Annual leave loading – clause 21g Police Officers
Award
The Police Association is currently seeking clarification
from SAPOL in regard to clause 21g of the Police Officers Award. This section
deals with the calculation of leave loading payments for completed months as a
shift worker.
The sub-clause provides that an employee who is employed for
only part of a year as a seven-day week worker is to be provided a leave
loading on a pro rata basis. That leave loading is to be paid “…in
respect of completed months worked as a seven-day week worker…”
SAPOL’s interpretation of “completed month” is
a full calendar month as a seven-day week worker rather than, for example,
working a complete month or more as a seven-day week worker over a number of
separate two-week shifts.
The basic principles of award interpretation require that the
intention be gathered from the award itself. The words of the award should be
interpreted in a grammatical sense by their ordinary usage. They should not be
modified unless it is necessary to avoid absurdity or inconsistency.
Section 11 of the Industrial and Employee Relations Act
requires the court to have regard to any evidence that is reasonably available
to it of what the author of the relevant part of the award – and the
parties to the award – intended it to mean when it was drafted.
In relation to SAPOL’s interpretation of the term
“completed months”, the association has asked SAPOL to provide any
documentation in relation to that interpretation in order that it may be
considered.
Assuming there is no material available which is relevant
under section 11 of the act, it is the association’s view that an
appropriate interpretation of the phrase “...completed months worked as a
seven-day week worker…” encompasses “completed months
worked” whether the month or months are worked continuously or not.
One could argue that if the restriction advocated by SAPOL was
to apply here, then the maker of the award could have restricted the
entitlement to the leave loading to only those who completed a month or more of
continuous service as a seven-day week shift worker.
The argument that SAPOL put forward therefore seems to defeat
the provision of a leave loading to a seven-day week shift worker. The history
in relation to such an entitlement will show that it is intended to compensate
for, among other things, the dislocation and social inconvenience caused to the
shift worker.
A restrictive interpretation of “completed months”
such as to deny the payment of a loading to a member, who may work as many as
six months of shiftwork, albeit in two-week periods only, would appear to be an
unjust and inappropriate outcome. It is the association’s view, with
respect to the interpretation of the relevant sub-clauses, that its argument is
correct, given the plain meaning of the words and the object of the award
provisions.
We await SAPOL’s response to this issue and will advise
members of the outcome.
