60 For the reasons I shall shortly outline, I have concluded that granting this application will be consistent with the Act's objective of awards being made which set 'fair and reasonable conditions for employees'; see Pastoral Industry (State) Award. I further conclude that the grant of the application would be in the public interest.
61 Firstly, the evidence is that this is an actual rates Award. In other words, the rates of pay prescribed in the Award are the actual rates of pay paid to the employees. No over award payments are made. It must be observed that safety net adjustments are designed, inter alia, to provide a mechanism for ensuring that rates of pay for employees on actual rates awards do not fall significantly behind employees who receive over award payments or who are covered by enterprise arrangements or agreements.
62 Secondly, employees employed under the Award are overwhelmingly women. The work is casual employment with the employees being engaged on race days only. Ms McLoughlin's evidence was that she works 4.5 to 6.5 hours a week and supplements her income by other casual and part time engagements.
63 Thirdly, the current hourly rate for a racecourse totalisator operator 2A is $20.22. It could hardly be said that the rates under this Award are high or excessive. Safety net adjustments were introduced to assist the needs of the low paid. In my opinion, employees under this Award may properly be regarded as low paid employees and, in the ordinary course, would be entitled to receive the benefits of safety net adjustments provided for in State Wage Cases in a timely fashion.
64 Fourthly, this application was filed on 18 January 2005. The Union seeks this date as the date from which the 2004 State Wage Case adjustments should apply. Even accepting this operative date, the Award will remain around 6 months behind the State Wage Case 2004. While I accept there will be some administrative burden on the employer in calculating any back pay entitlements, I do not accept this burden to be exceptionally onerous or unworkable. This burden must be weighed against the rectification required to be made for the employees concerned.
65 Fifthly, Mr Stevens emphasised the cost of the claim and its possible impact on the respondent's operations, including the maintenance of existing staffing levels. It is trite, of course, to observe that any wage increase is a cost to the employer. However, in view of the quantum of increase proposed, and my assessment of its financial impact, I conclude that the cost imposition on the respondent will be minimal. I note that the Union argued that the respondent has had the benefit of savings from delaying past safety net increases. While there is some logic in this submission, I am not convinced that the savings are as great as the Union has calculated. In any event, I agree with Mr Stevens that this is not the test of whether this application should be granted.
66 Sixthly, Mr Stevens correctly in my opinion, did not advance his client's case on an incapacity to pay basis. That being said, the central thrust of the respondent's case focused on the cost impact of the claim and its consequences for staffing levels. I should say, I find this evidence to be unpersuasive for the following reasons.
67 The Commission was provided with information concerning reduced turnover arising from falling attendances at race meetings. This was not disputed. However, the evidence was less than clear as to the effect of the reduced turnover on operating costs and the profit and loss of the oncourse operations.
68 The Commission accepts Ms McLoughlin's evidence that the oncourse operations of TabCorp Holdings Ltd is required to set and meet its own budgets and operating expenses. However it is pellucidly clear from TabCorp Holdings Ltd half year report to 31 December 2004 that the oncourse operations are not an autonomous business unit within the corporate entity. Rather, its results are included in the Wagering Division which, for the period just referred to, recorded a profit before taxation and amortisation of goodwill of $103.2m - 159.9% above the corresponding previous period. Total operating revenue increased by 194.5% to $668.6m. While this was attributed, in large measure, to the acquisition of the wagering business of TabCorp Ltd in July 2004, it still is a profit of the relevant Division.
69 Moreover, the respondent's Managing Director, in describing the overall results, said "We currently expect the group will again deliver solid growth earnings per share in the 2005 financial year".
70 I do not regard the proposed fast tracking of new technology and its effect on staffing levels as being an impediment to the grant of the claim. Obviously, the new technology will be introduced at some stage. This is a fact of modern industrial life. However, in my view, this argument should not be used as a grounds to justify the refusal of an otherwise meritorious claim.
71 Mr Stevens did not argue that, if the Commission granted this application it should do so with all, or some of the cost offsets, accepted by, or endorsed by the Commission. As mentioned earlier I queried Mr Stevens about this at the conclusion of his submissions. Upon reflection, I do not believe I have sufficient material before me to make variations to the Award or otherwise recommend or order that the proposed offsets be given effect.
72 Notwithstanding this conclusion it seems to me that at least two of these proposals would have little, or no impact on the employees under the Award; for example, the Union's agreement to an enterprise agreement and EFT for employees' wages, rather than cash payments.
73 Finally, I would direct the parties' attention to a General Ruling made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on 27 June 2005 pursuant to ss287 and 288 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Qld) (Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, 8 July 2005 at 412). The effect of this General Ruling was to provide a mechanism for adjusting all Queensland State awards for outstanding State Wage Case increases from 1 January 1987 to 1 January 2005. I would emphasise, of course, that this process was adopted under a different legislative framework and no doubt in different circumstances. Obviously, I have not relied on it when arriving at my determination of this matter. Indeed, it would be wrong for me to do so, absent of any submissions from the parties on the relevance, or otherwise, of this decision. I raise it merely as a matter of some passing interest for the parties.
74 For the reasons I have earlier expressed, I would grant the Union's application to apply the State Wage Case 2004 increases to the Award effective from the first full pay period to commence on or after 18 January 2005. The parties are directed to confer as to an agreed schedule to be filed with the Commission within 14 days. Liberty to apply is available in the event of any disagreement.
75 As to the Union's application IRC3413 of 2005 filed on 30 June 2005 seeking the State Wage Case 2005 adjustments, that matter is listed for mention on Thursday 18 August 2005 at 10:30am.