WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION. No. AG2 of 1985. Between the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, Hospital, Service and Miscellaneous, WA Branch, Applicant and Children's Hospital Child Care Centre Association Inc, Respondent. No. AG3 of 1985. Between the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, Hospital, Service and Miscellaneous, WA Branch, Applicant and Public Service and Commissions Employees Child Care Centres (Inc), Respondent. No. AG4 of 1985. Between the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, Hospital, Service and Miscellaneous, WA Branch, Applicant and Esperance Child Minding Centre (Inc), Respondent. No. AGS of 1985. Between the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, Hospital, Service and Miscellaneous, WA Branch, Applicant and Western Australia Institute of Technology Student Guild, Respondent. No. AG 1 of 1986. Between the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, Hospital, Service and Miscellaneous, WA Branch, Applicant and Moorditch Gurlongga Association, Respondent. No. AG2 of 1986. Between the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, Hospital, Service and Miscellaneous, WA Branch, Applicant and Bunbury Community and Child Care Association, Respondent. 66 W.A.I.G. No. AG3 of 1986. Between the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, Hospital, Service and Miscellaneous, WA Branch, Applicant and Boogurlarri Community House, Respondent. Before the Commission in Court Session. Chief Commissioner B.J. Collier, Mr Commissioner J.A. Negus, and Mr Commissioner J.F. Gregor. The 12th day of June 1986. Mr J.A. McGinty on behalf of the Applicant. Ms H.M. Creed on behalf of the Children's Hospital Child Care Centre Association Incorporated and the Public Service and Commissions Employees Child Care Centre Incorporated. Ms. S. Chmielewski on behalf of Boogurlarri Community House; Moorditch Gurlongga Association and Bunbury Community and Child Care Association. Ms D.M. Main on behalf of the Western Australian Institute of Technology Student Guild. Ms L. MacPherson on behalf of the Esperance Child Minding Centre. Mr A.R. Beech on behalf of the Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia. Mrs P.E. Bentley on behalf of the Confederation of Western Australian Industry (Inc). Reasons for Decision. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER: These are seven separate applications by the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia, Hospital, Service and Miscellaneous, WA Branch (the Union), for the registration as industrial agreements of agreements entered into with the following bodies on the dates shown. Children's Hospital Child Care Centre Associa- tion Inc — initially 4 December 1985 but replaced by another document dated 19 March 1986. Public Service and Commission Employees Child Care Centres (Inc) — initially 16 December 1985 but replaced by another document dated 20 March 1986. Esperance Child Minding Centre (Inc) — 30 January 1986. WAIT Student Guild — 5 November 1985. Moorditch Gurlongga Association — 20 December 1985. Bunbury Community and Child Care Association — 13 January 1986. Boogurlarri Community House Agreement 1986 — 20 January 1986. When the applications were filed in the Commission they were accompanied by a statement which read — The industrial agreement reflects the wish of the parties to operate according to a Consent Award of this Commission which standardises the conditions of employment of employees at a Child Care Centre. The Consent Award is the Children's Services Consent Award No. A1 of 1985. The industrial agreement would not involve increases in the rates of pay for employees. In standardising the conditions of employment, a number of employees receive some worsening of certain conditions and others receive some improvement. As the industrial agreement is seeking no more than the conditions of an existing award of this Commission, it is submitted that the agreement is not contrary to the Industrial Relations Act or any principles formulated in the course of proceedings in which a General Order is made under section 51. That statement is a reasonably accurate summary of the union's case. 66 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE. 1027 There is little doubt that the union has been keen to "standardise" the conditions of employment of employees working in day care centres because the different conditions which applied to different classes of employees in these centres caused problems. It is clear that the model for the future was seen to be an award which was negotiated by the union and the Lady Gowrie Child Care Centre (WA) Inc and which was processed in this Commission on 20 June 1984. This Consent Award replaced four other awards to the extent that those awards applied to the Lady Gowrie Child Care Centre and, amongst other things, provided a 37.5 hour working week for pre-school teachers, child care workers, child care aides and junior aides. All else aside, as far as child care aides and junior aides were concerned a reduction in working hours from 40 to 37.5 hours per week was in clear breach of the Wage Principles and, in my view, should never have been awarded. However, other changes were effected in that document and these included a major improvement in long service leave conditions and two weeks' extra annual leave for some classes of employees. Domestic and support staff (whatever that means) were entitled to four weeks' annual leave. Paternity Leave appeared in the award and all contact staff were allowed a regular period of contact free time each week for preparation and reading/research. The award provided that paid relief staff shall be provided during any absence of staff directly involved in child care. That significant extra costs were involved in the changes in conditions for some classifications is obvious but the Commission was addressed in such terms as "marginal reductions" and "marginal additions" and "evening out" and was clearly left with the impression that, as wage rates were unaltered, other changes "balanced out". Now there is no doubt in my mind that an increase in the hours of pre- school teachers from 31.5 to 37.5 and a reduction in their annual leave to six weeks was seen as this "balancing" factor. No actual costs were mentioned in the proceed- ings and the only reference to numbers was that "10 would be covered by the terms of this proposed award". Whether it "balanced out" or not the fact remains that changes were contemplated which should have received the consideration of the Commission in Court Session under the Wage Principles. More than that, the Commission was told that — Because of the manner of the negotiations the conditions that I have described and that are con- tained in the award have in fact been observed by the employer since the beginning of... since the middle of last year . . . The term of the award commenced from 16 August 1983. In view of the order of the Commission in Court Session dated 26 January 1983 which placed into all awards of the Commission, other than those applying to a public authority, a "Restraint on Increases in Remuneration" clause, I am at a loss to understand how those changes could have been effected "since the middle of last year" without the employer being in breach of the awards which the proposed new awards was designed to replace. The next step in the "standardisation" process appears to be the issuance of the Children's Services Consent Award No. A1 of 1985 on 19 February 1985. This award was restricted in the area of its operation to the premises controlled and operated by the Committees of Management of the Victoria Park Community Child Care Centre, the Coolbellup Day Care Centre and the Duncraig Day Care Centre. None of those centres had commenced business when the award issued. Each centre was said to have been built with Commonwealth funding and the wages and conditions were said to have been modelled on the Lady Gowrie Child Care Centre award. Once again I am of the view that this award contravened the Wage Fixing Principles and should not have issued in the form which it did. Moreover, because of conditions which were well in excess of those prescribed in awards which it effectively replaced insofar as common rule application to these three centres was concerned with respect to certain classifications, the Wage Principles required that the application be considered by the Commission in Court Session. We were told in the present proceedings that none of the three centres employed a pre-school teacher so any suggestion that 37.5 hours per week, four weeks' annual leave plus two weeks' non-contact leave for contact employees and long service leave of 13 weeks after 10 years' service for all employees would be offset by a reduction in the conditions of pre-school teachers would be absurd. The present step in the "standardisation" saga has many elements of what is known in industrial relations as a classic "sweetheart deal". The implied proposition of the union that as the centres which are before the Commission only opened recently and did not previously employ staff means that no changes have been made to the conditions of employees and thus cannot offend the Wage Principles is patently wrong. All of these centres, in my view, are bound by common rule to the Child Care (Subsidised Centres) Award No. A26 of 1985 which issued on 27 February 1986 and which replaced the Child Care Centres (Aides) Award No. A2 of 1983, the Child Care Centres (Pre-School Teachers) Award No. 3 of 1983 and the Child Care Centres (Child Care Workers) Award No. A4 of 1983. Even if I were wrong in that view because of the dates when the agreements were executed between the parties then at the time the agreements were reached the parties were bound by the awards which the Child Care (Subsidised Centres) Award replaced. If there is a standard for subsidised child care centres in this State that standard is contained in the latter award which has effect over the whole of the State and which is current by virtue of its term. However, I even have difficulty in accepting that that award was processed in conformity with the Wage Fixing Principles particularly as it affected child care aides and domestic/ancillary staff. The agreements now before us are said to apply the provisions of the Children's Services Consent Award No. A1 of 1985 to the seven centres but as pointed out by Mrs Bentley there are a number of deficiencies in that award and indeed an error which should not be perpetuated by this Bench. I am of the view that there are so many inconsistencies in these agreements with the Child Care (Subsidised Centres) Award that to require the union to remove them would be to order an exercise which finally would produce a document in the same terms as the award with which they are currently inconsistent. There would be no point in that exercise unless it produced a reason for the Commission in Court Session to conduct a full review of the "standard" award. However, that is not the matter before us. In all the circumstances I would refuse to register any of these agreements for the reason set out immediately above and for the added reasons that with respect to portability of long service leave and the provision of paid relief staff during absence of staff directly involved in child care I am not satisfied as to cost implications both directly and through flow-ons. My other concerns will have become apparent. COMMISSIONER NEGUS: I have had the advantage of reading the decision of the Chief Commissioner and I concur that these agreements should not be registered. The employees concerned will, in my opinion, be well served by the provisions of the Child Care (Subsidised Centres) Award No. A26 of 1985. COMMISSIONER GREGOR: I have read the Reasons for Decision of the Chief Commissioner. I agree with them and have nothing to add. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER: It is the unanimous decision of the Commission in Court Session that the applications be refused. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE. 66 W.A.I.G. BEFORE THE