Aged Care Services Association of NSW and others (C No. 20995 of 1993)

Various employees Health and welfare services

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RIORDAN MELBOURNE, 9 AUGUST 1993

Industrial dispute - dispute finding - log covered aged care services - necessary conditions for finding of dispute not satisfied in respect of WA - finding made in respect of employers in other states with noted exceptions.

The following decision was given in transcript in Melbourne on Thursday,

The Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (ALHMWU) has served a large number of employers, in the aged care services industry in Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, Australia Capital Territory, with a log of claims seeking improved wages and conditions for its members and for persons who are eligible to become its members.

None of the employers have acceded to the demands made and, apart from Western Australia, none of the employers served opposes the finding of the existence of a dispute within the meaning of the Act. Prima facie, there appears to be a dispute in existence because the log of claims which I have assumed to be made with proper authorisation has been served and no employer

There is strong objection, however, from the Municipal Association of Western Australia who appeared in these proceedings and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, who did not appear but who made a written

submission against the finding of a dispute in respect of employers in Western Australia.

The submission made on behalf of the Union that much of the objection is more appropriate to a consideration of an application which may be made pursuant to section 111(1)(g) is well founded. At the same time I am not satisfied that all of the necessary conditions for the finding of dispute have been satisfied in respect of Western Australia. It has been asserted by the Western Australian Municipal Association that certain of the local government bodies served do not employ persons covered by the log of claims. It may be at some future time they will be employed and it would appear that at present persons employed by certain of the local government bodies perform the class of work covered by the log as part of, or a minor part of, other duties performed on behalf of the local government body concerned.

I am concerned, however, in respect of the submission made by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia in the following terms:

"It is clear, however, following a meeting of organisations which were able to attend on Monday of this week that a significant number of bodies named in the log are not employers of the staff sought to be covered.

Some do not employ any staff and do not wish to be respondents to any award. Some local authorities have staff employed under a federal local government award to which the ALHMWU is not a party but which would cover some work at least contemplated by the log, and the Silver Chain Nursing Association has two current federal awards which apply to employees in the home care field."

It seems to me that that assertion and the concerns expressed on behalf of the W.A. Municipal Association require further investigation. If any such emphasis be needed, it is stated now that the finding of the existence or

otherwise of an alleged industrial dispute is not a mere formality; it is a matter to be taken quite seriously, because it forms the jurisdictional foundation on which any award will be made in settlement of the dispute. There is, however clearly, a dispute in existence between the Australian Liquor Hospital and Miscellaneous Workers Union and several employers in South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

I, therefore, propose to find the existence of a dispute and make a record of finding accordingly. That record of finding will indicate that the dispute is between the ALHMWU, employers respondent to the log of claims, excluding those in Western Australia and the Boddington Home and Community

Care, Western Australia, Adelaide Hills Active Birth Centre, the Adelaide Private Senior Care, the Glenelg Respite Care, the Nurses Specialling Bureau Pty Ltd, Personal Nurses, Professional All Care Service, Work Health Services Pty Ltd, all of South Australia, against whom the ALHMWU does not pursue its claims. The matter of W.A. respondents is reserved for further consideration at an early date. The dispute relates to wages and conditions of employment and exists in the States and Territories to which I have referred. A record of finding to that effect will be made forthwith.

The parties to the dispute I have found to exist are now directed to engage in conciliation conferences and to advice the Commission at their earliest convenience of the outcome of those conferences.