Australian Industrial Relations Commission

           IN THE AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION


                     Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904

In the matter of notifications of industrial disputes between

               Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen

                              (C No. 313 of 1985)

                    Australian Transport Officers Federation

                              (C No. 2540 of 1985)

                           Australian Railways Union

                              (C No. 2598 of 1985)

                    State Rail Authority of New South Wales

in relation to site and/or disability allowance - Ulan Gulgong Rail Project

MR COMMISSIONER CROSS                                    SYDNEY, 21 AUGUST 1985

                                    DECISION

This matter came before the Commission as a result of notifications pursuant
to section 25 of the Act by the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive
Enginemen (AFULE), the Australian Transport Officers Federation (ATOF), and
the Australian Railways Union (ARU).

      At the concurrence of the parties, the matters were joined.

      The Unions are claiming that the State Rail Authority of New South Wales
(SRA) pay a site and/or disability allowance of $1.45 per hour for all time
worked by employees (including officers) engaged on what is termed the Ulan
Gulgong rail project. The operative date claimed is 16 April 1984, being the
first date an employee worked on the construction site. The SRA exhibit G1
indicates that 22 employees were involved over different periods throughout
the project, which is estimated to be completed late February or early March
1985.

      It was submitted by the Unions that the Ulan Gulgong rail project is the
second part of an overall rail project which has been carried out in two
stages; the first part of the project being the Ulan Muswellbrook project,
commonly referred to as the Ulan Sandy Hollow project. This project involved
the building of a new line which commenced in June 1981 and was completed in
January 1983.

      During the construction of the Ulan Sandy Hollow project, a site
allowance of 85c per hour was paid by SRA to its employees resident in the
camp at Sandy Hollow, from 7 June 1981; and $1.05 per hour from 3 July 1981,
until the completion of the project. It was explained that the allowance had
been paid by administrative action, details of which are explained in exhibit
S3, being an SRA internal timekeeping instruction memorandum, dated 13 October
1981.


      The Commission was informed that the background to the payment of the
allowance by SRA resulted from negotiations with the Unions following a
decision by the Industrial Commission of New South Wales (No. 948 of 1980)
awarding a site allowance of 85c per hour to employees of White Industries Pty
Ltd, the principal contractor at the Ulan Muswellbrook project. This amount
was subsequently increased by the State Commission to $1.05 per hour in line
with CPI movements. White Industries Pty Ltd is also the principal contractor
on the Ulan Gulgong Project.

      At the Ulan Sandy Hollow project, camp accommodation was made available,
and SRA employees directed to use this accommodation. It consisted of portable
single accommodation; meals were provided; laundry and recreation facilities
were available. Employees received full weekly expenses in accordance with the
relevant awards, from which was deducted a weekly amount for board and
lodgings.

      The situation at the Ulan Gulgong project is that there were no
established camp facilities available and it was for the employees to make
their own arrangements regarding accommodation. The accommodation arranged by
the employees was the hire of caravans which were placed in the yard of the
Ulan Hotel, using the shower and toilet facilities of the Hotel, which is
claimed were inadequate. Also, there were no laundry facilities available. The
reason given by the Unions as to why Ulan was chosen for the accommodation
site was that, as a result of instructions given by SRA for employees on the
Sandy Hollow project to live at the camp, it was felt that it would be
preferable to live as close as possible to the Ulan Gulgong work site. Another
reason advanced was the need for crews to be on call at any time. This, it was
claimed, necessitated both the crews and supervising staff to reside close to
the work site. These employees received full weekly expenses as provided by
the relevant awards, being $186 per week.

      The Unions argued that the disabilities associated with the Ulan Gulgong
project revolved around two areas. Firstly the living conditions and secondly
the working conditions associated with the construction site.

      Inspections were conducted at the Ulan work site and also at the
accommodation site alongside the Ulan Hotel. In support of the claim, the
Unions called as a witness an Assistant Station Master who had worked on both
projects. The witness gave testimony as to comparisons between both the work
site and accommodation conditions of both projects.

      On the question of quantum, the Unions informed the Commission that in
determining the claim for $1.45 per hour, total CPI movements of 19.6 from
December 1981 to December 1983 had been added to the $1.05, giving an amount
of $1.25. To this was added 20c per hour for substandard accommodation, giving
a total of $1.45 per hour.

      In support of the claim that retrospectivity should be paid, the Unions
submitted that on the Ulan Sandy Hollow project, SRA did give retrospectivity.
It was further submitted that, because of the similarity of the two projects,
and also that as a number of employees had worked on both projects, there had
been an expectation that some allowance would be paid by SRA in the same
manner as previously.

      The SRA submitted that it would not oppose a claim for payment of a
similar site allowance for similar disabilities encountered by employees on
the Ulan Sandy Hollow project, provided that the disabilities associated with
the Ulan Gulgong project were clearly identified and that the Commission is
satisfied that the allowance meets the test of the principles. SRA rejected

any inference that the allowance claimed was merely an extension of the
earlier project and therefore could be applied administratively.

      It was stated that the reason for payment of the allowance initially by
administrative action resulted from a Full Bench decision in July 1981 (1)
announcing the abandonment of the Wage Fixing Principles then applying, and
the situation then existing in relation to the claim.

      The Commission's attention was drawn to a comparison of disabilities
between the two projects. It is not my intention to go into that detail other
than to refer to the conclusions arrived at by SRA, appearing on page 70 of
the transcript.

      "MR GRACE:  Sir, having regard for all those items that I have attempted
      to draw comparisons, and I hope that I did in some way for your
      assistance, it is the Authority's view that any disabilities present on
      the Ulan Gulgong project was certainly not worse than any disabilities
      which existed on the Muswellbrook Ulan project as has been stated by Mr
      Styles at pages 15 and 25 of transcript.

      It is the Authority's view that any disabilities existing on the Ulan
      Gulgong project are similar to disabilities experienced on the
      Muswellbrook project but not necessarily the same magnitude."

      The SRA strongly rejected the claim that the Commission should consider
the standard of accommodation at Ulan as being part of the allowance. It was
SRA's view that in paying full expenses, it was the onus of the employees to
find their own accommodation. It was pointed out that there had been no
direction by SRA that employees stay at Ulan. In agreeing that the
accommodation at Ulan had not been the best, SRA submitted that motel and
hotel accommodation had been available at Gulgong and had this been chosen,
vehicles would have been provided for the use of employees to travel from
their point of accommodation to the site and return.

      There was no submission made by SRA in relation to the retrospectivity
claim.

      Having given due consideration to all the material before the
Commission, together with the benefit of the inspections, I have reached the
following conclusions.

      Firstly, I do not believe in the circumstances that the claim with
respect to the standard of accommodation is one for consideration in this
matter, and the claim is therefore refused.

      In turning to the construction site allowance claim, bearing in mind the
similarities of the two projects, I am of the view that disabilities
encountered on both sites would have been of a comparable nature. I have
therefore decided to award an allowance of $1.14 per hour to employees (this
includes the Traffic Liaison Officer) for all time worked on the Ulan Gulgong
project. This amount contains $1.05 paid on the previous project and also
takes into account, movements in the National Wage of 4.3 and 4.1 in
September 1983 and April 1984 respectively. In reaching this conclusion, I
believe it is not inconsistent with the Commission's Principles, also bearing
in mind that the allowance is for a limited period only.

______________________________________________________________________________
(1)Print E7300; (1981) 260 CAR 4

      Because of the particular circumstances surrounding this matter, I have
decided that the date of operation shall be the first full pay period
commencing on or after 16 April 1984 until the completion of the construction
project.