appears to have broad acceptance and in particular we note that it is not inconsistent with the submissions made by the ACTUQ in the afternoon and night shift case (B 186 and B753 of 95 ). We have decided to make provision for the adjustment of existing allowances and service increments b:, the percentage each of the $8 arbitrated safety net adjustments bore or bears to the C 10 (trades) rate in the Engineering Award State at the relevant time. For examplt: when the Cl O rate was adjusted for the first $8 safety net adjustment, the tutal rate beca\ne $425.20. The $8 safety net adju-;tmcnt as a percentage of $425.20 is 1.9%. Using the same method of calculation for the second S8 safety net adjustment. the result is 1.8%. J'h11s the available adjustments for allowances to take account of the first and second arbitrated safety net adjustment is 3.7%. Increases to existing allowances and service increments lo take account of the first and second arbitrated safety net adjustments are available from the date of release of this decision while any increase to take account of the third arbitrated safety net adjustment is not available until 6 Ma) ! 996. Paragraph (b)(ii) of the relevant Principles is in the following tcm1s· 1689Cl __ l.DOC J November, l 995 j QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT I:'\DUSTRIAL GAZETTE l 12 l -~----~---·--··---------- .. Except for shift afternoon and ·1ioht · JI , . , 1 • ' o a owance, issued by (1cnera. Rulmg. existing allowances l. -} '· " '" . . . . . . , w lie 1 rt:iate to work or cond1ttons which have not chanued , cl ~ . . [, , _1• , o an "crv1ce mcrements mav e ,h,Ju~ted by the percentage each arb1.tr· tad - f' ., r . a '-' ~a etv net 3{Justmcnt hears to the CI0 tot.ii rat" at tJ . , . ~ .. ·, . . ' "' 1 e time eacn arbitrated s<1tety net ad.1ustment \.vas made available.". With ~cspt.:ct to the claim for a further increase in afternoon night shift allowances wa consider th· and . . , , .. . , , '" is matter best left to cons1de1 .1t10n by a f·u1l Bench dealing ·tt . . . . . a ·1·1 • . • . w1 1 a specific application lh Vle\\ hds been adopted oiven thn ~ ' . • . , . . o .. rcasonmg expressed b)r the hll I Bench m BJ 86 and B751 of 1995 ···h . . •• , . . . . . - • • "' ere it 1s clear that the quantun, ol this allowance 15 estab!i~h d ., . h. · r, . . . . ~ e on hS own ments and d\ mg ,cg.Md to its umque history \Ve 11 f, t· . . .. . . . , , , ·• . • • .1ere ore ormaliv refuse to ,S:,Uc d (,enud! Rulmg as sought. • Lxt~l1fil.QJ.Ul( Existin~e~I~~ .... :!he Pri~c,ipl~s issued b~ the Full Bench in its Deceniber l 994 de1.L1on operateu until I November 1995 TI .. . • - i\ Wl • d • 1e AC I LQ and the , J. -.upporte by the other parties. sou ht an , . .. Wa£e Principle, to I J l 1996 . . g •. exkns10n ot the . - . • • • u y to COIIlCJdc with lhe exp· ' f th Pnnc1pks issued by the Al RC in it<; SPnf,>mhbor 1994 .. If) 0 e • -~---- decision. Wc have decided to extend the r fi f . _ . . . mod:ti ·d b., tl., C . . . . I e o ex1stmg Prmc1ples. as ' .c > 11s ommtssion m this Jecision. until I Julv l 996 Principles 3.2.3 Adjustment of Al I lowances and Service . ncrements and ~12.6 Arbitrated Satctv N • . h h. • et Wage Adiustments ar•' 1ssueu wit t ts decision. ~ ~ We order accordingly K.i · LDWARDS. Commissioner. GK. FfSlfER, Commissioner. R.L BI Cl ILY. Commissioner. Appearances· Mr B Lyons of Kenneth Hunt •-d A · Mccha • i c, H . , a" . ssociates for the Queensland n1ca, ane ar,esters Assocrntion. I 1111011 of Employers Mr B. Provan r h Q or t e ueensland Transmission and· .Suppl)· Corporation. Mr G. II Austa El:~·;;~/or the Queensland Generation Corporation trading as \1r C Agnew for the () I J -.<ut.:ens am l lotels A.ssociation. U111·0,1 ()/. Employers. Operative Date: 6 November 1995 Decision State Wage Case Released: 24 October 1995 PRINCIPLES 3.2.3 Adjustment of Allowances and Service Increments (a) (b) (h )(ii) Exis.ti~g ailowances which constitute a reimbursement of expt:n~es mcurrcd mav be adjusted f'1·om t1·me t 1· . • • " • o 1me wJicre appropnate to reflect the relevant change in the level 1f - ·l expenses. <: sue 1 Adjustment of existing allowances which relate to k cond t h. , wor or I tons w ten have not •'hanged .1 f' • ., " - anu o service mcrcmenl'> for monetary --af'etv t . . . . " ' ., nc 1ncrt.:ases will be d'ef~~nnmcd m each case by the Full Bench dealing with the sa dy net ad.i ustment. f:xcept for shitl a1lemoon and night allowances issu"d b . ~,ene~al Rulmg, existing allowances which relate to, ~v(:rk ~~ umdtLtons which have not changed and· se"'·1· . . • . • •, ce increments n~~y be adjusted by the percentage each arbitrated safetv ne~ a Justment bears to the C I O total r·at"' at tl1" t. ., h b • , • ~ -. 1mc "a'' ar itratea safety net adjustment was made avai Iable.". .. ~ Ms D. Ralston for [1 ie A t 1. ( ' HUS ra ian 'ouncil off.rad lJ . ( c) Existing allowances for which . - . Queensland Branch t.: n10ns Vis y I)· Ath for The Australian Workers' l r • Quecn,land. Jnton of Employees. Mr J. John-,ton for the Crown. (d) Mr G. Po f 1 Unio11 of ;~,~;pi:::~~~ Queensland Confederation of Industry l ,irntteu. (e) Mr M. Bi:llield with him Ms L Asbu1 . for . T Association of Amtral ·· Q , , ) th e Metal i rades Industry .ta, ueenstand Branch. Union of Employers. Mr S Nance t' I ' • • or t 1 e Australian S ~,. ·11 · Quee I j l • ugar ,vit mg Assw1at1011. ns,an( . Jn ion of Employers. V Mr R. Walke1 for the R,·t· 1 • '\.· . Cnion of Fmplovers. ~ aLers , ssocration of Queensland Limited. (f) Mr C Krtter r th· Sh .. i\.s:c-o ,·, : - r .or e ·- op. Dtstnbutive and Allied •• c1at,on \ Queensland Aranch) Union of bnployees. Employees Mrc Chadwick for the Australian D. t' I A . . Branch) I lnion t· l: I en a ssoc1at1on (()ueensland , 0 ,mp oyers. (g) Mr i\ Cnu t h 1\fa.,te ; ct or t_ e Royal Queensland Bowls Association and Q , - r a:nters.. Decorators and Signwriters· Let::nslai d ( r • - . , Association of • • 11 • •11ton of bnployers. b . • an llll:rcase IS clainie I ecause ol changes in tl k .. . • u d t . d . • ie wor or coneitltons will be e cnrnne 111 accordan · •·th h \Vork V 1 , ce \\I . t. e relevant provisions ot the a ue Changes prov 1s1on of this Staternenr ')f. Principles. ~ New allowances to -·om f' , , ~ . . (.: pensak or the reimbursement of <.:?_.,cndse,, mcurred. may be awardeJ where appropriate having te}!ar to such expenses. - Where. changes Ill tlie work have occurred or new work and co~d1:1ons have arise~, the question of a new allowance, if an},. shall be_ dctenrnncd in accordJ11ce with the rein ant prov1s1ons ol this Statement of p • . l· 1'h . · .· • . nncip es. e relevant prnv1s101.1s tn this context ma)r be Wo ·k , ' l ('h f.. I\ 1 "'a ue anges or ·1rst. \\anJ and Extension to an Lxisting Award. • New service increment-. 1 . . 1 . b· .' f h . na:, on ) e awaraeJ to compellsatc or c anges m the work di . . • • d . . an •or cond1t1011s and will b,· etermmed Ill accordance witl1 the I • Wor " re evant parts of the I) . k Value Changes provision of this Statement of nnc1ples Site Ai'ow , · p .1· • • . i a ice. enl,ltlg f111alisat1on of th-- '> .• • I ··paid rates·• aw· d, . . , . " t t mc1p e as to , ··ct • . ar _, this Pnnctple docs not "reclud, 1.ori:-.1 erat1on of a s:t 11 . f-' c site b· , ·h, . • ' e a ,owance application on a soeci fie •.. as,~\\ ere it can be shovm that special and com;e!ltno circumstance'> exist } • h • c . • , • w uc were not contemplated w:thin cxistmg award provisions. 1 16899_1.DOC -- 3 of 4 -- l 122 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE p Novembi:1. 1995 J.2.6 Arbitrated afct) '-" \\ agr ..\dju,t mcnts ( I ) that the amount of the arbitrated ,.itety oel adJustment •~ reduced to the e, tent ol an~ wag.e increase as a result ot agreemcnh reached at ente rp ri se 11.:vel since I h :hrua ry 1992, m,ofar a, that \,age mcrease has not previously been used to offset an arhttratcd safct} net adjustment In acconlance with I November 1994 State Wage C .i~c Interim decision. the 20 Uecembcr 1994 State Wa1.1,e Case Deci,ion and th e 2~ Oe1ober 1995 State \\ JJ!C Case dec,,mn minimum r.itc, and paid rates a"ard, ma) be , am:d 10 include 1hn:e SS ~r "e.:\.; arhiuated safe ty m: 1 ad.1ustments wh1ce110 the lollo"mg. 1-trst Arb1tmt<'d <;afet), \ et ld1ustmenl (ii) b"ard or industrial ai:.r'>e ment Jc~ct a second S8 per "eek arbitrated safely net adjustment will he available, at award or indu,tnal agreement level. from no earlier than 8 May 1995. (a)(1) \\ lrom no car\11:r than - :-;,"ember 1994 J\\ards and 1ndu,trial agreement) ma), on .ipplication. be , aried Ill pro vi de a firs t $8 per week arh1 trutcd safel) net adjustment h•r cmplO} ee, "ho ha, e not received a w.ige in~ rease a~ t1 rc,ull of ent<!rpn,~ hargainmg ,1111.:c I Februal"' \ 992 ( 1i ) t\t the ume ~ud1 an .ipplicauon "heard the (.omm1~sion '"" rai:- c with the parties the continued implemen1a11on of the ,,,, ,ml res1ructu1 mg program commenced in 1989 and mea,ures tal..en and'or pror<i-ed to furthcr encourage cn1crpnse bargammg. \\ h1k ~uch acuon ,s not a prc i.;,mdi tion to the grantmg of the safet} net .,djustment 1t mu st he pursued. (111)\\ here the ,upplt.:mentaf) pa)mcnt 111 an a\\,1rd has alread) t>cen , aried lor the SS per \\Cek arb1tr.itcJ safet} nct ad1u~tment puN1,1nt to the LJ:hrui!O )994 Ri;\le.Ldeci,ion. the level of supplementary payment will b..: reduced b> \l! per week at the same time a, 1hc first arbitrated safety net 1dJustment pm, 1ded for 10 this dec1,1on " inserted (.on<;equenual .imcndmenh 10 clauses inserteJ a:, a result ol the Fl!hruan 199-l Re, ie\, 1.h:.IJ}.IQU \,ill be nccessaf) and the following c\ m1 se mu st he in serted into the award or industrial aurcemcnt: I he rates 111 pa} m th1, \\\Jrd or lndu,tnal Ag.reemcnt 111\;lude the tir,t 5,!! per \\CeJ.. .irh1trated salct) net adjustment ra) able under the Novc111h1<c 1994 Suuc ~\'age Ct~c uccifilmh lncrc.i,es made un,lcr previous \late Wage ('.1,c pnnc1ple, or under the curn:nt <;1a1ement 11f Pnnc1plc, an.: not 10 be u,cd Ill off,et arh1tratcd sakt> net adju,tmcnh I his first $8 per \\eek arbur,1tcd ~afet} net ,idjustment ma} he offset to th e cxtent of m1y other wage 111 crcase. \\hcthcr un a"ard 111\;n:.i,c. an o,er,1\,ard pa)ment nr an increa,c h) "a} of entcrpn,c arran!!cmcnt. rece1\ ed since I i'ebrn.in 1992. Pre h:hruaf) 1992 1l\cra"ard arra, cments arc to he ,1pp\ied accordmg to their tcnn, ••• Second lrlntrated .\11/t'I\' \'et Adp1 ,1n11• 111 (h)hl Lnterpn,e J,;,d a second SK per \\CC\.. arbitrated satct~ net ad.1ustment \\Ill be a, a1lahk at cn1crpmc k, cl. fwm no c,1 rl ic r than 7 November 1994. subjecl to t he fo llo\\i nf! tests. A> th 1t the a\\ard or ,ndustrial agreement ha, t>ccn , ar11:J tor the lir,t S8 per \\eek satct~ net ad1u,1111.:nt: (Bl thal the union applicant has ~cnuinel} sought to rc.ich an agreen,cnt \\Ith the cmi,lo~cr but has o.:cn un,111;cc,sful: (C) th at there is no likelihood that. w 11hin a rca,011,1blc period. further condlia1io11 or ncgotiation \\ ill result Ill :m a::-reemcnt cmenng the emplo,ees concerned. \Ul that the emplo)cc~ \;oncemed h,1,e not recel\cd the h1:11cf1l of an arb11rnted safet) net adjustment 111 the p1ev1ou, 6 month,. ,rnd ,uhJCCl 10 the folio" mg. tesb ( t\) that the a" Jrd or indu,tnal agreement has been varied tor the fir,I $8 per weel- ,afcty nct adjustment. (Bl that at h:a,t 6 month, h.i, elapsed bet"ccn the lir,t and seuind award/md u,tnal agreement le, cl $8 per week safety nel incrca,e,: ({.) that the 3\\ ard has been , ar1ed 10 include enterprise fle'l.lbthl> \\Ith ~cuon, 145 and 146 ol the Act • this test is not re4uircd if the ildJustmenl " ,<1ught fo r an indu,1rial agreement. (D) that .i rnigram ot discus:.1on~ t>ct"een the a\\ardilndu,trial agn:ement partu.:, has been estublished to deal with the re, ie" of the a" ard.lindu,trial agreement pursuant 10 ,cction 150. ,\ith particular anenuon 111 ( I) the cllccti,e use ol foc1\i1a11,e pro, i,ions: (2) th e c:ffecti ,e use of majority c lau, es: and (3) th.: 11nplementatl(ln of a procc" h,r tesung the rcle, ance of the award at the cntcrpnse Je,cl • this requiremcnl is not nccc,sar) in regard to 111d11,trial agreement" I lus first $8 per "eek arbitrated safet} nct JdJustn1.:nt mJ} hc offset to the extent of any other wage 1nc re ;1se. \vh elhcr an J\\ard mcrc.i,e. an ovcra,, .ud payment or un incrca,c hy "a) of enterpn"e arrangement. rccel\ ed ..,,nee I FebruJr> 1992 Pre I ebruar} 1992 o,era,,ard arran~cmcnts arc to t>c ,lpplit= d accordmi: to their tcnn, ••• Third lrhrtrated Su/t'II \'et Ad111stm<•nl (c)li)fn!!;l'J'lmS: \e\e): a third SS p,:r "c.:k ,1rb1uatcd ,alct~ net adJU:.tment \\Ill h.: a, ailablc . ..it entcrpri5C lcH:I. front no earlier th ,y1 6 November 1995. subJ CCl to the lollowing tesb· ( \) that the il\\ .ird has been , aned for the lir.t and second ~8 per "eel,. sakt) net adjus1mc n1s: ( BI that the \111100 applicant has genuine\) sought tt> reach an a •rccment "1th the cmplo) er hut has been un,uccessful. (CJ that there i, no likelihood that " i1h111 a rea,onablc penod. lurthcr concihauon or negouat, ~n "111 re,u t 10 an al!rccment co,ennE the cmplo)ce, concerned. 16899_1 DOC 3 '.\:o\ember, 1995] Q UELNSLA, D GOVERNMENT I DUSTRIAI GAZE1-J'E <ul <i) (D) that the employees concerned ha, e not rece1v~d t he benefit of an arbitrated safct) net adJu,-tmcnt m the pre\ ,ous 12 month,: ( I:) that lh e amount of lhc arbitrated safely net adJustnlent is reduced to the extent of an "age mcrca,e as a rc,uh of agreemcn~ reached at enterprise le, cl smce I Fehrual) I99~, msofur as that \rngc mcrease has not previously been us ed to ofbet an arbitrated safety net adjustment (11) A~,ard or in dustrial agreement Je,ct· a third $8 Jlcr ."ee k arbitrated safety net adJustmenl ,viii be available. at award level. from 110 earlier lh·m 6 'v1 :I) 1996. su b,i eel to the fol \(m mg tests: ' ( \ I that the a\, .ird has been , ancd for the tir..t an? second $8 per \\Cek safct} n et adJUSUncn l, (13) that at le ast 12 months ha, elapsed bet"cen the second Jnd third a\\ard le, el safct, net mcreasc: • (( ) ~hat the award has been "aried mcorporatc the outcome of the Secuon Pilot A\\ard Re, tew proceedmgs: Ill 150 ( D) that in a~?ition to the clause referred to at 3.2.6{a)( 111 ) the award • fi . contams the ollowmg clause: • Jhe rates ol p·,y lh ·- • • a . ' 111 •~ a\,,1rd or mdu,tr1al grccmcnt mcludc the fi rst. second and third $8 per "eek arbitrated safety net adjustments pa}able under the Xo, ember 122 -t State \\ a e (. a,c decision and the October 1995 St \\ g ( • d · • ate age ,1,e ec1s1011 Increases made und State Wao (_', .• \> . •. • ' er pre\ 1ous ') . ,,e U\e rmciples or under the current . talement or l'rin c1pl es arc not to be ·d ofl\ct a b· Ira d . r u,c t<1 . r I te ,a ,el) net JJJustmenb I hc hr,t. ,econd and third S8 per \,eek arbitrated ~afc t} n~t adjustments ma) he offset to thl! cxtcnl ot any other wage increase, whether tin O\\a rd increase. an over a"ard pavment w an mcrca.,e b, "a f • • . ~ ) o an entcrpmc arrangement rccel\ ed smcc I I ebruan 19"7 p F b 1992 • "~· re- e ruan . . o_,e r a11.ird ,irrangemcnts arc to be appli<!<l "~cord mg lo the ir terms. ·. fOR.\ I O F OR DE RS A saf~ty net adjustmcnl .it enterprjsc level should h' spec,t 1ed 111 an append I\ 10 the a\,ard e agreement 1 f the ind I or the 111d u,1nal e111erpn,c, u,tna agreement applies to mul11i,le (ii) A safely net adjustmenl 11 •,w d • level should . f , , ar or induslrrnl agrecll\1! 111 am I speci ) a ~cparate "arbllratcd safct, net'' . ount or each cla,,11ic.i11on in the J \\ ard \\' h~rc th, mm1mum rates adJu,tmcnt process m an J c mdustnJ\ . a\\ar or . . . agreement h.is been completed the Comm1sS1on may CQnsider a I • rate . I. • n app ,cation for the ha,e ad · ,u~r cmcntar) PU) mcnt and arbitrated safel\ net JU!>~cnt to be combmed so that the a\,a. ~:1::::~1 a:l;~~::;~~a:::~.'tie, onl) the total mm~~rn: (1i1) \\'here the minimum rates ad· be . · ~usuncnt process ha\ not . en completed. the salC:l) net adJustrnent ma" be taken m~o . account m determmmg the size and phasin m of a mmimum rates adjustmen t. g (l\')A~. order providing for an a\\ard le\ cl safet, IICI a ~us trnc nt shall also pro, id fi 1h • clause to '-·· e or c rcle, ant oftsc111ng ,,c msened mto the a\\ard I .. 3 2 6( (c)(ii)(D)I ,cc a)(111J and ####################################################### 16899 I DOC -- 4 of 4 --