AM2008/1, Transcript of Proceedings [2008] AIRCTrans 430 (6 August 2008)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 18540-1

COMMISSIONER SMITH

AM2008/1

s.576E - Award modernisation
Award Modernisation.
(AM2008/1)

HOBART

10.07AM, FRIDAY, 30 MAY 2008

Continued from 29/5/2008

PN2570

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning. This morning in the Commission for the consultative process are representatives from Unions Tasmania, the Australian Nursing Federation, Community and Public Sector Union, Hobart City Council, Retail Traders, VACC, the Printing Industry Association of Australia and Aged and Community Services Tasmania. Have I missed anybody? No, splendid. Well, I will start with the unions and Unions Tasmania.

PN2571

MR S COCKER: Thank you, Commissioner, I think I will be reasonably brief. I note that Unions Tasmania is participating in the processes of the ACTU and is fully supportive of its submission and approach and will be in the main dealing through the ACTU on representation and technical detail. I would note that we have been asked to comment on three issues this morning, the industry list as presented in the statement of 28 March and I note that the industry list pretty much reflects the major employment categories in Tasmania with one exception and that is the agriculture, forestry and fishing area which is not included in that list but is the fifth largest employment industry in Tasmania but otherwise seems to be fairly representative.

PN2572

The second issue that we have been asked to comment on are the clauses, the flexibility clauses. I note that the Commission has supplied three for comment, one from the ACTU, one from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Australia and one from the AIG. I would have to say think that the two put forward by the employer groups are both simplistic and do very little to recognise the rights of working people to representation and to fair dealings and to due process. I think it would be our submission, Commissioner, that without much doubt the evidence over the last couple of years is that due process and proper process is an important part of any fair system and it needs to be built into any clause that comes forward. I don’t think either of those two clauses do that and we need I think to see proper process being part of the flexibility clause and providing the proper protections and proper rights for working people who are going to be affected by it.

PN2573

My final comment relates to the timetable, the intention of having this process finished by the end of next year and I would note that the speed and complexity of these proceedings are putting quite a severe strain on our resources and while the current timetable is not of our making we must participate to ensure that Tasmania workers are not disadvantaged in the process. It would seem to me that we have had a very workable system with our 70 odd awards in the state system in the past and if these are going to be absorbed in the national system then we must ensure that that’s done without loss of condition, although as other persons have noted during these proceedings, strike me as being a very difficult task to disadvantage the employer and employee and not to add to the cost to employees through the process of turning these into national awards and I am not at all sure how that’s going to be achieved.

PN2574

But nonetheless I am sure that some people clever than I will be working on that and we will see what proceeds from that. I have got no further submissions.

PN2575

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks. Well, I think as a matter of convenience I will go from the left to the right. No other intended meaning, Mr Chesterman, just simply the allocation of people on the bar table.

PN2576

MR CHESTERMAN: Yes, not a problem, Commissioner.

PN2577

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Saint.

PN2578

MS C SAINT: My right?

PN2579

THE COMMISSIONER: My left.

PN2580

MS SAINT: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. I will be very brief likewise. The Tasmanian branch of the Australian Nursing Federation simply wishes to endorse the submission that were made by federal representatives in Melbourne earlier this week seeking a single award to cover all categories of workers that provide nursing care and also to endorse the draft nursing award scope that was put forward. Just as a matter of background, nurses are the largest single group of workers who are employed in the health arena. There are three levels of nursing workers, registered, enrolled and assistants in nursing, howsoever called, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Groups, those three workers together, as an occupational group which in 2005 Australia wide had an estimated 305,400 workers in 2005.

PN2581

The largest occupational group in health is doctors with just under 60,000 workers. Tasmania is a small state but we have 6005 registered or enrolled nurses on the Board in Tasmania and there’s also that third level of worker who is involved in the delivery of nursing care. Clearly as an occupational grouping there are a very large percentage of health workers of course and in Tasmania the majority of nurses are employed in the private sector, in aged care, medical surgeries, doctors practices, triage call centres to name just a few and recently there’s been a movement for some of those workplaces to actually become federally run or run on a national employer basis with locally employed staff.

PN2582

So in conclusion, nurses as a group define themselves and identify strongly with themselves in the sector within which they work. As a profession they’re clearly identified as a group by the public. The public recognises nurses by the work that they undertake such as the provision of assistance with activities of daily common. Common issues arise across the sectors including issues such as shortages workloads and there’s an easy translation between the sectors for nursing due to common requirements of training and registration. So the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Nursing Federation supports the submissions of the federal office for the inclusion of nursing on the priority list with the making of a modernised award to cover the three categories of nursing employees within the Australian workforce. If the Commission pleases.

PN2583

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Saint. Mr Johnston.

PN2584

MR M JOHNSTON: Thank you, Commissioner. I appear on behalf of the Community and Public Sector Union - State Public Services Federation Group. Firstly, the Tasmanian branch of the CPSU/SPSF Group endorses and supports the position put by the ACTU in their material and verbal submissions to the Commission to date. Further, I can also say that the Tasmania branch supports the previous submissions of my colleagues from the federal union, the SPSF Group in the previous hearings in both Melbourne and Sydney. While we are a State Public Services Federation we do have coverage of certain areas which fall under the federal system currently. We would like to declare an interest in the TOTE employees which are in the racing industry. We have members employed at TOTE Headquarters and on course. They work in administrative and phone betting roles and the like.

PN2585

The CPSU/SPSFT seek to declare an interest in the racing industry modern award that has been suggested as a priority award for modernization. Further, we represent general staff of the University of Tasmania and I believe
Mr Mendelssohn, my colleague, has made submissions in Sydney regarding that. As a Tasmania branch we have members in the University of Tasmania and the Australian Maritime College that’s recently been incorporated into that institution. It’s been previously declared by my colleagues in Melbourne and Sydney that we have interests in the higher education industry modern award.

PN2586

We also have award covered members in the Printing Authority of Tasmania and Forestry Tasmania, which is also subject to federal provisions. There has also been talk of a security industry modern award. It got mentioned in the Melbourne Full Bench hearing I believe. We put as a matter of fact that corrections is fundamentally different to the security industry and as such we would, in keeping with that assertion, not declare an interest in any security industry modern award but however if corrections was included in such award, which would be a mistake, but we would seek to declare an interest in that modern award also.

PN2587

It’s been asserted in other consultations but with the forbearance of the Commission I would like to restate that the regulation of an industry is not part of that industry itself. In this way we contend that those members of ours who have employment in a regulatory capacity should be covered by some public or government employees modernised award rather than an industry award. For instance, the steward at the races cannot be appropriately designated as part of the Racing Industry Award in any way than a quarantine officer can be designated as part of the Tourism Industry or the Fruit Growers Industry Awards. The workplace standards inspector similarly is not appropriately covered, we submit, by the Manufacturing Industry Award any more than the transport inspector could be covered by the Transport or Rail Awards.

PN2588

The regulation and administration of industry by government employees is fundamentally separated in an award coverage sense in our submission and further, we would seek to reserve our rights to be heard on many other modern awards or potential modern awards should there at some stage be a referral of jurisdiction and industrial powers from our state to the federal government. Some of these have already been countenanced as part of the prioritisation whilst others are somewhat amorphous at this stage and lack definition.

PN2589

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, Mr Johnston, clearly you have read the transcript of the earlier proceedings. You will have noted the difference in the proceedings, that these proceedings are namely consultative and we appreciate you put forward all your interests but could I simply also observe that if you go to our website you will see all recent breaking news, so there is some obligation for you to keep abreast of what is going and if you wish to let us know about matters please do so.

PN2590

MR JOHNSTON: Certainly, will do. Thank you very much. I can also inform that the SPSF Group will be making a written submission before the deadline of
6 June and I can also signal the support for the process and our full participation from both the Tasmania branch point of view and our federal union point of view in the future progress of this endeavour.

PN2591

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much.

PN2592

MR JOHNSTON: Thank you.

PN2593

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Rowell.

PN2594

MR R MALLETT: Thank you, Commissioner. I appear of the Retail Traders Association of Tasmania.

PN2595

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m sorry, Mallet is it? Did I get your name correct?

PN2596

MR MALLETT: Robert Mallet.

PN2597

THE COMMISSIONER: Mallett, yes, I’m sorry. Thank you, Mr Mallet. I have shuffled you around on my list.

PN2598

MR MALLETT: Can I – sorry, from the Retail Traders Association of Tasmania.

PN2599

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN2600

MR MALLETT: Can I first up suggest that many of my members and the organisations for which I represent, they require genuine modernisation within awards, it should be simple and should be in plain English, as opposed to the excessively complex jargon that's found currently found in many of the awards. The other item is that significant members of my employers within the retail sector, despite full consultation and agreement with their staff currently operate outside the NAPSAs under which they currently fall. That's despite lengthy consultation, et cetera, but irrespective they fall outside that and subject to prosecution - could be subject to prosecution at some later date. So I think there are already some simplistic changes towards workplace arrangements going on as we speak.

PN2601

We continue to support the award rationalisation process of course which was commenced under the previous government and hope that under the rationalisation of awards and as to their simplification as well that we will end up with a much better system. There have been considerable changes in the working hours of Australian retailers over the last decade. Awards have not kept up with this in any way, shape, nor form and Australian customers expect to see greater access to goods and services on their shelves in all hours of the day and existing awards it's extremely difficult for employers to work within because of their particularly prescriptive nature. So they do require flexibilities. Our employers and employees need the opportunities to be able to design their workplace arrangements in consultation with the enterprise and to not be excessively over prescribed by another organisation.

PN2602

We have looked at the options that have been presented in the statement by the Commission and the AIG proposal is definitely looking as if it's a workable proposal and it's one that we would like to continue to support. Thank you.

PN2603

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I ask you a question on that?

PN2604

MR MALLETT: You may.

PN2605

THE COMMISSIONER: It's not unusual to find in agreements that people agree to overtime, having time off in lieu and it's also not unusual from my observations to see that time off in lieu is normally, well, often one for one. Namely, one hour's overtime produces one hour off.

PN2606

MR MALLETT: Well, under the award that we operate in Tasmania, the state award and the NAPSA which an organisation coming under the federal jurisdiction would be, that's not the case. The award would prescribe that the overtime be given off at the appropriate rate.

PN2607

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN2608

MR MALLETT: So if they actually worked it at double time they would end up with two hours ordinary time off.

PN2609

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. So that's why the AIG proposal of assessing a monetary value would fall conveniently into the arrangements that you currently have?

PN2610

MR MALLETT: It would. We would also like though to look at the rationalisation and the modernisation in that. Currently in Tasmania retailers under the state awards and the NAPSAs are forced to pay double time on a Sunday when the Australian public are now expecting that retailers be open to provide goods and services to them on Sundays and on Saturdays. It's just inappropriate that double time be the only way of being able to open your shop, that the flexibility needs to be built into these awards to allow employees and employers to come to an arrangement. It's many people it's actually their preferred time that they should work on a Saturday and a Sunday. That's the only time they're available many of them are to work, but they need to have that flexibility with their employer.

PN2611

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Mallett.

PN2612

MR MALLETT: Thank you.

PN2613

MR P MAZENGARB: Good morning, Commissioner. Just in case the list is now a little bit out of skew my name is Paul Mazengarb and I have authority represent the Aged and Community Services Tasmania, ACST.

PN2614

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Mazengarb.

PN2615

MR MAZENGARB: Commissioner, before addressing you on the principal matters that the ACST wishes to bring to the attention of the Commission for its consideration this morning it would be appropriate, I believe, to provide some relevant background in relation to the ACST as its exists in Tasmania. The ACST is the leading peak organisation for aged care services, community care services and retirement villages in Tasmania. ACST members are a mix of religious, charitable or private organisations, as well as state and local governments and has been delivering services to its members within the industry for well over 100 years.

PN2616

The organisation provides a range of services to its members but primarily provides guidance and assistance to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing and complex industry. Historically Aged and Community Services Tasmania has not been an industrial organisation and relies on the services of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ltd to provide services and expertise in the industrial arena. ACST has only one staff member and that is the position of the chief executive officer. ACST is a member of the Aged and Community Services Australia, a national peak body in Australia representing over, as I understand, 1200 churches and charitable and community based organisations.

PN2617

From Tasmania's perspective it represents well in excess of 80 per cent of the not for profit aged care industry sector in Tasmania. In residential care ACST represents over 90 per cent of the employers in that sector. ACST members are currently struggling with the resource implications of individualised enterprise agreements negotiations across the sector. Prior to recent changes in the workplace environment a common agreement applied to a multitude of ACST members, it was negotiated with the applicable unions and once registered with the Commission it became the common applying across the majority of the sector. The situation is now that ACST members, be they small, medium or large, are each individually involved in negotiating new collective agreements to apply to their specific organisations.

PN2618

Commissioner, with that background information I wish to firstly address the Commission on the issue of the aged care industry excluding nursing being placed on the initial draft list of priority industries. You are well aware of this but for the integrity of my submissions I will advise of issues that you are well aware of. This list was established by the Commission following the formal request of
28 March 2008 of the Deputy Prime Minister Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard to undertake award modernisation. The following day, 29 March, the Commission released an official statement on the award modernisation process setting out a draft list of priority industries to be given primacy in the modernisation process, three draft model flexibility clauses and timelines to be adopted through the process.

PN2619

The Commission has until the end of June 2008 to complete the following priority tasks, to establish a list of priority industries or occupations for which modern awards are to be made by the end of this year, to publish a model award flexibility clause to be incorporated into modern awards and to publish a timetable for completion of the award modernisation process. The majority of participants associated with the award modernisation process have in effect, I believe, spoken with one voice when acknowledging that the process will be an extremely difficult task.

PN2620

ACST for its part recognises the enormity of the task facing the aged care industry, particularly in Tasmania. As indicated previously, participant in the Tasmanian aged care industry are stretched to the limit in negotiating new agreements for both nursing and non nursing occupations. For instance, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is currently providing an intensive industrial service to individual employers in the sector who are actively involved in negotiating in excess of 12 collective agreements to replace agreements have that past their expiry date. We are also aware that a number of other organisations in the aged care industry are either conducting their own negotiations with employees and unions or they have engaged other specialist industrial consultants to assist them in developing replacement agreements.

PN2621

As you can well appreciate, Commissioner, work associated with the development of such agreements is resource tapping from both a human resource perspective and a financial perspective. I can cite an example where one employer in the aged care industry in Tasmania developed a new draft union collective agreement at about this time last year, commenced negotiations with the relevant unions and employees in September/October of last year and the agreement has still not been finalised despite numerous meetings with unions and employees.

PN2622

With the current round of negotiations underway and with some negotiations due to commence progressively over the ensuing months, Aged and Community Services Tasmania and its constituent members are not resourced to undertake the work involved in the first round of the award modernisation process.

PN2623

THE COMMISSIONER: You're lamenting the good old days, are you?

PN2624

MR MAZENGARB: I don't know if I would do that, Commissioner, or we could talk about that at another time. It also should be borne in mind that the aged care industry as a whole potentially may be involved in two modernisation processes simultaneously, one dealing with the aged care industry excluding nursing and one dealing with the nursing occupation as listed on the draft priority list of industries. I intend addressing the separate listing of the nursing occupation shortly.

PN2625

I understand Aged and Community Services Australia, of which ACST is a member, has made a submission to the Commission similar to ACST in that the aged care industry has very limited resources in terms of financial and human resources to effectively and properly represent the interests of the aged care industry in the time frame as set out. Any costs associated with the involvement of the industry in the award modernisation process at its initial stages cannot be passed on to the clients or residents of aged care facilities in the way that such costs may be able to be absorbed or passed on in other industries. It is the submission of Aged and Community Services Tasmania and as I understand, the national body of the association, that it would be better served in building on and relying on the other priority industries so that the process from the aged care perspective is more easily and constructively managed.

PN2626

In light of the comments made I submit on behalf of Aged and Community Services Tasmania that the aged care industry be removed from the priority lists finally determined by the Commission through these deliberations. Commissioner, as briefly alluded to previously the second issue I wish to address today is the exclusion of the nursing occupation from the aged care industry on the draft list of awards. Nursing occupation has its own discrete heading reflecting that nurses in the aged care industry would be examined as part of the overall nursing industry and not in the context of the aged care industry.

PN2627

The aged care industry in Tasmania use the services it provides to its clients and residents as a whole listing service, a multi disciplinary service. All categories of employees, be they care support staff, catering staff, administrative staff, physiotherapists and other allied health professionals and nursing staff provide a coordinated and integrated service to those utilising the services of the organisation. From the ACST nursing staff are an essential cog in that integrated service that is being delivered and are therefore an essential element in the aged care industry. As that essential component of the industry Aged and Community Services Tasmania does not believe it appropriate or convenient to hive off this group of employees from the sector and place them in a generalised nursing category.

PN2628

Without in any way diminishing the thrust of my previous submissions regarding the removal of the aged care industry from the priority list, if the aged care industry is retained on the priority list we submit that the industry should be examined in its totality and include the nursing occupation as part of that industry review. We say that such a submission is entirely consistent with the Minister's request on 8 March. At point 4 of the Minister's statement under the heading Award Modernisation Process the Minister states:

PN2629

When modernising awards the Commission is to create modern awards primarily along industry lines but may also create modern awards along operational lines as it considers appropriate.

PN2630

I respectfully submit the thrust of the Minister's statement infers that primacy needs to be given by the Commission to creating modern awards along industry lines, relevantly in this case, along the lines of an aged care industry as distinct to a nursing occupation group. I would further submit that if modern awards are incapable of being created along industry lines then the Commission can create modern awards along operational lines. The initial test on our reading is that if industry awards are incapable of being created then the Commission can and should examine the prospect of creating awards on operational lines.

PN2631

Our submission to include the nursing category into the aged care industry new modern award is also consistent with the Minister's request to the Commission. At point 9 of that request the Minister states:

PN2632

The Commission to have regard to the desirability of avoiding the overlap of awards and minimising the number of awards that may apply to a particular employee or employer.

PN2633

If our submissions are accepted, all employees in the aged care industry will covered by the one modern award, again entirely consistent with the thrust of the Minister's request and we say the thrust of award modernisation. There is, Commissioner, from the perspective of Aged and Community Services Tasmania no impediment to the Commission creating a modern award for the aged care industry that does incorporate nursing staff. Before concluding these submissions there is one other matter I wish to raise on the subject of the priority list and the excising of nursing from the aged care industry.

PN2634

The concern of ACST has been compounded by the ultimate resolution of what categories employees constitute the nursing occupation. As I understand, the Australian Nursing Federation has during the course of these proceedings postulated that a modern nursing award should cover any person primarily employed to provide or assist in the provision of nursing care or nursing services. Such an extension vastly broadens the scope of categories of employees who traditionally until now have been regarded as occupying nursing positions per se. In light of the position of the Australian Nursing Federation, Aged and Community Services Tasmania is even more insistent that all work associated with the delivery of a multi disciplinary service in the aged care industry should be covered one modern award.

PN2635

Commissioner, with regard to the award flexibility clause, ACST fully supports the suggested wording as previously provided by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Commissioner, in conclusion the ACST wishes to express its appreciation to both the Minister and the Commission for allowing it to raise the issues that it's raised this morning in these submissions. If the Commission pleases.

PN2636

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Hargrave.

PN2637

MR J HAGRAVE: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, this is I guess what I would call a supplementary submission in addition to the submission we made to the Full Bench in Melbourne earlier this week. Commissioner, since that particular time the printing industry has been able to identify at this stage some 62 awards or NAPSAs which would be covered in the printing industry of which approximately 100,000 employees Australia wide are employed. There are 14 federal awards, 23 enterprise awards and 25 NAPSAs. In addition, there are a number of AWAs in operation in the industry; however I am not in a position to be able to quantify the numbers there.

PN2638

In relation to Tasmania there are basically two NAPSAs that operate here, one is the Printers Award which is a peculiar award in its own right because what that particular award says is that if you're covered by that award then you are to abide by the two federal awards that operate here. So by implication you could say that it makes the two federal awards common rule awards in Tasmania a peculiarity. The other one - - -

PN2639

THE COMMISSIONER: It was an early attempt at referral of power.

PN2640

MR HARGRAVE: Yes, well, it probably was. The other one that I think the Commission needs to be aware of is the Printing Authority of Tasmania. We have classified that as a NAPSA. Now, recently the Printing Authority of Tasmania has been sold to private industry so it now operates as a private operation although the award of NAPSAs still sits there. My understanding is that there was an agreement reached with the unions that they would continue to utilise that agreement for some future time, so maybe 2010 is when it will disappear, so that's the difference there.

PN2641

The other area that I wanted to comment on briefly was that certainly we believe that because of the printing industry has traditionally been used as a vehicle in major cases of this Commission such as test cases and has been regarded over the years as a major award of the Commission that we see that it should be listed as one of the awards in the priority list. Now, we are aware of submission made by the AMWU at two hearings in relation to their reluctance to have the award included in the priority list, but however I won't go into that, I think it's sufficiently covered in transcript by the union.

PN2642

The other matter is that certainly we will be making written submissions in due course backing up that. Finally, it is our position that we support the flexibility clause as advanced by the ACCI. If the Commission pleases.

PN2643

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Hargrave. Mr Chesterman.

PN2644

MR W CHESTERMAN: Yes, thanks, Commissioner. I am appearing from the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the Tasmanian Automobile Chamber of Commerce and just to provide the Commission with some background, the TACC as it's called merged with the VACC in around 1998. TACC has around 350 members and is a federally registered organisation since 1978 and when it merged with the VACC in 1998 respondency to the relevant NAPSA in Tasmania which regulates some of the conditions of employment for our members, being both clerical and retail, was changed under the laws, I think it's the award interest section, clause 5, was changed to the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce.

PN2645

Now, our submission is that the Retail Automotive Award in Tasmania has a direct nexus with the Federal Vehicle Industry Repair Services and Retail Award 2002. It has a similar classification structure in that it covers vehicle salespersons, tradespersons, other employees such as assemblers, automotive parts salespersons, parts interpreters. It has a section covering apprentices in the retail automotive industry. The award also has a comparable classification structure and wage rates for those employees who would be employed in a retail automotive capacity and also similar safety net conditions of employment.

PN2646

Prior to 27 March 2006 members of the TACC, irrespective of whether they were incorporated or unincorporated bodies, were covered by the Federal Vehicle Industry Repair Services and Retail Award and it was only those people who were not members within the retail automotive industry that would come under the Tasmanian Automotive Industries Award. Now, post March 2006 we have a situation where our new members, whether they be incorporated or unincorporated, now come within the terms of the Tasmanian Automotive Industries Award and obviously from our perspective although this Automotive Industries Award has similar classifications, we see award modernisation as a very positive way of providing a modern award that would be able to provide comparable wage rates and that there are some variations in wage rates now between the Tasmanian Automotive Industries Award and its federal counterpart.

PN2647

So we would see award modernisation as being a positive step in basically providing commonality of interest if you like in terms of award rates of pay, classification structures and conditions of employment. The other thing that is slightly different with the Tasmanian Automotive Industries Award to the Federal Vehicle Industry Repair Services and Retail Award is that also the Tasmanian NAPSA has classifications for clerical employees, so people in the retail automotive industry in Tasmania who have clerical and admin people would refer to this award, the NAPSA as the basis for determining the appropriate wage rates and conditions of employment.

PN2648

It also has a section that basically deals with manufacturing too. There are some classifications dealing with machinists and other people who we would say would not be linked with the retail automotive industry. They would probably be more equivalent to our Federal Vehicle Industry Award and so in that respect this NAPSA covers three classification groupings that would be relevant I suppose from the VACCs point of view with its members. But, you know, we have some manufacturing members, not in Tasmania but in other states. We have obviously clerical and admin people in a number of - or a lot of our member organisations, membership organisations, and we have the retail trade people, retail automotive trade people I should say.

PN2649

From our point of view we see, as I said earlier, award modernisation as being a very positive way of achieving a number of factors and that is that, as I say, there would be consistent and relevant classifications and wage rates, there would be safety net conditions of employment which would apply to all our members and we also see that to achieve this benefit we want an involvement in the process, the modernisation process to ensure that there's no overlapping of award coverage and multiplicity of awards applicable to employees. If that can be avoided we see that as a very positive development. We would look at the award modernisation on the basis of no additional cost. In other words, we wish that award modernisation would be a cost neutral exercise, that it was not an exercise to extend award coverage and we would like to see, as I said earlier in Melbourne this week, that we would be looking at some form of individual award flexibility clause.

PN2650

I also indicated that it we had put our support behind the ACCI on the award flexibility clause, but for the same reasons as I said earlier in the week, there are some categories of employees, not the majority of employees but some who over the course of time have conditions of employment and a remuneration package which is somewhat now departed from the provisions in the award and we would see an award flexibility clause that caters for agreements between an individual employer and an employee positive in the sense only that it would help to recognise the realities of a differing remuneration package for some employees, not as a means of avoiding any avoidance of safety net conditions of employment which we, as I said earlier in the week, also it's our view that our members both in Tasmania and in Victoria predominantly apply safety net provisions in both this award and also the federal award to all their employees. Unless the Commission has any questions I have no further submissions.

PN2651

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Chesterman.

PN2652

MR CHESTERMAN: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN2653

THE COMMISSIONER: Are there any other contributions that anybody would wish to make? No. Well, thank you all for your contribution this morning and I will simply adjourn the matter.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.46AM]