QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION:
Re: variation of the Award for Operational Employees in Disability and Forensic Services – State 2016 [2020] QIRC 138
PARTIES:
State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations)
(Applicant)
v
Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees
(First Respondent)
&
The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland
(Second Respondent)
CASE NO:
MA/2020/3
PROCEEDING:
Application
DELIVERED ON:
2 September 2020
HEARING DATE:
On the Papers
MEMBER:
HEARD AT:
Knight IC
Brisbane
ORDER:
1. Application granted. Full Orders as per final pages of decision.
CATCHWORDS:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – VARIATION OF A MODERN AWARD – application to vary a modern award.
LEGISLATION:
Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 147
Reasons for Decision
[1] The State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations) has filed an application pursuant to s 147 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ("the Act") to vary the Award for Operational Employees in Disability and Forensic Services – State 2016 ("the Award"). Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees indicated consent to the proposed variation, whereas The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland, raised no objections.
[2] The proposed variation is purposed to remove hours-based barriers to increment progression in relation to part-time employees to whom the Award applies.
[3] Clause 12.6 of the Award applies a requirement for a part-time employee to work 1200 hours prior to moving to the next increment within a classification level.
[4] The Award covers approximately 129 part-time employees (as at June 2019) who are subject to the provision applying an hours-based barrier to increment progression.
[5] In her affidavit of 12 August 2020, Ms Tara Armstrong, Director of Industrial Relations (Public Sector), deposes that female employees are disproportionately engaged on a part-time basis across the public service generally. This, she says, is a factor contributing to the gender pay gap – something the proposed variation is intended and projected to ameliorate.
[6] I grant the application and make the necessary orders to vary the Award.
Orders
Pursuant to s 147 of the Act, the Award for Operational Employees in Disability and Forensic Services – State 2016 is varied as follows:
1. By deleting clause 8.2(e) and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
(e) Part-time employees are eligible for payment of salary increments in accordance with the provisions of clause 12.6(a)(i).
2. By deleting clause 8.3(g) and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
(g) Casual employees are eligible for payment of salary increments in accordance with the provisions of clause 12.6(a)(ii).
3. By deleting clause 12.6(a) and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
(a) Except in the case of a promotion or transfer and promotion from one classification level to another, an increase is not to be made to the salary of any employee until:
(i) In the case of a full-time or a part-time employee, the employee has received a salary at a particular classification and payment for a period of 12 months.
(ii) In the case of a casual employee with 12 months' continuous service:
(A) the employee has received a salary at a particular classification and paypoint for a period of at least 12 months; and
(B) the employee has worked 1,200 ordinary hours in such classification.
For the purpose of clause 12.6(a)(ii), continuous service for a casual employee is considered to be broken if more than 3 months, excluding any public holidays, has elapsed between the end of one employment contract and the start of the next employment contract.
4. The variation of the Award will operate on and from 2 September 2020.
- AGLC
- Re: variation of the Award for Operational Employees in Disability and Forensic Services - State 2016 [2020] QIRC 138 [2020] QIRC 138
- Case
- [2020] QIRC 138
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed variations to the award were justified and in accordance with the relevant legislation. The applicant argued that the changes were necessary to ensure fair and reasonable remuneration and to address discrepancies in job classifications. The respondent contended that the proposed changes were not warranted and would have adverse financial implications for the state. The Commission had to determine whether the applicant had established a valid basis for the variations, considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.
The Commission found that the applicant had demonstrated a valid basis for the proposed variations. It considered the evidence regarding the job roles and responsibilities of the employees, the current market rates for similar positions, and the need for fair and reasonable remuneration. The Commission concluded that the proposed changes would better reflect the nature of the work and the market conditions, thus making the award more equitable. As a result, the application to vary the award was granted. The final orders included specific amendments to the award, detailing the new classifications, remuneration rates, and other employment conditions for the affected employees.
Orders
Orders of the court
ORDER:
1. Application granted. Full Orders as per final pages of decision.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.