 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
||||
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 Latest
Archive by Date
Archive by Subject
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
|
 Home Speeches & Opinion
The AWU's Submission To Award Review TaskforceAWU National Secretary Bill Shorten - 08 February 2006The AWU has made the following submission to the Award Review Taskforce established by the Howard Government. INTRODUCTION The AWU opposes the Award Review process established under the "WorkChoices" legislation, and all our comments below are subordinate to our general criticism of the process as unnecessary and unwarranted. Nevertheless, we understand that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) will be formally tasked with undertaking the so-called "award rationalisation project", and it is therefore important that its processes are transparent and involve all relevant stakeholders, including workers and their unions, on a fair and equitable basis. The AWU's comments below are accordingly directed as much to the AIRC as to the Award Review Taskforce (ART) and the Federal Minister. Branch Submissions AWU Branches have prepared submissions (attachments A and B), especially regarding the strong system of state awards already in place around the five States excluding Victoria. As state and occupational branches of unions, including the AWU, have significant experience and expertise within the various state industrial systems, we submit that it is critically important that this 'hands on' knowledge is not ignored or neglected during the award rationalisation process. It will be essential that practitioners within the state industrial systems be given full opportunity to explain the fine detail that has evolved over a hundred years of separate industrial practice. Specific Awards The AWU submits that the ART and the AIRC, in approaching award rationalisation by industry or occupations, will need to ensure that every opportunity is provided to workers and their unions to raise issues before the AIRC makes any determinations on awards. Any studies commissioned by either the ART or the AIRC to identify the 'on the ground' relevance of existing federal and/or state awards must include involvement and comment from affected workers and their unions. Award Simplification The so-called "award rationalisation project" is complex and immense. Perhaps ironically, it might have been relatively easily undertaken in 1910 or 1920, or even 1980. But the past twenty years in particular have seen an explosion of both federal and state awards, including many single-employer and even single-site awards. At the federal level, the award simplification process undertaken by the AIRC from 1997 onwards has helped to identify some redundant or obsolete awards. The process has been lengthy and cumbersome, but it does provide some guidance to the current project. The central importance of stakeholder involvement, and discussions between stakeholders both under the guidance of the AIRC and away from the Commission, directed towards achieving a workable consensus cannot be understated. Rationalised Industry Sectors The misguided "WorkChoices" intention to introduce so-called "rationalised industry sector awards" goes completely against the reality of industrial relations since about 1985: that is, the progressive evolution of highly-defined and differentiated awards and agreements reflecting individual employer and workplace custom and practice. The development of industry classifications will be difficult, and the AWU believes that industry sector awards will not be achieved overnight or within twelve months. The AIRC will need to establish a series of phases, and advise all stakeholders, including workers and their unions, of a proposed timeline over probably five to ten years. Corresponding transitional arrangements will be required. Occupational and Enterprise Awards Many AWU awards, at both federal and state levels, are either occupationally-based or enterprise-based. The AIRC will need to enter into discussions with the AWU, and affected workers and employers, to ensure that wages and conditions in these particular work environments are not disrupted. The so-called "WorkChoices" legislation and the Federal Government have promised that no worker will be disadvantaged under the award rationalisation project. This must be a guiding consideration for the AIRC in its implementation of the project. Union Coverage The award rationalisation project will be seen as an historical failure if it encourages demarcation disputes through an abandonment of the right of workers to 'conveniently belong' to a specified union that is party to the appropriate award. The current system of federal and state awards has delivered historical levels of industrial growth and workplace peace. Any move away from the 'conveniently belong' principle within a 'rationalised' award system would itself be irrational and a potential declaration of civil war within Australian workplaces. The Federal Government responsible for such a retrograde step should be appropriately held responsible. Award Coverage The integration of common rule awards and party-based awards is complex. The AIRC will need to retain the option to vary the nature of award coverage, based on consultation with affected stakeholders, including workers and their unions. Certainly, as in Victoria currently, a network of common rule awards should provide a comprehensive blanket coverage for all workers not otherwise covered by more specific award provisions. Preserved Award Entitlements The AWU believes that the great strength of awards in the past has lain in their comprehensiveness. All entitlements determined by the AIRC to apply to a worker, either generally or more specifically to a particular occupation or industry, should be available to that worker in the award he or she can obtain from the AIRC or their union. In the interests of simplicity, it is important that all entitlements - whether preserved or new - should be contained in the award as declared by the AIRC. These entitlements should appear in the body of each award, and not as separate attachments or schedules. State Awards State Awards should be recognised as registered and enforceable agreements under federal law. The lengthy, complex and completely unwelcome process of merging state awards into the federal system will require extensive and ongoing consultation with affected stakeholders, including workers and their unions. The AWU believes that this massive project will require the allocation of permanent resources by the AIRC to consult with stakeholders in each state. We submit that a permanent secretariat will be required, with a permanent presence in each state. In particular, the extraordinary centralisation of authority by the Federal Government in requiring the removal of state-based differences between different federal and state awards - including occupational and enterprise awards - will need painstaking and careful examination of the operation of awards 'on the ground' around thousands of Australian workplaces. The AWU does not envy the AIRC as it considers the implementation of this "project". Rationalising Awards The Federal Government has promised that no Australian worker will be disadvantaged under its "WorkChoices" legislation. Accordingly, the only criterion for deciding what the appropriate provisions in rationalised awards must be the most generous term for workers in the identified group of 'pre-rationalised' awards that applied in the relevant industry or occupation. If the Federal Government is genuine that award rationalisation is not a 'cost cutting' ploy to redistribute wealth from workers to employers, then the adoption of the most generous award terms within the relevant industry is inescapable. This alone constitutes a fundamental test of the Federal Government's widely and expensively advertised values in promoting the "WorkChoices" legislation. The Process From Now On The AWU is a general union, representing many workers across dozens of industries and occupations. By one rough count, the AWU has members working in at least 11 out of the nineteen (19) ANZSIC Industry Classifications. Monitoring and trying to moderate the award rationalisation project will be a major tax on AWU members, officials and union resources - many times more complex and demanding than the federal award simplification process of the past decade. The ART, the Federal Minister and the AIRC all need to acknowledge that the involvement of stakeholders, including workers and their unions, will be essential to making any outcomes of the "project" workable and relevant to Australian workplaces in the 21st Century. Ensuring that this involvement is well-directed and well-resourced will be a key and early challenge for the AIRC in determining how it will proceed to implement award rationalisation. There is a considerable danger, perhaps intended by the Federal Government, that Australia's award system - once the pride of our nation and the envy of the Western world - will be lost 'in the undergrowth' as new and harsh workplace contracts are superimposed onto workers over the top of the award system. In other words, the 'bona fides' of this so-called "rationalisation" process can be questioned, and it is possible to argue that the Federal Government has a political agenda to see the award system fail. The very first award created by the old Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration (CCCA), the Pastoral Industry Award in 1907, was the backbone of the AWU throughout the 20th Century. The AWU commits to stand fast in defence of the award system and its relevance at the start of the 21st Century. AWU(Q) RESPONSE TO AWARD REVIEW TASKFORCE DISCUSSION PAPERS ON AWARD RATIONALISATION Page 3. Introduction The AWU(Q) understands that the Taskforce shall report to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations on its recommended strategy for the rationalisation of current federal awards by the end of March 2006. The Government has made the commitment that the award rationalisation and simplification process is not a benefit cutting exercise. In order for the Government to fulfill this commitment the proposed exercise is inevitably going to be extremely complex and time consuming in order to ensure that all of the conditions and entitlements under the hundreds of AWU state and federal awards applying to Queensland workers are preserved and maintained in whatever form of rationalized award regulation the taskforce recommends and the legislation allows for. The AWU(Q) notes that the Work Choices Act has removed the power of the AIRC to make new Awards unless it is to rationalise existing awards. The Award Review Taskforce (the Taskforce) has been established to examine and report to Government on two issues namely, ˇ the rationalisation of award wage and classification structures and The AWU(Q) will address its submission to both these issues in the context of its impact on the membership of the AWU(Q). The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland is the largest State registered union of employees in Queensland with over 50,000 members in the State. Of all unions in Queensland, the AWU(Q) has the broadest coverage of employee's across different industries. Industries in which the AWU(Q) is either the principle union, or a significant union representing workers in that industry in the State of Queensland include, Private hospitals, Nursing homes and aged care, Non-government disability and community services, Laundries, Life saving, Dairy industry generally including manufacturing, Local Government Authorities, Racing Industry, Hotel motel and club industries, Café and restaurant industry, Fast food industry, Tourism and resort industry, Theme parks industry, Casinos convention centres and events, Hospitality industry generally, Recreation industry, Boarding houses and schools, Clothing industry, Veterinary industry, Pest control industry, Hairdressing and beauty, Ferries and boating operators, Sugar industry, Primary and rural industries generally, Agriculture industry, Agriculture Food (food processing, coffee, aerated waters, etc.), Pastoral industry, Feed lots industry, Tallow industry, Retail industry (including garage service stations and van salespersons), Warehousing industry, Rubber and plastics industry, Fruit and vegetable growing industry, Horticulture and nurseries industry, Cold storage industry, Building and construction products (incl. Cement & concrete, clay, forestry), Forestry services and timber industry, Quarries industry, Bitumen and asphalt industry, Transport industry, Passenger vehicles industry, Construction and mining construction industries, Manufacturing industry, Metalliferous Mining industry, Oil, Gas & Hydrocarbons industries, Electricity industries, Ports/Bulk Handling industries, Refining industry, Chemicals industry, Explosives industry, Fertilizer industry, Gas Reticulation industry, Shipping building industry, Public hospitals and public nursing homes (State Government), Department of Disability Services Qld (State Government), Department of Families (State Government) Queensland Motorways (State Government), Department of Main Roads (State Government), Environmental Protection Agency (State Government), Department of Primary Industries (State Government). There are currently 326 State Awards regulated by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The AWU(Q) has an interest in awards of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission by virtue of the Unions State eligibility rules and registered list of callings. The Industrial Relations Act 1999 provides at Section 124 as follows; "124 Persons bound by award (1) An award binds- (a) subject to paragraphs (d) to (f) - all employers who are engaged in the calling to which the award applies; and (b) subject to paragraphs (d) to (f) - all employees who are engaged in the calling to which the award applies; and (c) All organisations concerned with the calling to which the award applies;" Because of the broad eligibility rules of the AWU(Q) the union is concerned with callings described in the overwhelming majority of State Awards. Through the force of Section 130 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 State Awards in Queensland have been through a major process of review. That process has included updating of the awards to ensure that they comply with contemporary commission standards. Most awards include clauses describing parties bound and also definition clauses. These clauses have been retained in Queensland State Awards to assist employers, employees, and employer and employee organisations in knowing who is a party to the relevant award. These clauses are not the final determinant of who are parties to awards, as this is ultimately governed by section 124 of the Act. As a guide however the AWU(Q) is an expressly named party in 166 of the 326 Queensland State Awards. There are 117 Queensland State Awards to which the AWU(Q) is the only Union party. The State Awards to which the AWU(Q) are the only Union party are in bold type in the list below. Of the 166 Awards to which the AWU(Q) is a named party 52 are Enterprise Awards, or Awards based on the employer being a member of an Employer Association. State Awards to which AWU(Q) is a named party. ˇ A J Bush And Sons (Manufactures) Pty Ltd Award - State 2005 From the list above the following are AWU Awards that are either specific enterprise awards or award that cover employers through their membership of an employer association. Generally speaking the vast majority of these awards are still very relevant to the issue of determining the actual wages and conditions of employment for Queensland workers. The following awards are AWU federal awards applying in Queensland. The AWU(Q) understands with the introduction of Work Choices, Awards will play no role in agreement making and no longer apply to an employee once an agreement is reached. Awards will not re-apply to workers if they are under an agreement that is terminated. Awards under Work Choices can no longer be varied following Union Test Cases before the AIRC. Any improvements to workers conditions can only be achieved through local negotiation. What Awards will look like The following are allowable award matters under Work Choices The following are not allowable Award matters and awards will not be allowed to include clauses dealing with, - ˇ Unions right to participate or represent an employee, in a dispute settlement procedure From the commencement of Work Choices these non-allowable matters will cease to have effect unless they are a specially preserved award term. These will be award clauses dealing with, ˇ Annual leave Preserved Award terms will only apply to employees who belong to the class of employees who had the entitlement under the preserved award term when the Act commenced. That class of employees will retain the entitlement after award rationalisation. Employees belonging to any class of employees who did not have the entitlement under the preserved award term will not gain the entitlement under a rationalised award. Of the preserved award terms the following, ˇ Annual leave are matters dealt with in the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. Where the employees entitlement under the preserved award term is more generous then the employees entitlement under the AFPCS then the AFPCS is excluded and the preserved award term applies. The Award simplification process requires the AIRC to remove from existing awards, ˇ Long service leave Notional Agreements Preserving State Awards. The AWU understands that under the Work Choices legislation, wherever any of the 166 State Awards that the AWUQ is a party to apply to incorporated Queensland employers, these awards will be preserved as 'notional agreements preserving state awards' for a period of three years. However should the AWU negotiate a new agreement with any incorporated employer who is a party to any of these awards the award will cease to operate as it applies to that employer and will never operate again. If the AWU has not made a workplace agreement during the transitional period of three years the employer will revert to some other federal award, whatever award that may end up being. This means that the award rationalisation process must be completed within the three year transitional period otherwise incorporated employers and their employees who have not finalised a workplace agreement under Work Choices may be moved under a federal award which may have completely unfamiliar employment conditions with no say in the matter, or otherwise onto the AFPCS. New Unions being bound by awards within one year of registration Section 120D specifies that an application under Section 120C must be made within the period of one year commencing on the day on which the new organisation was registered under the Registration and Accountability of Organisations Schedule for a new organisation to be bound to an award. Section 120D states that if an application under subsection 120C(1) relates to an award made under section 118J, a full bench must consider the application. The Taskforce should make recommends that the AIRC liaise with relevant registered new organisations to ensure that they are kept informed of the timetable of rationalisation under Section 118. Section 120D does not appear to distinguish awards that are yet to be rationalised from awards that have been rationalised when applying the one year period. Does this mean that new organisations whose award regulation has been predominantly in a State jurisdiction need to make the many hundreds of applications to become bound to existing federal awards, which may otherwise become the rationalised award at some point in the future? On the face of Section 120C and 120D this would appear to be the case. Awards no-longer the benchmark for Workplace Agreements Under the Workchoices Act awards will no longer provide the benchmark for agreement making for AWU members when negotiating agreements. The Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard (Fair Pay and Conditions Standard), combined with protected award conditions, will be the new no-disadvantage test, however protected award conditions are not required to be included in agreements if expressly excluded. Further to this Awards are not allowed to apply to an employee while a workplace agreement operates in relation to that employee, although a workplace agreement can call up an award term. Awards no longer to contain Classification Structures, Casual loadings, Piece Rates Award terms relating to wages, classification structures, casual loadings and piece rates will be removed from awards and set and reviewed by the Australian Fair Pay Commission (Fair Pay Commission) as part of the new Australian Pay and Classification Scales (APCSs). The approach of removing classification structures, casual loadings and piece rates from awards will create the additional necessity of needing to access different sources in order to find out wage and classification related issues, and other industrial conditions. The AWU is aware that many of the classification structures that exist in State Awards have been specifically developed to cater for the unique nature of enterprises or industries covered by the award. Requirements for the rationalisation of awards has been a feature of the industrial landscape since the mid 1980's. The March 1987 National Wage Case decision (10 March, 1987, M Print G6800) ended years of semi-automatic wage indexation based on increases in the cost of living as the sole basis for wage determination. During the case, the major employer associations and the ACTU reached a degree of consensus about Australia's economic problems and in a joint statement advised the Commission that: The parties also acknowledge that to achieve the necessary adjustments to take advantage of the situation requires the co-operation of the workforce and management. The question is not the need for change, but the process by which we achieve that change. The objective is to achieve change through co-operation and consultation, not confrontation, and to increase the prospect of meaningful and satisfying work and the fuller realisation of human potential (March 1987 National Wage Case Decision, 10 March, M Print G6800: 12). The shift from centralised wage fixation towards modernising awards began slowly with the March 1987 National Wage Case decision to introduce a two-tier wages system. The decision, known as the Restructuring and Efficiency Principle (REP) was the first experiment with productivity based wage setting. The first tier involved an across-the-board wage increase of $10.00 per week (based on traditional equity and cost of living considerations). A second tier offered the prospect of pay rises - up to a limit of 4 percent in exchange for productivity improvements, which met the Commission's approval. The REP emphasized (but did not confine itself to) changing restrictive work practices. The resultant cost savings or 'offsets' constituted the productivity gains basis for wage increases under the second tier (up to a ceiling of 4%). State tribunals adopted substantially the same system. In order to have such cost offsets ratified, employers and unions were required to submit agreed changes to the AIRC for alteration of the relevant award provisions (commonly as an enterprise specific annex to the award). Awards were also modernised by removing antiquated clauses and freeing up award provisions. The August 1988 National Wage Case decision (12 August, M Print H4000) called for a more fundamental review of awards and working conditions under the Restructuring and Efficiency Principle (REP). The new wages principle aimed at ensuring that work classification and skills were appropriate to each industry through a process called 'award restructuring'. Award restructuring involved a wholesale review by the Commission of awards and working conditions including: ˇ Establishing skill-related career paths which provide an incentive for workers to continue to participate in skill formation; ˇ Eliminating impediments to multi-skilling and broadening the range of tasks which a worker may be required to perform; ˇ Creating appropriate relativities between different categories with the award at enterprise level; and ˇ Ensuring that working patterns and arrangements enhance flexibility and meet the competitive requirements of the industry (August 1988 National Wage Case M Print H4000: 6). The Commission emphasized its central role in the reform process in these words: To sustain real improvement in productivity and efficiency, we must take steps to ensure that work classifications and functions and the basic work patterns and arrangements in an industry meet the competitive requirements of that industry. It is accepted, at least by some, that a more highly skilled and flexible labour force is required not only to assist in structural adjustments but also to provide workers with access to more varied, fulfilling and better paid jobs (August 1988 National Wage Case, M Print H4000: 5-6). With the introduction of the SEP, the Commission attempted to ensure awards would be able to meet the competitive requirements of modern industry. In order to encourage unions to undertake this review, the decision was accompanied by wages rises of $10.00, $12.50 and $15.00 (or 3%) for unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers, with payments in two stages phased over six months, provided under the Federal Government/ACTU then Accord Mark V agreement. The Commission warned in its May review of the Wage Fixing Principles (1989) later that year, that 'any proposals for change must be carefully handled' (National Wage Case, 1989 May Review Print H8200: 4). At the heart of the process was the changing nature of skill, which through broadbanding of classifications and multi-skilling would render obsolete traditional craft boundaries and notions of job ownership. The SEP process aimed to operate at two distinct yet interrelated levels: at the level of industry and union structure, and at the enterprise level. For example, the trend of award restructuring was towards the realignment of wages and relativities within, and between awards to create a parent-type industry award matrix that has an enterprise focus. The new restructured awards were to form the bases for enterprise bargaining. How did it Work and what are the lessons? A key element of the award restructuring process was the minimum rates adjustment process. This involved:
The aim of the MRA process was to provide a safety net of consistent minimum wage rates across awards. It involved modernising classification structures and adjusting pay relativities within and between awards. The most common changes arising from award restructuring were reductions in the number of job classifications; establishment of new skills-related career paths; and multi-skilling. The extent of award restructuring varied across industries, with the pacesetter industry being the metals industry, where the MTIA and Metal Unions implemented a number of important changes to work practices. This included: ˇ Higher wage rates for employees on minimum rates awards; ˇ Provision of eight or nine skill levels within each award; ˇ Establishing appropriate relativities; and ˇ Linking of classification structures to training and skill levels. The introduction of the August 1989 National Wage decision (M Print H9100) was the final part of three important wage decisions, the others being the August 1988 decision (M Print H4000) that introduced the SEP or award restructuring Principle and the February 1989 Review (M Print H8200) that defined its terms. These decisions set the framework for implementing the process of award reform and modernisation. The early lessons from the award restructuring process suggests that outcomes will vary across industries and that addressing relativities and ensuring a stable and equitable system of minimum rates (and translation to minimum rates) is vital to success. Since the mid 1990's, various state industrial tribunals and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have been required to rationalise awards. Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, federal awards have been rationalised and modernised by removing antiquated, inflexible and other 'non allowable award' matters. However, these activities do not go as far as that contemplated under the Work Choices legislation which requires a review and rationalisation of award rates and relativities. Numerous examples exist of superior Award regulation within existing State industrial jurisdictions when compared to existing federal awards in the same or similar industries. This is a particular feature of the picture in Queensland where the majority of the workforce has been continued to be regulated by the State jurisdiction for the nearly a century. The inadequacies of the existing federal award covering the pastoral industry in comparison to the multiple state Awards that cover this industry is a good example. The Pastoral Industry Award 1998 covers employees employed in connection with;
Queensland has a number of Awards, which cover employees in the pastoral industry. Some of these awards are specific enterprise awards but most are awards covering a specific section of the pastoral sector. State Awards in Queensland that might otherwise fall the general area of coverage of the Pastoral Industry Award 1998 include; ˇ Bureau Of Sugar Experiment Stations Field Sector Employees ' Award - State 2003 ˇ Cotton Harvesting Award - State 2003 ˇ Cotton Ginneries, Cotton Oil And Other Seed Oil Manufacturing Employees ' Award - State 2003 ˇ Poultry Farm And Hatchery Employees ' Award - State 2002 ˇ Shearing Industry Award - State 2003 ˇ Station Hands ' Award - State 2003 ˇ Sugar Field Sector Award - State 2005 ˇ Tea Industry Award - State 2003 ˇ Woolclassers And Sheep Shearing Machine Experts And Grinders ' Award - State 2003 ˇ Wool Classers And Wool Sorters (Other Than Wool Classers And Wool Sorters Employed In Shearing Sheds) Award - South-Eastern Division 2003 These awards have been created to suit the specific nature of each industry sector and the requirements of both employees and employers within those sectors. The classification of Station Hand under the Pastoral Industry Award 1998 falls into three grades:
Comparable State Award classifications. The Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations Field Sector Employees' Award- State 2003, has classifications, which are specialised and particular to this particular employer. These classifications include; The Cotton Harvesting Award- State 2003, has classifications which are specialised and particular to the Cotton Industry. These classifications include; ˇ Picker / Driver The Cotton Ginneries, Cotton Oil and Other Seed Oil Manufacturing Employees' Award - State 2003, has classifications, which are specialised, and particular to the Cotton Industry. These classifications include; The Poultry Farm and Hatchery Employees Award State 2002, has classifications which are specialised and particular to the Cotton Industry. These classifications include; The Tea Industry Award State 2003 has classifications, which are specialised and particular to the Cotton Industry. These classifications include; As demonstrated by the above information, the State Awards which currently cover employees who will fall under the scope of the Pastoral Industry Award 1998 have very specific job classifications and pay rates which reflect the particularities of the industries they cover. It is particularly problematic for both employers and employees to reduce these specific classifications to those contained within the Pastoral Industry Award 1998. Some of these employees will also have their entitlements reduced as a result of being absorbed into the Pastoral Industry Award 1998. The Table below highlights the difference in amounts employees will receive under the relevant awards. Classification and Pay level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 As the above table demonstrates, employees currently employed under State Awards in the same area as the Pastoral Industry Award 1998 would lose money when they move into the Federal system if classification structure was rationalised into a structure the same or similar to the current federal award. This will specifically affect those employees performing industry specific jobs under the State Awards. The eventual transfer of employees employed under the specialised state awards into the very general categories of Station Hands 1 and 2 and Senior Station Hand under the Pastoral Industry Award 1998, will see the well developed skills classifications of the State awards abolished. The effect on the career paths and skill levels in these industries will be devastating. How many young employees will want to make a career in an industry where the furthest they can advance is to a Senior Station Hand? In Queensland, the relevant industrial instrument applying to employees of the various Port Authorities is the Port Authorities Award - State 2003. This Award has application to each of the Regional Port Authorities in Queensland listed at clause 1.4 of the award. In contrast, the Federal Instrument that has application in at least two of the regional port authorities is the Queensland Regional Port Authorities and Corporations Employees Interim award 2000. The Federal Award provides for substantially lower entitlements and protections in virtually every aspect covered by each of the above named Awards. The table shown below outlines the significant differences between the awards. Entitlement Port Authorities Award - State 2003 Queensland Regional Port Authorities and Corporations Employees Interim award 2000 *
As stated above, of the 166 State Awards to which the AWU is a named party 52 are Enterprise Awards, or Awards based on the employer being a member of an Employer Association. The majority of these Awards have been developed on the request of employers to tailor an enterprise specific award to replace in some cases up to a dozen awards. Such awards deliver considerable savings and efficiencies to employers. Such projects conducted in Queensland in recent decades in industries such as hospitality and health and community care have been major resource and intensive exercises. One good example is the case of award regulation for the off shore island tourist resorts in Queensland. Tourism is one of the key industries in the Queensland economy. The AWUQ developed in conjunction with employers at off shore island resorts in Queensland an industry industrial agreement that has more recently been converted to an Award covering 11 off shore island tourist resorts. Relevant employers are; This award developed six (6) broad banded classification streams to cover the entire workforce on island resorts in Queensland covered by the award. These streams were, As you would expect the range of occupational groups across the many thousands of employees at these workplaces is very large from managers, to childcare workers to nurses, to tradepersons just to name a few. For all of the benefits of this work to be lost to the industry in Queensland would be a significant step backwards. The AWUQ contends that there is no clear alignment between the broad industry definitions of the ANZSIC system of categorising businesses and appropriate industrial regulation of workers under industrial awards. This submission has sought to attempt to broadly group AWU state awards within the ANZSIC definitions and the result shows that in many cases the breadth of callings, functions, skills and industries becomes so wide that the concept of a single award, or award classification structure to cover all of the existing awards becomes unstable and counter productive. AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING DIVISION The Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing division includes units mainly engaged in growing crops, raising animals, growing and harvesting timber, and harvesting fish and other animals from farms or their natural habitats. Edible Nut Processing Award - State 2003 MINING DIVISION The Mining division includes units that extract naturally occurring mineral solids such as coal and ores, and liquid minerals such as crude petroleum and gases (e.g. natural gas). Mineral Sands Industry Award - State 2002 MANUFACTURING DIVISION The Manufacturing division includes units mainly engaged in the physical or chemical transformation of materials, substances or components into new products (except as covered by agriculture and construction). A J Bush And Sons (Manufactures) Pty Ltd Award - State 2005 ELECTRICITY, GAS, WATER AND WASTE SERVICES DIVISION The Electricity, Gas and Water Utilities division includes units mainly engaged in the provision of the following services: electricity, gas through a system of mains; water, drainage and sewerage; and waste collection, treatment and disposal. Electricity Generation, Transmission And Supply Award - State 2002 (ETU, QSU, ASU, FIA, AMWU, APESMA, FEDFA) CONSTRUCTION DIVISION The Construction division includes units mainly engaged in the construction of buildings and other structures. It also includes units mainly engaged in making additions, alterations, reconstruction, installation, and maintenance and repairs to buildings and other structures. Brisbane City Council - Construction, Maintenance And General Award 2003 Building Construction Industry Award - State 2003 (CFMEU, BLF, PGEU, AWU) WHOLESALE TRADE DIVISION The Wholesale Trade division includes units mainly engaged in the purchase and onselling, commission based buying, and commission based selling of goods, without significant transformation, to other businesses. Clothing Trades Award - State (Excluding South-East Queensland) 2003 RETAIL TRADE DIVISION The Retail Trade division includes units mainly engaged in the purchase and onselling, commission based buying, and commission based selling of goods, without significant transformation, to the general public. The Retail Trade division also includes units that purchase and onsell goods, to the general public, using nontraditional means, including the internet. Baking And Pastrycooking (Retail Stores) Award - Northern Division 2003 ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICES DIVISION The Accommodation and Food Services division includes units mainly engaged in providing short-term accommodation for visitors and/or meals, snacks, and beverages for consumption by customers. Boarding House Employees Award - State (Excluding South-East Queensland) 2003 TRANSPORT, POSTAL AND WAREHOUSING DIVISION The Transport, Postal and Warehousing division includes units mainly engaged in providing transportation of passengers and freight by road, rail, water or air. It also includes units mainly engaged in providing postal services, transport of gas, oil or other materials via pipeline, warehousing, and storage of goods and scenic and sightseeing transport. Bulk Terminals Award - State 2003 (AWU, ETU) INFORMATION MEDIA AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS DIVISION The Information Media and Telecommunications division includes units mainly engaged in creating, enhancing and storing information products in media that allow for their dissemination, transmitting information products using analogue and digital signals (via electronic, wireless, optical and other means), and providing transmission services and/or operating the infrastructure to enable the transmission and storage of information and information products. None FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES DIVISION The Financial and Insurance Services division includes units mainly engaged in financial transactions (transactions involving the creation, liquidation, or change in ownership of financial assets) and/or in facilitating financial transactions. None RENTAL, HIRING AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES DIVISION The Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services division includes units mainly engaged in renting, hiring, or otherwise allowing the use of tangible or intangible assets (except copyrights), and units providing related services. Units rent, hire, or otherwise allow the use of their own assets by others. The assets may be tangible, for example real estate and equipment, or intangible, for example patents and trademarks. None PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION The Professional, Scientific and Technical Services division includes units mainly engaged in providing professional, scientific and technical services in areas such as: scientific research; architecture; engineering; statistics; computer systems design; law; accountancy; advertising; market research; management; consultancy; veterinary science and professional photography. Excluded are units mainly engaged in providing health care and social assistance services. Veterinary Practice Employees' Award - State ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION The Administrative and Support Services division includes units mainly engaged in performing routine support activities for the day-to-day operations of other businesses or organisations. Units providing administrative and support services are mainly engaged in activities such as: office administration; hiring and placing personnel; preparing documents; taking orders for clients by telephone; providing credit reporting or collecting services; arranging travel and travel tours; providing building cleaning services; and packaging and labelling products. Laundry Workers Award - State (Excluding Brisbane) - 2003 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND SAFETY DIVISION The Public Administration and Safety division includes units mainly engaged in Central, State or Local Government legislative, executive and judicial activities (public administration) and units mainly engaged in the provision of safety services. The public administration component includes units mainly engaged in the setting of policy, the oversight of government programmes, collecting revenue to fund government programmes, creating statute laws, and bylaws, creating case law through the judicial processes of civil, criminal and other courts operation, and distributing public funds. The safety services component includes units mainly engaged in providing physical, social, economic, and general public safety and security services, and enforcing regulations. Included are units that provide police services, investigation and security services, fire protection and other emergency services, correctional and detention services, regulatory services and border control and other public order and safety services. Community Police (Aboriginal And Island Communities And Local Governments) Award - State 2003 EDUCATION AND TRAINING DIVISION The Education and Training division includes units mainly engaged in the provision and support of education and training, except the training of animals. Anglican Boarding Schools And Colleges Employees (Excluding South-East Qld) Award - State 2005 HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION The Health Care and Social Assistance division includes units mainly engaged in providing health care and social assistance for individuals. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Health Services Officers Interim Award - State 2003 ARTS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIVISION The Arts and Recreation division includes units mainly engaged in the preservation and exhibition of objects and sites of historical, cultural, or educational interest, units involved in producing original artistic works and/or participating in live performances, events, or exhibits intended for public viewing, and units that operate facilities or provide services that enable patrons to participate in sporting or physical recreational activities or pursue amusement interests. Albion Park Harness Racing Club Incorporated And The Brisbane Greyhound Racing Club Award - State 2005 OTHER SERVICES DIVISION The Other Services division includes units mainly engaged in providing a range of personal care services such as: hair; beauty; and diet and weight management services. Also included are units mainly engaged in promoting or administering religious events or activities, providing funeral services (including cemetery and crematoria operation) and repairing and/or maintaining equipment and machinery (except ships, boats, aircraft, or railway rolling stock) or other items (except buildings). Also included are units of private households that engage in employing workers on or about the premises, in activities primarily concerned with the operation of households. Australian Environmental Pest Managers Association Ltd Award - State 2005 In undertaking the above grouping exercise within ANZSIC Divisions, it is clear that significant diversity exists within the groupings. Although many similarities exist across awards, the similarities are outweighed by the substantial differences in the key provisions such as the classification structures. Awards Covering State Government Employees. The following awards cover State Government employees who will remain in the State jurisdiction. Award For Employees In Direct Client Services - Disability Services Queensland 2003 (AWU, QPSU) Can the legislative requirements best be given effect by an industry-based approach to award rationalisation? If not, why not, and what alternative arrangements better reflect the role of awards under WorkChoices? The award restructuring experience suggests that a case-by-case industry approach under a broad 'blue print' umbrella approach is the most flexible and efficient way of rationalising awards. This will enable the various industry aspects to be dealt with. Rationalised awards under WorkChoices will have an important role of ensuring that workers relying on award conditions do not suffer a reduction in wages and conditions. As stated earlier the legislation requires this not to be a cost cutting exercise. In addition, many employers rely on awards and they would be seeking stability and predictability in the IR award landscape. Should the ANZSIC divisions be used as a basis for a system of rationalised awards or are there better alternatives? The ANZSIC classification system grew out of a need to acquire statistical data on an industry basis. It does not reflect 'industrial' relationships or connections or union coverage. Union industry rules have shaped industry awards for almost a century. While it is a start, we believe that the use of ANZSIC should be cautious. A better solution would be to audit existing award scope clauses to determine an industrial approach. Can an industry based system of awards be achieved through a single rationalisation process or is a multi-stage approach more appropriate? No, as argued above, a multi stage approach is more desirable and efficient. How should occupational-based awards and single enterprise awards be dealt with in the rationalisation process? Historically, occupational awards have grown their own peculiar relativities. However, many of these awards have been incorporated into broader industry awards e.g. Clerical Industry and industry award regulation should be preferred to perpetuating narrow occupational awards. Single enterprise awards should ideally be dealt with separately. There are many good reasons why enterprise awards have developed. Should consideration be given to subsequent rationalisation of awards beyond the industry sector level? No, ideally industry awards will have linkages to other industry awards. The creation of an overarching 'generic award' will inevitably become unstable as they will be inadequate in some industries for agreement making. The majority of these Awards have been developed on the request of employers to tailor an enterprise specific award to replace in some cases up to a dozen awards. Such awards deliver considerable savings and efficiencies to employers. Such projects conducted in Queensland in recent decades in industries such as hospitality and health and community care have been major resource and intensive exercises and it could be a major step backwards to abandon enterprise awards. Should rationalised awards apply by common rule? As the legal framework blocks employers from remaining under a common rule state award if they have not been bound to a federal award it would be logical to adopt a common rule system. The common rule system has operated effectively in State jurisdictions for nearly a century and it is the fairest method of determining award coverage. If rationalised awards do not apply by common rule, how should coverage be determined and updated? See above answer. Should award free employers and employees, including new employers and their employees, be covered by rationalised awards? Yes. The Work Choices legislation makes it impossible for the Federal Commission to create new awards. As this is the case employers and employers who are award free will never come within the scope of an award unless they do by force of this process. Should some classes of employees (for example managerial or professional employees) be exempted from common rule coverage of rationalised awards? No. The Task Force should use existing state award industrial criteria to describe these employees. Following the Section 130 Award Review exercise conducted by the QIRC virtually all Queensland State Awards include a clause titled "Award Coverage", which describes which employers and employees are covered by the award, and also includes a parties bound clause which describes the employers, employees and organisations bound to the award. Virtually all Queensland State Awards include in the definitions section a definition of "unions". This information will need to be incorporated into rationalised awards in order to achieve the objectives of the Act. The issue of Award coverage for former state award employees needs to be inclusive of the terms and conditions of the relevant state award into the most relevant fed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
