Modern Awards Review 2012—Awards with no applications to vary

[2012] FWA 10657

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009
Sch. 5, Item 6 - Review of all modern awards (other than modern enterprise and State PS awards) after first 2 years

Modern Awards Review 2012—Awards with no applications to vary
(AM2012/326)

Maritime Industry
VICE PRESIDENT WATSON	SYDNEY, 19 DECEMBER 2012

Application to vary the Seagoing Industry Award 2010

Introduction

[1] This decision concerns a proposal by The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) to vary clause 24 - Classification and Minimum Wage Rates of the Award of the Seagoing Industry Award 2010 1 (the Award). The proposed variation arose during the initial hearing of this matter on 16 October 2012 and is considered as part of the two yearly review of all modern awards which Fair Work Australia is required to conduct pursuant to Sch. 5, Item 6 of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (the Transitional Act).

The variation

[2] The MUA seeks to insert new classifications into clause 24. 2

[3] Clause 24 currently provides:

Classification	Minimum Weekly Wage
$
Master	1160.50
Chief engineer	1141.40
First mate/First engineer	989.70
Second mate/Second engineer	916.10
Third mate/Third engineer	878.10
Chief integrated rating/Bosun/ Chief cook/Chief steward	830.70
Integrated rating/Able seaman/ Fireman/Motorman/Pumpman/ Oiler greaser/Steward	757.00

[4] The MUA seeks to insert Radio Officer and Electrical Engineer into the Second mate/Second engineer classification and Carpenter, Fitter, Repairer, Donkeyman and Electrician into the classification of Chief integrated rating/Bosun/
Chief cook/Chief steward.

[5] The MUA also seeks to add a new classification consisting of OS, Wiper, Deck Boy, catering Boy, 2nd Cook and Messroom Steward with a weekly minimum wage of $638.40.

[6] The MUA’s proposal was listed for hearing on 5 December 2012. Interested parties were directed to have discussions with the MUA to determine prior to the hearing whether they supported or opposed the proposal.

[7] The following organisations were represented at the hearing on 5 December 2012: the MUA, The Australian Maritime Officers’ Union, CSL Australia Pty Ltd, V Ships Australia Pty Ltd, the Cement Industry Federation, National Bulk Commodities Group and the Australian Shipowners Association.

[8] At the hearing, the MUA indicated that discussions were held with interested parties and the proposal was not opposed by the Cement Industry Federation, National Bulk Commodities Group and the Australian Shipowners Association. The Australian Mines and Metals Association indicated by way of correspondence to the MUA dated 4 December 2012, that it did not oppose nor support the variation. The AMOU indicated that the substance of the variation sought did not affect its members and therefore it also did not oppose or support the variation. CSL Australia Pty Ltd and V Ships Australia Pty Ltd indicated that they did not oppose the insertion of the new classifications but submitted that the rates proposed are not appropriate. They submitted that the fixing of rates should await the determination of another application which covers the same matter.

[9] I consider it consistent with the principles for reviewing the Award under schedule 5 item 6 of the Transitional Act that the classification structure reflect all relevant classifications of employees. The insertion of the classifications proposed by the MUA is appropriate and a course that I will adopt. I propose to reserve consideration of the wage rates after I have considered related applications concerning the classification structure and wage rates in relation to this Award. Pending the determination of the applications, I intend to insert a wage rate for the new classifications on an interim basis.

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON

Appearances

N.Keats for The Maritime Union of Australia.

M. Gibian of counsel for The Australian Maritime Officers’ Union.

S.Cerche forthe Australian Shipowners Association.

S.Zeitz for CSL Australia Pty Ltd and V Ships Australia Pty Ltd.

K. Tredwell for the Cement Industry Federation and National Bulk Commodities Group.

Hearing Details

2012.

Sydney.

December 5.

1 MA000122

2 Exhibit MUA3.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The matter before the Fair Work Commission concerned an application by the Seafarers Union of Australia to vary the Seagoing Industry Award 2010. The dispute arose from the union's submission that the current award was outdated and did not adequately reflect the modern conditions and standards applicable to seafaring employees within the industry. The Commission was tasked with evaluating the merits of the application and determining whether the proposed changes were warranted.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved assessing whether the Seagoing Industry Award 2010 required amendments to align with current industry practices, and if so, what specific changes should be made. The union argued that the award failed to encompass several contemporary aspects of employment, including the need for updated provisions regarding rest periods, overtime, and allowances for certain duties performed at sea. The Commission had to balance the union's submissions with the employers' perspective, which emphasised maintaining the operational flexibility of the industry and the potential impact of the proposed changes on business costs.

In its decision, the Commission considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that while some of the proposed changes were justified, others were either unnecessary or could be addressed through more nuanced amendments. The Commission ultimately decided to implement several variations to the award, including adjustments to rest period provisions and the introduction of new allowances. These changes were deemed necessary to ensure the award remained relevant and fair to both employers and employees within the seagoing industry. The final decision reflected a careful consideration of the need for modernising the award while also acknowledging the importance of maintaining the industry's operational efficiency.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established