Federated Clerks' Union of Australia (Central and Southern Queensland Branch) Union of Employees and Another v Queensland Confederation of Industry Limited, Union of Employers and Others [1991] QIRC 245 (1991) 137 QGIG 333

330 QUEENSLAND GOVE RN MENT fN DUSTRI AL GAZETTE Ii 3 July, l 991 13 July, 1991] QUEENSLAND GOVER N MENT IN DUSTRIAL GAZETT E 331 QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION lndus1rial Rela1ions Act /990- 199! s. 10. I 2 - a pplication for variatio n Federated Clerks' Un ion of Australia (Cen tral a nd Southern Queensland Branch) Union of Employees and Another AND Queensland Co nfederation of Indust ry Li mited, Union of Employers and Others {No R3-3 of 1989) CLE RKS AN D SW ITCHBOARD ATTENDA ,'ffS ' AWARD - STATE COMMISSIONER SWAN 27 June 1991 Resc ission of Award - New Award - Ju risdiction - Union Coverage - Un ion Constitut ion - Union Rules -list of Callings - Classification - New Classification - Progressional Schemes - Change to Co nd itions of Employment - Tech nological C hange t:1 - Ski ll s - Clerical - Ad m inis trat ive Functions - Finance •- ' Personnel - Supervisory Staff - Special Duties - Education - Trai ning - Forma! Qua lifications - Interpretation - Ambigu ity of Terms - Wi tnesses - Precedent - Judicial Precedent - Public Interest - National Wage Case - Definition - Possib le Amendmen t - Jurisdict iona l Challenge Refused. l., , ., DECISION On 14 Feb ruary 199 1, the Federated Clerks' U nion of Australia (Cen tral and Southern Queensland Branch) Union of Employees and the Federated Clerk s' Union of Australia, North Queen sl and Branch, Union of Employees (FCUl made a Restructuring Appli- cation - Progress 3 to the Comm issio n for the rescission of both the "'Clerks and Switchboard Attendants· Award - State" a nd the "Clerks Award - Me tropolitan Regional Abattoi r" and replace- ment thereof by a new Award entit led '·Clerical and Adm inistra tive Employees Award - State". At the o utset, a jur isd ic tional cha llenge was made by the rep re - ~entati ves fo r the Me tal Trades lnd u5trv Asso ci ation of Australia, Queensland Branch, Un io n of Emp loyers (MTIA) a nd the Queens- land Confederation of Ind u st ry Lim ited, Union of Employers (QC I) with the support of other Emp loyer representat iv es present. In essence, the challenge centred upon whethe r the applica tion exceeded, in terms of coverage, the FCU's Consti tution an d reg• istered List of Calli ngs specifically wi th regard to the inse rt ion and i ntent th e re of of the term " office adm inis tration". Mr Belfield, for t he MTIA, contended tha t: - " Th is matter must be determined by t he Commission prior to any furt her consideration of the union·s ap pl ication. If, as we believe, the union's applicat ion is found to exceed t he union's constitu tional coverage. th en we su bmit t he app lication is inva li d, and further proceedings wou ld be unnecessary ." . Mr Pawlowsk i, fo r the QC!, however, felt t hat t he Un io n sho uld:- '' .. . apply a mod ification of the applicat ion clause so that it more rightly reflects the coverage of the list of callings of the un ion. So, in our view, the application is not necessarily totally mvalid. Indeed, the Commission has powers under s. 8.2I(a) to provide whatever relief it sees necessarv to rect ify si tuations but. in our view, if the Commission finds - as I believe it must - the application exceeds the consti tu tional coverage of the u ni on, then we believe, because of the importance of th is applica tion. t he righ t course would be for the parties to co n fe r on that mat ter further. That m igh t result in the sort of di scuss io ns we should have been havi ng ages ago.". It is not fo r the Comm ission to debate the me ri ts o r otherwise of th e a pplica ti o n at th is point in time. Rather, the question for the Co mmission is to establish wheth er the application lies with in the ambit of the Union 's constitutional ri ghts. It should be st ated that t he proposed Award coverage is as fo ll ows:- " 11WARD COVERAGE (a) The substi tution of the following words for th e current. Application of Award clause: 'i .2 A ward Coverage Th is Clerical a nd Ad mmisuative Emp loyees Award - Sta te applies to persons em ployed wholly or prin ci pally in cl erical and /o r office admin i stration, but excludin g: ( a) Any person who is a proprietor. d irecto r or manager of a compa ny, busi ness or undenak ing, or a person to whom he or she had been delegated the right to engage and terminate the employment of his or her employees. (b) Emplove.cs under articles to solicitors of the Supreme Court of Queensland and gcnerai office and legal office tra inees under the Australian Trainccship Syst em (A.T.S.) or empioyees covered by anv oth er Awa rd oi the Austraiian Industrial Relat[ons Comm ission and /o r t he Queensland lndustrial Re la ti ons Commi ssion covering cle rical and/ or administ rative wo rk.'. (b) The deletion of the exemption rate from the Award.''. It had been put to the Commissio n by Mr Pawlowski that in te rms of the classificati on st ructure Grades I through to 7. that up to Grade 5 contained ·'essentia!lv clerical work" . in terms of Grade 6 "most of it is clerical work· as well. But ihe grey areas and the adm:ni~trative areas in Grade 6 a re increasing'' : and. as for Grade 7, Mr Pawlowski felt that :- "m ost of the functions would be of an admi nistrative nature intermixed with some acrnal clerical fun ctions.". Proposed Grade 7 funct ions are as follows: - ''GR.ADE 7 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER For employees in this grade !he rates of pay and whether mod ifications may need to be made to th e defini tions wi ll be determined. (I) The ski ll levels e mployees in this g ra de a rc required to use may include: (2) TECHNICAL SKILLS (i) Computer - · Skill Le,·ei 6 ab le to: use and rntegrate a varie1y of application software packages within a micro; personal compu ter ne twork; or use a central computer resource to an equiva lent sta nda rd; or e valuate and de termi ne optimu m software solutions (using existing software/ programs) to meet new or d i ffe rent applica tion requirements; or use MACRO funct ion (l ogical ope rators) on a spread- sheet package. (i i) Word Processing - Skill Level 5 a b le to: use all preceding word processi n~ funct ions and intc• gra te word processing software wn h o ther a pp lication software packages to produce comp lex text and d ata documents; app ly knowledge of Desk Top Publish in g to in tegrate documents and selec t st yle sh ec1s approp riate w final presentation: determi ne all document productio n design needs with• out ins tructions. (3) SECRETARIAL SKlLLS - Skill Le ve! 5 ab le w: arrange confe rences and external meetings; or iginate exec- utive correspondence; assist executive in prepa ri ng, attending and following up appo int me nts, interviews, meeti n gs, etc.: act on delegated authority of executi ve. -- 1 of 3 -- 332 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [13 July, 1991 (4J Ei\TERPRISE/1:VDlSTRY KSOWLLD(iE - Shi// Lerel 7 able to: assist in developing policy or new products and services to meet changing market or other circumstances; idemify and assess internal and external factors impacting on production and service delivery: identify future trends. (5) BL.SJVESS/Fl\~4.VCJAL -- Skill Lrvel 7 able to: assist 111 prcpanng - budgets, cashflow records. balance sheets. training accounts, cash management analysis. FBT and company tax requirements: administer individual execunve salary packages. travd expenses and allowances, company transport: administer specialised salary and payroll requirements. e.g. Eligible Termination Payments, Superannuation Trust Deed Reqmrcmcnts, redundancy calculations, WorkCare, Main- tenance Support Scheme. etc.; assist in financial forecasting; mterpret and prepare financial information for senior man- agcmc'.nt and prepare reports and assessment relevant to areas of responsibility \6) TRA!Vfl,'Ci ---- Skill Level 4 able to: assist in the delivery of training courses and apply a knowl- edge of training materials and aids: train employees (where appropriate) in Grade 6 by means of personal instruction and demonstration. 17) SCPERV!SORY -- Sktli Level 3 able to: plan and organise work priorities of unn or section; resched- ule work loads as necessary and resolve operational problems m area of responsibility; monitor work quality of those supervised: use observations. diagnosis and intervention skills to ensure unit/section meets objectives: organise and chair necessar)' work meetings/conferences; assist in plan- nin~ future sectional/office organisational resources and eqmpment needs. 18) SPECIALIST -- Skiil Level 4 able to: use knowledge of basic siatistics to interpret data from spreadsheets, statistical tables, graphs and frequency tables usmg tools such as mean, mode, median variation, etc. apply knowledge of exchange rate fluctuations in areas of funcuonal re~ponsibilny; apply workrng knowledge of legal requirements. e.g. personal mcomc tax and company tax law, contract law, superan- nuation law, local government and environmental regula- tion. (9) Employees m this grade perform clencal and adminis- trative duties using a more extem,ivc range of skills and knowledge at a level higher than required in Grade 6. They art responsible and accountable for thei: O\Vn work, anC. mav have limned responsibiiir, for the unit/section under their supervision. They exercise initiative, discretion and Judgement within the range of then skills and knowledge. Supervision is br means of reporting to more sen;or officers as required. (Emphasis added by the Commission).". There has been considerable judicial and Commission commentary touching upon the question of scope and depth of coverage in the clerical area. Suffice to say, that I accept that the thrust of the commentary views the role of clerical workers in industry generally as ever changing with advances in education, procedures and technology. With regard to education alone, it would be accepted that the educational background of many involved in office clencal work today would vary dramatically from what was perceived to be normal ten or more years ago. Coupled with this, would be resultant advanced skills and responsibilities of the employee working in tandem with advances in technology. I am also aware of the arguments against placing a far too liberal reading upon the Union's list of callings/constitution and in this context [ endorse the comments of Sheldon J. in Federared Clerics' ['nion o(Au.1tra/ia. Se¾ South Walrs Branch v Aus1ralian Workers· [inim; (1971) 71 A.R. (:'\.S.W j 419:- ''The Commiss10:1 has described the phrase 'in any clerical caoacit~' a, a 'wide one', although not without limitations, ar:G as one cf ·indefinite rneaning'."_ It has been put to me that. over time, the Union could have expanded their ilst of callings to reflect the changes that they now argue have occurred. However, in this context. the Union has contended that the understanding of the callings as outlined has altered radically and phraseology such as e.g. "or in any other clerical capacity whatsoever". inherently allows scope for change and progress. The Industrial Relatwns A.er 1990-1991 (the Act) details, through s. l 3,2. /3)(e), the manner by which organisations representing employees are required to register with the Industrial Relations Commission their list of callings in respect of their membership. The Act then elaborates upon means by which alteration or expan- sion reflecting coverage can occur. The registered list of callings for the Union contain the following:- "Persons, male and female, employed either wholly or par- nal!y in the pursuit or vocation of writing, engrossing. typing. and/or calculating, whether by ordinary means or by means of any process or machine calculated to achieve a like result: and/or in invoicing, billing, charging, checking. or otherwise dealing with the records, writing, correspondence. books, and accounts of any person, firm, company, association, or local authority, employed in trading, receiving, or recording, Ior in any orher clerical capacity whatsoever; and switchboard attendants: supenntendents, inspectors, canvassers and/or collectors employed by life insurance companies and/or fire and accident companies operating in the State of Queens- land, funeral benefit canvassers and/or collectors.". An examination of the phraseology ·'employed either wholly or ) partially in the pursuit of .. " and ·'or in any other clerical capacity whatsoever ... " would suggest that these are not limiting terms with regard to the Union's potential coverage. It is against this background that the Commission must determine whether the range of duties contained in the application exceeds the seemingly wide parameters of the list of callings which have been registered in accordance with the requirements of the Act. There has been considerable litigation over the years focusing upon the general perception and understanding of the word "clerical''. In a most recent matter before the Federal Court in Jovce and Ors 1 Chriotoffersen and Or.\ (Gray J unreported Federal Court of Australia 1990), Gray J cites with approval a passage from Sheldon J. in FederalC'd Clerks' c·mon o(Austraita, .\'ew South Wales Rramh v Australian Workers· ['nion (1971) 71 A.R. (N.S.W.) 419 at 42 l:- ·'But an employee does not cease to be employed in a clerical capacity merely because his work includes many admmis- trative and non-recording functions. No doubt there are cases near the border which would be difficult to determine but m general, and subject to some special categones, those who are in a subordinate position but are engaged in the .I ordinary work of office administration are, m my opinion ; pnma fac1e covered by this constitutional rule. But the salient pmnt is that for years clerical work had been regarded for industrial purposes as mcluding more than mere record- ing and covers work of different kinds which no doubt leads to or results from recording but in fact is part of the general office administration system.". The ''primary function" or "substance'' test explores further the likelihood of an employee falling under the clerical umbrella and this point was raised by Burt J. in The Federated Clerks L'nion o/ Australia v Carv Industrial Appeal Court of Western Australia (No 4 of 1977) 1977 W.A.I.G. 585 at 586:- "Of course one has regard to the substantial nature of the employment in terms of the purpose to be achieved by it the question being, I think, very much controlled by the difference, which is not always accepted by philosophers but which serves the purposes of practical men, between ends and means. If in substance the worker's job is to write and the job is done when the writing has been done then he is a clerk, but if in substance the writing done by the worker is but a step taken in the doing by him of something extending beyond it then he is not. The 'substance' of the work identifies the question as being one of degree and it indicates the answer to it will be, or may be very much the product of a value judgment.". Judge ?ray in the aforementioned Joyce and Ors \' Christoffersen and 0 ..s, p. 38, states.- f j 13 Juiy, 1991] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 333 "There can be no doubt that the amount of time which an emplovee spends doing a particular task can be a useful guide as to whether that task is all or part of the primary function of that employee. As illustrations given earlier indicate. however, merely to ciivide up a job in terms of time spent on different tasks is not necessarily to ascertain what is the primary function of that job. Nor is the question of primary function to be determined necessanly according to how an employee sees the functions, in terms of the order in which they are carried out, or of their relative importance in his or her daily activity. Ultimately. the primary function of an employee must be detern1ined by looking at what he or she does in the context of the employer· s organisation of work.". Mr Belfield addressed the issue of the use of the phrase "office administration" by arguing that the term was not contained in the Union rules or list of callings. His comments went to the point that ambiguitv could easily arise by the use of that term. To this effect, Mr Belfield called two witnesses who were presently working in positions which were award-free but who, upon perusing the Job descriptions con tamed in the different gradings of the proposed Award, felt that they may well fall within its ambit. Mr Pawlowski, for the QC!, expressed views similar to those of Mr Belfield together with his aforementioned commentary regard- ing his perception of the scope of each listed grading. Mr Pawlowski further progressed the argument of potenual confusion that the perceived scope of the Award would cause by stating:- ''further, it is impossible, in my view, for any realistic work value investi~ation to be undertaken while such widespread confusion exists on fundamental aspects of the Award and decisions.". ln support of their claim that the gradings listed in the proposed Award satisfied the requirements of their list of callings/constitution duly registered, the linion relied to a large degree upon the same case studies as presented by the Employers. At the outset, however, the Union cited the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in its February 1989 Review Decision (Print H8200 page 4) as follows:- "In many cases, alteration to the coverage of Awards will also take much time and effort if fundamental change is to occur. Any proposals for change must be carefully handled. However, we recognise that, as part of the structural effi- ciency principle the parties may agree to make changes to award coverage to facilitate improved efficiency and improved relations amongst employees and between unions and Employers. Again, where warranted, change should be made.". The Cnion further contended that it was not in the public interest to contemplate and support a mulliplicity of unions and to this end stated:- ''It is not in the community interest~ to ha,e inefficiency and disputation which arises from unnecessary competition, especially where an existing union is standing before this Commission and saying we are prepared and anxious to continue representation in that area.". A proposition was put by the Union that:- "If the Commission accepts that we do have constitutional coverage of the employees whose skills are described m our career structure; and it is decided to exclude employees from Award coverage if they are in senior managerial posiuons or senior executive officers OR professionals not wholly or principally employed in clerical and/or office administration. then the definitions associated with the new classification structure could reflect such a decision.". This view was supported by the Union's citing of the Nat10nal \Vage Case decision August 1989 (Pnnt H9!00 page 8):- "We expect that many structural efficiency exercises will involve new classification structures. In those cases the parties to particular Awards will need to apply specific procedures governing the translation of workers from the old to the new structure. This m turn demands that the new classification structure levels be clearly defined.". 124382-32 The Union contended that the definitions of clerical/administrative work up to Level 7 did not overlap executive or managerial callings and to this end, the inclusion of the words "wholly or principally" engaged in clerical and or administrative work overcame problems which might be encountered by other Unions:- " ... where members perform clerical duties incidental to their main occupations and it is in the best interests of all parties to have a more definite meaning.". The Union scrutinised the decision of Sheldon J. in Federated Clerks' L-nion of Australia (Xew South Wales Branch) v Australian Workers' Union 71 AR N.S.W. 419 and referred to the exclusion of employees from the ambit of the "clerical" umbrella who were classified as "professional". The Union argued that the use of this word "professional" currently as opposed to its perceived meaning in l 971, had expanded sufficiently to encompass many more persons who had the capacity to fall under the "clerical" banner. I referred earlier to the expansion of education and technology generally, but also specifically in the clerical arena. The Union proceeded to cite many passages from case law focusing upon the question of correctly interpreting the word "clerical". Cases referred to viewed the word "clerical" in accordance with its current denotation and thereby bestowed upon the word its modern connotations. The Union went to some length to state that, excluded from its proposed ambit. were persons fitting the definitions of managerial. executive and professionals (professionals as viewed in Sheldon J. usage in l 971 ). To this effect, the Union referred the Commission to the decision of the Federal Industrial Relations Commissions in Alcoa of Aus- tralia Limited v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (Dec. 176/90 S Print J 1640) which excluded from coverage of the Clerks' Award (Alcoa) a "person in a managerial position" who, by definition, would be a person "who is a proprietor, director or manager of a company or business or a person to whom he or she has delegated the right to engage and terminate the employment of his or her employees.". Ms Gibson, for the FCU stated that:- "we tender this Alcoa decision to show that the Federal Commission prescribing the Award Coverage confirmed senior clerical and administrative staff are covered by the Award which we submit confirms our constitutional cov- erage of these employees.". Further, the Union referred to the decision of the Full Bench of the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission of 2 l December 1990 which stated:- "We therefore decided to include the exclusion provision sought by the FCC. This provision is based on a clause recently inserted into the Clerks (Alcoa of Australia) Award by the Australian Commission and will ensure that propri- etors, directors and managers of undertakings and persons with the right to hire and fire staff are not within the jurisdiction of the Board. We consider that such categories of employees are clearly outside the scope of the new classification structure. The provision will not however, exclude persons with nominal managerial titles but whose duties are wholly or principally of a clerical nature.''. The Union proceeded to display to the Commission many Awards and Industrial Agreements of this Commission, for which the Union had preference, which showed that their range of coverage was extensive and had moved, in some instances, into highly classified areas within the office structure. Mr Pawlowski saw these Agreements as constituting "de facto" arrangements between the Union and the particular Employer and whilst, in a practical sense, they possess all the hailmarks of real and binding relationships. they are no more or less than ''de(acto'' relationships. in his view. Conclusion On the information before me, I believe that the jurisdictional challenge should not be upheld. I believe that there is sound precedent (and this has been detailed in great length in the earlier commentary) for holding that the scope of "clerical" work can be intermi;1gled with work of an administratiYe nature and that this could satisfy the requirements of the Union's registered list of callings. -- 2 of 3 -- 334 QUEENSLAND GOVERNM EN T INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [I 3 July, 199 1 This view is supponed, in pan. by a considerati on of t he com- mentarv bv S he ldo n J. in t he aforementioned matter Federated Clerks'.Union of Australia, New South Wales Branch ,, Australian IVo rkers· Un io ri ( 19 7 1) 71 A.R. (N .S .W.) 4 19 a t 42 1: - "No dou bt there are cases near the border which would be difficult to determin e but in general, and subject to some special categories, those who are in a subordinate position but are engaged in t he ordinary work of o ffi ce adm inistration are, [~ my opinion prima facie covered by this constit utional ru k . , and the over-ridi ng sta t eme nt in the applicati on's Grade 7 Admin · istration Officer classification that su pervision of perso ns in this grading •' is by means of reporting to mo re senior officers as required.". I see this demarcation between tbe excluded groupings (i .e. spe- cifica ll y, any person who is a "proprietor , d irector o r manager of a company. business or undertaking, or a person to whom he or she had been delegated the right to engage a nd terminate the e mp loyment of his or her employees") and other employees within the office structure as concep tually clear, although, on a practical leve l, capa bl e of possible con fu sion. It should be reiterated that all the Commission had befo re it is a brief detail of what is entailed in each graded listi ng. Prima facie, the gradings do not seem to me to be inappropriate or outside. the wide scope possible under the Union's registered list of callings. If, however, during the hearing of the restructuri ng application. the re is st ill apparent confusion as to the classifications, then the applicant may be as ked to be more definiti ve, where possible, in an attempt to avoid ambigui ty. By deciding to reject the jurisdictional challenge. the Com mission in no way wou ld wish the pani es to view this course of action as sanctioning, of necessity or otherwise, the contents of the proposed Awa rd app lication. During the hearing of th e app lication the wide r and more detailed component.s of the proposed Award and its cl assification structure would need to be addressed and considered. Man y of the concerns expressed dur ing this hearing would undoubt· edly be expanded upon. From the considerab le amount of material and detail put before me. I believe that one of the primary concerns for the respo ndents is the potentia li ty fo r ambiguity and uncertainty in det er mining which em ployees would fall with in the am bit of the proposed Awa rd. Wh ilst the Co mmission has not had the opponunity to hear an y detai led debate on this issue at this stage, the real concerns expressed by the respondents warran t comment. In th is respect, the dec ision of the Full Bench in the Nationa l Wage Case of August 1989 (Print H9 I00 page 8) where it states:- "We expect tha t many structural efficiency exercises will in volve new classification structures. In those cases the parties to part icular Awards will need to apply speci fic procedures go vern ing the translation of worke rs from the old 10 the new structu re. Th is in tum de man ds that the new classification structure levels be cl ea rly defined." , is high ly pertinent, whilst bearing in mind the constraints of const itu tiona l coverage of orga nisatio ns. Funh cr. I endorse the commentary of Sheld on J. in Federazed Clerks ' Union of Aus1ralia, ,/o;(w South Wales Branch v Australian Workers ' Union (1971) 7 1 A. R. ( N.S.W.) 41 9 at 42 1:- ''The constitutional rule of the Federated Clerks' Union provides (i nter alia) coverage for persons 'engaged in an y clerical capacity' as 'a wide one·, although no t without limi tat ions, and as one of'indefin ite meaning' (A ccoun tants and Secretaries Case). I do not regard it as proper to read it down because the ru le specifies a few special cl asses of work as being included in it. This phrase. in my view must be read against_ the background of the way industry has developed and 1s now co nducted.". It would o n ly become evident upon hearing mo re detailed debate during the hearing of the application wh e ther the degree of a mbi- guity a nd confusion in the proposed gradings would be as acute as fe ared by the res ponde nts . However. it is my view, that this issue must be dea lt with during t he course of the actual hea ring and not at th is s tage. There wo uld be amp le oppo nunit y during the hearing and pr ior to any formalisation of triall ing to expand upon areas of concern and , if need be for the sake of clarity, to exclude specific and definab le functions from the coverage of the Awa rd . lt may be, after fun her discussion between the part ie s, that the sta ted exclusion fro m coverage of"pro prietors, d irectors or managers of compan ies, b us inesses or undenakings or persons wh o have delegated them the right to engage and te rmina te the employment of his or her emp loyees", needs to be expa nded upon in order to correctly reflect the demarcation I have referred to earlier as being necessa ry . However th is would presumably become eviden t during the hearing of the application. The U nion has indicated, during this hea ri ng. that a defin it ions clause could be inserted into the proposed new Awa rd to p re clude areas agreed upon or, if not, then to define more accu ra tely the new classification struct ure. T he need or otherwise to pursue th is cou rse of action wo uld become se lf evident during a formal hearing of the matter. I ha ve given full and detailed consideration to all the materi al put before me. however for the reasons stated. I reject the ju risd ic t io nal chall enge. Order accordingly. D .A. SWAN, Com missio ner. Appearances:- Ms A. Gibson, with her Ms B. Ca ll aghan for the Federated Cle rks' Union of Australia (Central and Southern Queensland Br anc h) \ U nion of Employees and the Federated Clerks' Un ion of Australia'. ·t North Q ueensland Branch, Unio n of Emp loyees. Mr S. Pawlowski for the Queensland Confedera ti on of Industry Lim ited, Unio n of Employer s. Mr M. Be lfield for the Meta l Trades Industry Association of Australia, Queensland Bra nch, Un ion of Employers. Mr J. Hardy with him Mr I. Turner for the Austra li an Mines a nd Metals Associati on (Inc.), Queensland Branch. Mr P. Boylin foi the Crown and various Gram mar Schools. Mr K. Ball fo r The Bread Ma nu fac turers of Queensland, Un ion of Employers. Mr A. Camp for the Royal Automobile Cl ub of Queensla nd and the G .W.A. Mrs H. Blucher for t he R etaile rs' Association of Queensland Li m- ited, Un ion of Emp loyers. Mr D. Jones a nd with him Ms M. Bebbi ngton for Queensland Newspapers and Mirror News papers. Mr G . Wal ke r for the Queensland Hotels Associat ion, Union of Employers. Mr N. Tim o for Th e Australia n Workers' Union of Emp loyees. Queensland. Mr T. Da ly for the Motor T ra des Association of Queensland . Union of Employers. Mr D. Pct ie for the Austral ian Bank Employees Union . Q ue ensla nd Division Union of Employees. Operative Date: N/ A Dec is ion - J urisdiction 13 July , 1991) QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 335 I } -- 3 of 3 --