Industrial Relations Act 1988 s.99 notification of industrial dispute

Australian Chevaline Industries (C No. 20048 of 1990)

AUSTRALIAN CHEVALINE INDUSTRIES HORSE MEAT PROCESSING INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENT 1988(1)

Meat workers Meat industry

COMMISSIONER CAESAR SYDNEY, 6 FEBRUARY 1990

Payment by results - tallies - dispute over boning tallies' wage rates and claim that all employees at Hamilton plant had been summarily dismissed - employer claimed Commission lacked jurisdiction because of lack of interstateness and as all employees were casuals - Commission noted previous dispute finding, parties and application of agreement - union may need to pursue matter in another jurisdiction - employer ordered to abide by agreement

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) pursuant to section 99 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 notified of an alleged industrial dispute between that union and Australian Chevaline Industries (ACI), Brisbane in regard to two issues. The first issue concerned boning tallies and rates of pay. The Commission issued a statement as follows, in that regard:

There is no argument that the subject matter of boning tallies and wage rates is part of the dispute found in matter C No. 5256 of 1987, which resulted from the serving of a log of claims by the union on ACI, amongst others.

It is clear to the Commission as constituted, that the events and discussion around this question since the making of an interim agreement arrived at sometime around May 1988, indicate that agreement between the parties on the question of tallies is not a foreseeable event. Therefore the responsibility of the Commission being to settle and prevent disputes dictates that the matter be subject of arbitration.

I am concerned that during an arbitration a situation exists that

does not in any way prejudice such arbitration, a situation which does not give rise to continuing disputation. The Commission is mindful that a trial presently in progress, which was not a result of any in-depth investigation by the Commission, but was more in the Solomon type of _______________________________________________________________________________

(1)Print H2931 [A442] attitude that having given one proposition a trial for some eight months, a trial which the company was claiming could not be continued for much longer without putting the company out of business, then there should be a 3 month trial of a new proposition, as long as nobody was injured in their position as a result of that trial, is however causing concern.

The union claims that injury to position is occurring, therefore the Commission will require a report outlining the result to date of the trial on 22 February 1990 which is one month from today, at that time a decision will be made as to the future of the trial.

Both the union and the company are requested to prepare a case on tallies and wage rates in this industry and report to the Commission a programme for hearing at the earliest possible date but no later than 22 February 1990.

This part of the notification C No. 20048 is therefore adjourned

for arbitration at a date to be fixed no later than 22 February 1990."

The second issue concerned a claim that all employees at the Hamilton Plant of the company had been summarily dismissed. Discussion on this issue disclosed a problem relating to the refusal of some employees to complete new employment application forms. These forms having been refused recognition by the union were subsequently amended to eliminate those questions found to be offensive by the union. As a result all employees then completed the forms.

The company however instead of employing in the practice of the past, by seniority, did not offer employment to a number of persons who had various lengths of service with the company greater than those who were employed on start up for 1990.

Mr Martin of Counsel appearing for the company by leave of the Commission raised a question of jurisdiction claiming that on this question there existed no interstate dispute, and in any event as all employees were casual employees then the Commission had no jurisdiction to involve itself.

As mentioned in the above statement dealing with the question of boning

tallies and wage rates there is no question between the parties that a dispute finding in matter C No. 5256 of 1987 involved both the AMIEU and Australian Chevaline Industries. There is also no question between the parties that the dispute was found following the serving of a log of claims on a number of companies including ACI. There is also no question between the parties that the log contained claims against all subject headings found in the Australian Chevaline Industries Horse Meat Processing Industrial Agreement 1988, an agreement certified by the Commission on 4 July 1988 "for the settlement of the matters in dispute between the AMIEU and ACI".

The real question raised by the complaint being dealt with by the Commission in this matter however is not whether an interstate dispute exists between the parties but "who are the parties to the certified agreement made in settlement of an unquestioned industrial dispute?" and the answer to that question is obviously ACI at Hamilton and Caboolture and the AMIEU and its member employees of ACI.

A second question stemming from this complaint is "who does the agreement apply to?" and the answer to that question is also obvious, it applies to employees for whom rates of pay and general conditions are prescribed in the agreement. It is not the province of this Commission to interpret awards or agreements and I make no attempt so to do. However I point out that clause 1 - Application, clause 3 - Contract of employment, particularly at subclause (c), clause 4 - Preference of employment, clause 5 - Wage rates, and clause 26 - Seniority, particularly at subclause (d) all seem pertinent to the questions raised by the union. It is further noted that all clauses with the exception of clauses 13 - Annual leave, 14 - Sick leave, 19 - Jury service, 20 - Public holidays, refer to all employees without exclusion and clause 3 - Contract of employment, describes three types of employees for which rates of pay and general conditions are set out.

Because of jurisdictional limitations related to interpretation, on this Commission, the union may find it necessary to take action in another jurisdiction if its problem cannot be resolved following these comments. For my part having regard to my responsibilities to settle and prevent industrial disputes, I hereby order that Australian Chevaline Industries adheres to and abides by the terms and conditions found in the agreement to which it is party, an agreement made in settlement of a bona fide industrial dispute and known as the Australian Chevaline Industries Horse Meat Processing Industrial Agreement 1988.

The order is to take effect on and from today's date, however I point out to the principals of the company that their duty to discharge the obligations under the agreement to all their employees as set out in the agreement has existed since the agreement was certified in July 1988 and has continued to remain in existence through to the date of this order and would of course include all those employees who were stood down for the Christmas shut.