Specialist Diagnostic Services Pty Ltd t/a Dorevitch Pathology v Health Services Union
[2018] FWCFB 5984
•26 SEPTEMBER 2018
| [2018] FWCFB 5984 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.266 - Industrial action related workplace determination
Specialist Diagnostic Services Pty Ltd t/a Dorevitch Pathology
v
Health Services Union; Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
(B2017/756)
VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER |
|
[1] We issued a decision in this matter on 13 September 2018 which set out our determination of the issues in dispute. A draft determination to give effect to our decision was provided to the parties together with the decision. The parties were directed to file submissions identifying any errors, omissions or other difficulties in the draft determination on or before 24 September 2018.
[2] We received submissions from Dorevitch and the HSU. A number of errors and other matters requiring amendment were identified by the parties. They were largely uncontroversial, and the required amendments will be made. There were however two substantive issues which we need to address.
[3] The first is that Dorevitch submits that it requires a period of 12 weeks to calculate and pay the new rates arising from the determination coming into effect, by reason of the need to adjust its computerised payroll system. Statutory declarations made by Mark Ellis, the General Manager of Dorevitch, and Stephen Rott, the Account Manager of an IT consultancy utilised by Dorevitch, were filed in support of this submission. The HSU objected to this, but acknowledged that some “period of grace” may be required to allow for wage increases and back-payments to be processed.
[4] We have decided to deal with this difficulty by allowing Dorevitch a period of 10 weeks to calculate and pay the wage increases and back-payments required upon the determination coming into effect. We will add a special provision to clause 23, Payment of Wages, to allow for this. While Dorevitch has submitted it requires 12 weeks, we consider that 10 weeks is sufficient having regard to the evidence of Mr Stott regarding the timing required to complete a “blueprint” for the new terms and conditions, the building of the required pay rules and the testing of them prior to implementation, and the inconvenience which would be caused to employees by further delays in receiving their wage increases.
[5] Second, the HSU submitted that, although in our decision we had identified at paragraph [25] that the HSU’s claim for a provision concerning the method by which redundancy pay was to be calculated (set out at paragraph [22]) was a matter which remained in dispute, we had not in the decision resolved this issue.
[6] We accept that, through an oversight, we did not resolve this claim. The HSU’s proposed provision reflects the status quo as represented by clause 35.2 of the 2004 Agreement. We see no basis to change the position in that respect. The HSU’s claimed provision will be included as clause 19.11.
[7] The workplace determination we make will be issued in conjunction with this decision.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR700790>
0
0
0