Federated Clerks' Union of Australia (Central and Southern Queensland Branch) Union of Employees and Federated Clerks' Union of Australia, North Queensland Branch, Union of Employees v Queensland Confederation of Industry Limited, Union of Employers and Others [1993] QIRC 3 (1993) 142 QGIG 153

[153] The Queensland Government Industrial GazettePUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY Annual Subscription $280 ISSN 0155-9362 Vol. 142] FRIDAY, 12 FEBRUARY, 1993 [No. 9 QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1990---1991 s. 10.12 - application for rescission and new award Federated Clerks' Union of Australia (Central and Southern Queensland Branch) Union of Employees and Federated Clerks' Union of Australia, North Queensland Branch, Union of Employees AND Queensland Confederation of Industry Limited, Union of Employers and Others (No. RJ-3 of 1989) CLERKS AND SWITCHBOARD ATTENDANTS' AWARD- STATE CLERKS' A WARD - METRO POLIT AN REGIONAL ABATTOIR CHIEF INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER LEDLIE COMMISSIONERS BOUGOURE, SW AN 8 February 1993 Wage Fixation Principle - Structural Efficiency Principle - Rescission and New Award - Title - Coverage - Exemption Rate - TUTA Leave - Classifications - Levels - Relativities - Typical Duties - Junior Rates - Translation - Future MRA's - Terminology - Classification Criteria - Minimum Rates Award - Minimum Rates Adjustment - Application Granted. DECISION The application, no. R3-3 of 1989, before the Full Bench of the Commission seeks the rescission of the Clerks and Switchboard Attendants' Award - State and the Clerks' Award - Metropolitan Regional Abattoir and thereby creating a new Award entitled "Clerical and Administrative Employees' Award - State". The application also sought to insert a skills based career and classification structure incorporating a graded structure as opposed to the age-based structure which had been a feature of the common rule clerical award. The application further sought the deletion of the exemption rate and the insertion of Trade Union Training Authority Leave (TUT A) provisions. 139949-15 The Award in question is a common rule Award which covers a very large and disparate segment of the workforce in Queensland. This application has been undertaken over a considerable period of time and this is in no small way attributable to the potential scope of the coverage of the Award, the range of parties taking an interest in the matter, and the effort needed to modernize an Award which had based its framework upon an age based classification structure. The application, upon initially being heard by a Commissioner during 1991, was subject to an appeal based upon the question of jurisdiction. It was argued by the respondents that the application exceeded, in terms of its coverage, the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia (Central and Southern Queensland Branch) Union of Employees and the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia, North Queensland Branch, Union of Employees (hereinafter FCU), constitution and registered List of Callings specifically with regard to the insertion and intent thereof of the term "Office Administration". The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the President of the Industrial Court of Queensland in October 1991. In essence, the President, M.P. Moynihan J., viewed the issues canvassed on the appeal and cross-appeal as being "premature", in that his Honour did not- "think there is any doubt that the Commission had jurisdiction to embark on and hear the application on 14 February. The application on its face came within the jurisdiction conferred by ss. 4.13 and 4.15 of the Act. It well may be that the construction of the eligibility rule and the list of callings and their application to the facts is relevant to the ultimate outcome. The Commission plainly recognised that if it errs in its application of that recognition the error can then be dealt with at that stage - when it has arisen.". (16 QGIG 674-{;75) Consequent upon the decision of the President, the parties to this application, in consultation with the Commission, sought inspections throughout the State. It was viewed by all to be prudent to inspect as wide a range of workplaces in differing geographical locations within Queensland as possible in order to reflect the scope of coverage of this common rule Award. As such, the Commission inspected workplaces within the Brisbane metropolitan area, coastal cities, and also smaller regional centres. Evidence was obtained from a wide range of employees undertaking varying duties under the general banner of "clerical" work. The application finally came before a Full Bench of the Commission during 1992. The submissions made by the parties were lengthy and primarily concentrated, though not exhaustively, upon the specific contentious areas of Constitutional Coverage; Classification Structure; Exemption Rate; Relativities; TUT A Leave and Junior Rates of Pay. -- 1 of 2 -- 154 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [12 February, 1993 At the ~essatiun of the fomial he~.ring. the Full Bench, having fully considered all the material put before it, detennined to relist the matter for the following stated reasons - "This matter has been relisted as advised to the parties. \Ve have done so because we have encountered difficulties in accepting either of the classification structures presented to us by the applicant and the QCI. Those difficulties include:- • Applying the stated criteria 10 individual employees fo r the purposes of grading; Also the distinctions between the grades in our view appear too fine to allow effective and ready application in the work place in many cases.". The Commission referred the parties to the October I992 decision of the South Aust ralian Industrial Commission wh ich was the culmination of a Bipartit.e Study Report com piled by the Federated Clerks Union and the South Australian Employers Federation and specifically sought the parties' considered com ment upon - " I. The methodology of the South Australian classification stn1cture, including:- (a) the general preamble; (b) the stated characterist ics for each level; and (c) the typical duties/ski l ls listed for each level. 2. ·me practicality of the distinctions between the lc,·cls for the purposes of grading employees. 3. The number of levels. 4. The number of pay points within each levd. 5. In the conte;,..1 of the South Australian decision. the relevance of the relativities specified for each level.". Upon the rel isting of the application and a report hack fr om the parties on mailers referred to t hem by the Commission, it was put to the Full Bench by one of the pa1ties that if a Decision in Pr incipk could be issued, then it w ould advantage the parties in their attempt to focus th eir attent ion upon areas which may be agreed upon. As such , the Full Bench delivered a Decision in Principk on 22 December 1992 . ( I QGIG J(>-12) Th is decision deterrnined matters such as the Title of the Award, i.e. "Clerical Employees Award State"; Coverage; T UTA Leave; Classificat ions; Relativit ies; Junior Rates; Minimum Rates Adjustments and other peripheral matters such as Terminology, for example. Upon matters such as the Exemption Rate and appropriate wording to be used for Typical Duties. the Commission determined options to be cons idered by the parties. In subsequent Conforen ces before the Commission, such matters were agreed upon by the parti es and, upon the application coming before the Full Bench of the Commission 011 5 Febrnary 1993, the proposed new Award which was tendered was an agreed document between all parties which did not deviate from the purport of the Decis ion in Principle of the Full Bench of 22 December 1992 . An agreed Translat ion Guide was also submitted to the Commission. This guide was viewed by the Commission as being of useful a5 sistance for all parties in their under.;tanding of the proposed processes lo be undertaken . As such. the Commission proposes to make the guide an appendix to the Award for a gi ven period, although not part of the Award in a fonnal sense. The Comm is sion. on 5 February 1993, a~sented to the agreed proposed new Award entitled "Clerical Employees Award - S tate" which contained a five level classification structure each con taining varying pay points establishing y.early increments within a level. In so doing, the Commission rescinded the C lerks and Switchboard Attendants' Award - State and the Clerks' Award - lvletropo litan Regional Abattoir. The new Award is operative from I March 1993. TI1e Commission also accepts in principle the scheduled forward dates for Minimum Rates Adjustments subject to appropriate separate applications being made. As stated earlier, this Award argu:lbly l:as the largest single Award coverage in the State. That, after such a prolonged process, the parties could submit to the Commission an agreed document augurs well for a satisfactory implementation of the new Aw ard. Notwithstan ding the above, however, the Commission strongly encourages th e use of the Translation Guide . The Commission is also of th e view that the parties should report back to the Commission some 3 months after the operative date of this Award to discuss the implementation of the Award. The parties will be notified by the Registry in due course of such report back Conference. Th e parties are to be congratul at ed upon their effort and diligence displayed during the course of the hearings. The Commission orders accordingly. L.N. LEDLIE, C hief Industrial Commissioner. R.W. BO UGOURE, Commissioner. D.A. SWAN, Commissioner. Appearances :- Ms A. Gibson. with her Ms B. Callaghan, Mr D. O'Brien, Ms C. Salmon, for the Fedtratcd C lerks' Union of Australia (Central and Southern Queensland Branch) Union of Employees and the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia, North Queensland Branch, Union of Employees. Mr S. Pawlowski, for the Queensland Confederation of Industry Limited, Union of Employers and on behalf of the Motor Trades Association of Queensland, Un ion of Employers; the Austral ian Mines and Metals Association (Incorporated); and the Queensland Hotels Association, Union of Employers. Mr M. Belfield, for the !'..feta) Trades Industry Association of Australia, Queensland Branch. Un ion of Employers. Mr R.J. Livingstone with him Mr D. Miller (instructed by Messrs Feez. Ruthning) for Queensland Law Society Incorporated . Mr P. Boylan. for the Crown and various Grammar Schools. Mr K. Ball for The Baking Industry Assoc iat ion of Queensland - U ni on of Employers. Mr A. Camp for the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland and the GW.A . Mrs P. Spencer, for the Retailers' Association of Queensland Limited. Union of Employer.;. Mr N. Timo, for TI1e Australian Workers' Un ion of Employees, Queensland. Mr D. Pet ie for the Australian Bank Employees Union, Queensland Branch Union of Employees. Mr G. Walker, fo r Ddoittc Ross Tohma tsu, Duesburys, Ha ll Chadwick. BOO Nelson Parkhill, Coopers and Lybrand, Price Waterhouse, KPMG Peat Marwick, Ernst and Young. Arthur Anderson & Co. Mr G. Amo ld, for Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia (Queens land Division) Union of Employers. Operative Date: I March 1993 Decision - Rescission and New Award Released: 9 February 1993 12 February, 1993] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 155 -- 2 of 2 --