The Gate, Fence and Frames Manufacturing Award varied in line with the 2022 State Wage Case Statement of Principles, resulting a number of allowances being increased.

The Commission granted an application to vary the Gate, Fence and Frames Manufacturing Award because the proposed variation methodology and calculations, provided by the applicant, were consistent with the 2022 State Wage Case Statement of Principles and not inconsistent with the award itself.

Background

The applicant applied to vary the Award in order to:

1. increase a number of allowances in the Award; and
2. substitute a new Schedule of Respondents to remove the two named respondents.

Application details

The applicant sought to vary the allowances Clause 14 ‑ Special Rates & Provisions and the First Schedule ‑ Wages: Leading Hands and Tool Allowance by 4.75%. This variation was in line with the $40.90 per week increase for classifications at and below C10 in the 2022 State Wage Case.

Additionally, the applicant sought to vary Clause 7 ‑ Meal Allowance and Clause 20 ‑ Distant Work Allowance in line with CPI changes from June 2021 to September 2022.

Finally, the applicant sought to vary Clause 19 ‑ Travel Allowances in accordance with the rates contained in the Building and Construction General On-site Award 2020 on the basis of the nexus between it and the Award.

The application for the variations was unopposed.

The applicant did not press its application to add other respondents to the Schedule of Respondents, in light of the fact that the addition of new parties may have the effect of extending the scope on a common rule basis.

Findings

The Commission granted the application to vary the Award only in respect of the variations to the allowances but held that no variation will be made to the Schedule of Respondents at this time.

The methodology and calculations supporting the variations, which were submitted by the applicant, showed that the variations are consistent with the 2022 State Wage Case Statement of Principles. The Award did not itself specify a method for adjusting allowances which is at odds with the proposed methodology and calculations.

The decision can be read here.