Australian Council of Trade Unions - Queensland Branch and The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland v Queensland Confederation of Industry Limited, Union of Employers and Others [1995] QIRC 308 (1995) 149 QGIG 1128

l 128 QUEE'.'\SLAND CiOVERi'lME>lT f:--JDCSTRIAL GAZETTE ######################################################11 Jndus,ri,il R..:!u1:ons .c/d !~''JO :i. 3 7 - application for variation of m1111mu111 \\ :u:e :::. )~ ariplication fOr decl2rm_ion of~: sta!cn1c~11 of pvlicy rt: :,rti'ety net \VaEt: adJU~lrneiit ()ucen~land Confcd~r3tiun nr !.nd1:."tr) I .in;it·:~d I ~niou of r1.11plo_yl:C'.'> auci Other.-;: Ouccnslcmd ( 'onfclkrnt1on of 111dus1ry t1111iteJ, l'nior ot Lmplc,yers 3nc! Citkr, STATE \\'AGE CASE Cl-HE!; INDUSTRIAi C0\;1'\1lSSJO'\JER HAI L C0/\1M!SS!ONERS ED\VARDS A'..D FlSl!LR 26 lul 1 l 995 ,\b,orption of Safety Net lnccca,e -- Jurisdicuon - Guidciines - Rctrospc:cl!nty_ DECfS!O'\ We publi,hed an interim decision in this matter nu l ;-,covcmbcr 1994. The deci,ion is nm, r:.:pc,rteJ :it 147 QCil(i !092 .\t !094 we said: The question of "hether the Al RC s September l 994 Safety Ne, 1\djustmcnts and Review permitted absc,rption <>f safety net aJJustmcnts inw m-cra\\ard pa;,mcnts \\a, ngornusly debated. Compctmg rntcrpretations were olkrcd by urnon and cmplover p:irties. Additional !y. the prtics w~rc required lP aJdrcss '.hc- Commission on 1ts,iunsdiuion under the lrdusmu I RclCl!ions .-tu 199() to deal with and make nrdc:rs ll1 respccl ()f absnrption Another dimensrnn to the de hate \I as adJe,i b:, ivlr Bel tide! of the MT!A who informed the Commissic•n of:, dcc1:;ic1J1 by the, Prc,idcnt oi the A!Rl to rcler issues of absorption arising frum the Septcmt>cr 1994 decision to J Full Bench ln light of the unccnainty. r--.lr /\luir submitted the application tu th.: Metals In<lustrv case before the Queensland Wage Bench should be det<:rred nending th..: renewed proceedings in the AIRC. fhc (_'c,mmi,sion declined to proceed in ,hie "·a: \Vh:1t mt1\· C('nveniently hl· dc~t:ribed n~ the ah::-ncpl!on b"-ue n1ls.:"-:-, quiic difficult 4uc~tlo11:-i (!f pU\\Cf aad cf policy. l Edin;; behmd that 1,,su<:: is the further question whether th~ issue ,s trnlv ahs0rptio1; Cir one nfldenti~Yin~ the ch:n,1ctcrist1cc:, nf~.he et::,;~: n• e1nployce \Vh1ch ls h.1 hLn\.Ji1 fh)til the dcci~i,H.1 . t\LcgeJ amr,ipuitie., in the: dccisinn ol the 1\!HC exact:rbatc> the dilficultie.s ll't'.1cre be: pcm~r 1t "ilL uf cm1:,c. be n.;ccosan lli consider whnt weight shoul,J be given to the i_;oai of comparable ontcon1r~s AJI oi' those matkn mav now he put aside_ ·i he: inci-eascs to be mack av;1;bble by this interim decision :ire lul'.y :1bsorb:ibl:c If. u11in1at.i..:l) \-.·c tJk.('. d ...fiiT,.;n,.:nt \ it.:w \\C -.;lt;1l! l)f c,JUhi.' iH.:ed tn con~1(kr the d~te nf operation tn be 'Hl<,rtc'd in flnwing the: increases to tl:c c,';pandcd group o; bcm:lic1cirics. \\',: du 11ot do tll:lll10W. When the AIRC Jcci,ion 011 abs,npl.1011· reli,t thi.s matter irlr fmrhn rnn,ider:ni,,n. .-\s mcnt:oncd earlier, the tempnnirv setting :,sick oi' the· 1ss1.w, rct]'.llrl'.:' the rc,;orkin 6 of'.h~ chtLC accu11,p:111ying the 111scrtH1:1 of the lirst i8 per week arb1trnted sakt,· net ad.11i:mn,,nt. It La,; bcc'!1 jlrflVidci°! earlier and is rc;,ctted ic the !)ecl:1rn•jn11 of Po!ic) rclui,c<l with this ,kci:;ion.". The rcooL1farn ,1!' t!ic liti\'aliun al na,Hmai k,cl to which lk pa,sagc refers was not complete at the publi,:ation ()four ri,:1111lt1malc cbcision 'n these matters, ,·17. '.20 December l'l9l We therefore cxpn:ssd nurschcs a, follows (148 QUl(i :no al ~2(l): ··,1IJSORPTJOS We adhere to the Yicw whid '-'( c·xprc::s:;cd ,,11 .~O :\Ch'Clrtbcr 1994 (stc above) Vihdst th..: maltc1 remains u11Jctcrrni11,·d. our cornmc11ts with respect to the absorbability of the first $8 per ,,-c.?k safety net adjustment and the second sakty net adjustment at enterprise level rem Jin unchanged They now h,l\ e appi ication to the $8 per week safety net adjustment which has become available, thwugh this decision at award lc,·c!.". The national litigation. winch followed a somewh;_it tortuous path through Austra!tan Imlustrial Relations Commission. the l ligh Court ot' Australia ,llld the Australian lndustri,tl Relation, Court culminated ii, a dcc;siut, nf the latter court, viz !?c /11.11,·ci/1m1 Industrial Re/c1rw11s Coml'1ission and Or.1: ex pane ,\f,·tal hades :1.1.rn,·iation of Austm/iu and ,-1nothcr. ( l 995) 130 Al ,R 63_ \\hich did not 1inall, rcsohe the i,sues of jurisdiction and pm,cr under the !nclustria/ Rc!arwns Ac/ /988 (C'th)_ In those circumstances :\ustralian Connet! of Trade U11101h. ()ucenslanJ Branch (hcrc,;altcr ACT\l(Q)) and The Australian \Vurkers· linion of Lmploycc,.. ()uccnsland (ht.:rcaficr ,-\ WU) pressed frir the resolution of the outstanding issues relating to absorption. There being no opposition ,,c agreed to adopt that course. 1\Cn)(Q) inntcs us to assen that in an) particular case. whether arising from the tiling of an application or not:fi~atic,n of cisputc, the Commi,s.oncr to whom the matter i, aiiocatcd \\ill ha,e jurisd1cti.,n to determine whether an cmplo,cr paying wages at leas! eyual to the cum:n, Jv,ard rate plus the sakt) net incrca,e ma:, Jcelinc to pay any actual mcrcase to the employees hcnctiting from the arrangcn1cn:. be it a contractual agrec1ncnL an industrially binding agrccrnenL hinding in honour only or an adn1inistrativc arrangement or practice_ AC'Tl'/Ql further submitted that \\ c should issue guidelines to control the exercise of the _1urisJiction and ,olunteercJ what were said to be suitable draft guidelines. We rnnrnin l{) be satisfied of the ,·.-i•sdom 01· issuing arh·isnry opiuiuns on matters of jurisdiction. We dr-: s.it1slicd Lha1 it w,11.ild be h:varch,u, tn de, ,o on the brief onbrnissi,>l!, ru1 1,1 u, in this rnse. \\'c d,, \\i.;;h tu n;c,irJ l I) Th.it we a,e not ,ati,·Jicd that the co11°111a•: ,-,.hich now appear in p;1r.igraph (a) or, J4 _iustily dcpanurc from t11c dc~is,011 uf klfric'S. 1\cting PrcsirknL i11 Re:· l<ri.1h'.1nc: ,,1hottoi•· ,-Lv,;rJ ,md Otha _-hr,ird.1 (l'l63i _1+ ()Ci!Ci 26!. gi\-:ll in rdation to the cou,1tcrpart provision ,.,r the Industrial Cnrci!1a1inn and :1r0irrmio11 Act -' 9,, I. th,1t ··lowest'' l (,()02 I .DOC I I August, 1995] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL CAZETTE l !29 qualilics ··prices per week" and "mks nfpay". We note th:n neither the then Minister's Second Readmg Speech nor the· Report or Lht.: Com111i!lce ot lnquirv rnt.o the fl!dustrial Cnncilia1io11 and Arhitmtion Act I f}6 / to I r;s· ,;anvasscs the reform lo the then s. 12( l )(,1) which tl1e i11tniduc1ion of tile commas by the original fnch1striul Re!u/ion, .1c! !9'!0 ma\ he argued to brmg about . Neither, 011 thL a11b111issiun, 117.td~ in this case, are we sausJieJ that to bar ahsornuun ts to Ii\ ,1 ra1c uf pay_ • (2) Tlrnt the snhm1ssillns du 1101 ,,itisfy us to go hcynnd making :in aware] reyuiring c1n empluy.:r to pay $x in excess of Lht: agreed or admm1strativcly fiXl'd rote_ 1,h1ch rate is ki\ free 1o incre:,sc or decrease, by a:,:rc..:n1e11I or admi11istn1tive dcci;ion, and to make an award f~eez1ng the existing rate and nnkring an employer to pay an additional $x, is to deal wit!; J matter relating tn I\Jge, for the purposes ors_ h(3)(a1(1). It is at least arguable: that prupcrl, clwrac!criscd soch ,m a',1,ird relates to the arrungemcnt or practice (J) Tl1at tht.: submissions dn not ,atisl\ uc; that the fir,! claw,c of s. 6(3)(d)(iv) may be seven;d from the second clause so as to pcnmt reg11lat1on n1 n~spccl of :1 ma11cr not roing to the conditions o!' the conduct of a calli11.r: nr the prov1s1011 or henelits tt1 persons engaged therein. \Vc stress lhc cxpn:ssion ··nm satlslied" We have not had the benefit of argument on any legitimate meaning of that word_ It mav be that on a subsequent occasion a member of the C01nmissio;1 sitting alone. having had the benefit of a fttll ar12umcnt. will be satisfied that jurisdiction over the matter of absorpiion is vested b, one or pcrhnps all of the provisions 10 which we were relerred. l f s:1 satisfied the Commissioner should. subject to any suhmission which may be put under s. 90( I )(h) and, any submission or conclusion thar Lhc matter should go to a Full Bench, exercise the jurisdiction found to exist. This decision is no obstacle. Further. we think that in the nrdinary case jmisdiction over the matter of absorption is vested h, the operation of s. ~2 upon s. 6( IJ(b), and that in dispute situation°s jurisdiction may arise under s. 32(1)(di and the operation ofs. 32(!) 011 s. 6( l )( c)_ In the circumstances. \I c propose to consider the submission that guidelines should issue on the basis tha: in particular cases jurisdiction to make or to vary an award so as tu prohibit absorption may be held to exist_ Whether the established practice of a Full Bench of this Commission fonnulating wage lixing principles and other principles in the expectation that those principles will be adhered to by Commissioners sitting alone, both in determining applications an<l resolving disputes, is a practice based ons. 38 (as these application, assume) or is in truth based on the concepts developed by the l ligh Court in R. v. iifoore and others; E, parte Aus1ra/i11n hlcphone und f'honogram Officers' Association ( 1982) 148 CLR 600 (which is also reported under the name R_ v_ Clarkson and Others; L:, partc Austra/ian Telephone and Phonogram Officers' Assoc;mion ( 1982) 39 ALR l) in relation lo Conciliation and Arbitration Ac/ 190.J (Cth), has yet to be authoritatively determined_ But whatcYcr the basis of the practice. it is justifiable onlv where there is some foundation for a belief that i~ the general it; of case there will- be :1 s11bstratum of common fact making adh~rencc to the principles prncticable and fair. fn this c:isc we ha,c been presented with no reliable information about th-: variety. nature, terms and h1st11n ot c:-c1stinr, over-award pavments. In the absence of evidence thne is 11t1 reas,,n for departinc fro111 !he assi;rtinn nf Quccr,sland ConleJeration of Indusln Li1rntcd_ U11io11 nf Fmploycrs and the assertions of the Crnw;, that the amrngemcnts arc many and varied. We add (in proceeding, such as this dcpartun: from the rules ur eviJe11cc is 1ustilicd) that the a,,ertions arc consistent with Olli own cxperienct:_ In our opinion to is,ue guidelines in the c1rcumsta11ccs of ignoraucc: which p1cvail 111 155221--86 thi, ca:;e v,ould Jen) trn,mal justice to parties prcoscntly unknnwn :u1d be as likely as not tn produce.: n11\\n1kablc :md 11w:1L:it:1blc OUlCOfIJC~ We Jo not propose tL' i'-:s11c g:11delinc-: .":i, c :1,, t\l l\\O mc1llcr, \\ c d,, not comi:u.:m upon how a Comrn1s,ic,11cr ,ittin~ :iilllw sh(iuld ck:tl with an upplication or L1ispufc dcillin,: 1, i!h ah:,,rption. uth<..r than to say th:n the application ur Ji.,put~ :,hu1ild he dl'alt wii.li rn, m merits We r~fr<tin from adopting the views expressed in AL:stra!ian ln<lustrial Rchtion, Cnmrnission in Re ·\fciu! l,1cl;1.\/r, ,lv,ard Print L(,'66 The lir,1 ,,r !he tv,o matters tL ,-.hicli "c pruros-: to refer 1,. or cumsc .. the Jc:cision of the Australian ( 'n,11missin11 prcvinu•;ly cit,:d There will be entnprises within which ,:01m. person:., ilr<.; cmplt.1yeJ under natio11:il aw<1rJ,, whilst others are el1lploycd under l,luccn~l~nd awor<ls. Ir L'<,nsisle11tly with the decision in Re .\fc:t.t! /nd;i.11r, ,-\ warJ l'rin! L6766, the policy ol' llOli-iih,orpllOll IS applied to the catt:gory of cmplovce first Jescnhed_ i ,ncrnhcr nr this (__'ommF:sion (being rati,;ficd that jurisJ1c:titHi _:xis:;;) 1my giv" ,,-.;ighl to tl1al factur (,mwngst oth-:rs) in detcrmi111n1, the ntlc t<) be applied tn emploVL·es in the category secondly descrihc,I. It is not " 111utkr of pcrmilli11g a ri:jcctcJ :,ubmi,sio11 t.., p.:rcolak 111to the Oueensland system. lt is a rnattcr of i\cccptine th1t rnmpli:11H:e with the A11strnli:m Commission's decision rnay co11,tiu1tc an i11dustrial fact. The second matter upon winch \\C propose to cornm..:nt is the matter of retrospcctivity Jn deferring considcr:Jtion of thc; matkr of absorption pending completion of the litigation at national level w-c s,nd: "We have come lo the view th:n in present circumstances the halance of convenience will best be scne,1 if we cuntnrnc: to Jefer consideration of the issues or power anJ policy ro:iating tn ahsorption. l f circumstances change we shall re! ist 1he matter. We considcr that convenience is best served 1f '.\-C proceed to deal with all other issues. 111cluJmg accc_,s to what 1s colloquially known as the second $8 inc1:casc at the award level_ fn the event that we ultimately conclude tlH,t the first andlor second $8 increases or any part tho:reoi' shcmld not be absurrablc those whose access to the increases has bc,cn deiJycJ will cntcnain so1n~ sense of gr:cvanc~. We do not now decide how that grievance should be moderated Because this deferral !lows from an cmplo;,er applic:a'iun we do warn employers that they arc at risk of' Sdmc measure ol rctrusrLctivit; and should a~just their aff~1irs accurJin~dy. Inconsistently with this deeis10n applicants wdl need to seek orders on the basis on non-absorption. which orders wil I not now of course be granted. in order to tix :i date of opcrati,m gi,ing a _imisJictional basis upon which such retn,spcctivity arguments may be conducted.··. (l ranscript 30 No\ ember l 994) ln so expressing ourselves \\C assumed that the issues relating to absorption would be resolved in these procccdin\',. They have not been conclusiwly reso!vcJ l'IH; industrial organisations of cmplO)TCs "ho sought orders on the liasi.:, uf ncHi-;;-i,,orruon rm1y well cstabl,sli .1 urisdictton over the malt er un hch,1I r of some or :ill O f their members on a basis tn wl11ch the documents present!) Jik'd have no rck\ancc_ Furlh(;r, !.lie mconciusivc rcsol11t10n of the lil!gatinn at 1rnt1onal level has taken nrnch lonGer tlun c.,qicctcd_ M:1tcrially a nc,, tax vcar is upon us. We c:nn,1dcr that harmonious rc:,nl1111on of issues relating to absorpllon is rnnre likely if the spectre nf rctro~pcctivity is laid t0 rest. Where pcrsiskd i11. a cl:1i1n fot retrospccti vi1y i, Lo be brought tn the attcntl()n of tl!e Chief { 'omrnissioner sn thJt the claim mm he rcforred lo a Fu!! Bench ,if this Commission. , -- 1 of 2 -- 1130 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIA L GAZ ETTE Da ted th is eleventh d ay o f July. 1995 . DJ~- HI\L L, C hi ef ind ustrial Conun issio nc r. K.L. EDWARDS, Commi sioncr. G K. FI SH ER, Comm iss ione r. Appearances -- Ms D. Ralston for th e Australian Council o f Trade U ni o ns - Queensland Branch. Ms Y. D' Ath and w ith he r M r J. Lud wig and later Mr M. Vinin g for The Au stralian Workers' Un ion of Ern pl oyees, Queensland. Mr J. Johnston and wi th him Ms J. Re id and Mr T. Ship ton e fo r th e Crown. Mr G. Mu ir for the Qu eenslan d Co nlede rntion of I nd ustry Limi ted. U ni on of Employe rs . Mr M. Be lfie ld and later Mr T. But le r for t he Meta l Trades Ind ustry Associ ation of Au stralia, Q ueensl and Bra nch. Uni on o f Empl oy ers. Mr G. Arno ld for the Me at and Allied Trades Federation o f Austra li a (Queensland Di vision) Union o f Employ er s. Mr W. Turner for the Un ited Gr::i z ier s' Associtui on of Qu eensland, Un ion of Employers . Mr I. Turner a nd late r Mr J. Hardy fo r the Aus tra l ia n M.in es and Metal. Associatio n. Mr S. Nance and Mr P. Warr en fo r the Au stralian Sug ar Milli11g Association , Qu e en sla nd , Union o f Employers. Ms C. Rjce und later Ms R. Bambe r fo r th e Retailers' A ssoc iation of Queensland Li mited, U ni on of Employers . Mr C. Casey fo r the Shop. Distri hu ti ve and Alli ed Emp loyees l\ ssociation (Queensland Branch) Union of Emp loyees. Mr T. Collins for 13risbane Ci ty C ou nc i l. Operative Date: NIA Decision - s1ate wage case Released: 26 July 1995 #########ll##tl #l!##tl##l#/##11-#####11######################## [II Augu st, 1995 1 I August, 19 95 ] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZ ETTE 1 131 -- 2 of 2 --