C2001/2082, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 1263 (25 June 2001)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114J MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
DX 305 Melbourne Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N 7764
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER BLAIR

C2001/2082

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

and

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC,
ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND
ALLLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA -
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re delay in receiving feedback
from the CEPU to the detailed arrangements for
the new team leader and support role in delivery

MELBOURNE

9.52 AM, FRIDAY, 1 JUNE 2001

Continued from 9.5.01

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning. No change in appearances?

PN121

MR P. ROGAN: No, Commissioner.

PN122

MR D. GOULDING: Commissioner, there is a slight change for the CEPU, just Goulding appearing.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Goulding. Right, Mr Rogan?

PN124

MR ROGAN: Thank you, Commissioner and thank you for listing this matter at short notice. When we were last before you on 9 May you will recall, Commissioner, that process was left on the basis that there were to be further discussions between the parties and Australia Post specifically were to talk further with their state managers about a process that was to be used to be put in place for moving things forward. Those discussions took place, Commissioner, and within a day or two we had some discussion with the union at the national level about a process that we believed the parties should put in place, at least in the short term, to get this exercise started.

PN125

And I would like at this stage, Commissioner, to hand up an exhibit relevant to those discussions.

EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 4 DOCUMENT RELEVANT TO DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES

PN126

MR ROGAN: What we proposed, Commissioner, in our discussions with the unions was essentially to try to separate out the issues that were being canvassed before you on 9 May and those issues, if I could characterise them as such, related in part to the pilots that have taken place and with the union view that those pilots have not been conducted in accordance with the agreed terms of reference. And, secondly, two issues that went to the implementation guidelines, the implementation documentation that were given the union.

PN127

And what we proposed to the union which is reflected in AP4, Commissioner, was a process that involved the parties at state level having discussions at that level about any concerns, issues that they had relating to the pilot process. Those discussions were to take place and to be completed under this timetable by Friday 18 May and the parties were to report back jointly to the parties at the national level about any outstanding issues. The second part of it involved what we regarded as the national issues and we were proposing that they should, at least initially, be subject to discussions between the parties at the national level.

PN128

We believed that a little more time would be needed to do that and we proposed that those discussions should be finalised by 25 May. I think that there was broad agreement amongst the parties about this process but the union certainly was not prepared to commit to the timetable that was outlined in this particular document. We agreed that we would start the process and we wrote out to our states on the Friday of that week, 11 May, asking them to set in place those discussions with a view to try and complete them by the following Friday.

PN129

And we also arranged, Commissioner to meet with the union. I think it was on 21 May to get some feedback to talk about the outcome of that state level discussion process and also to start talking about the national issues. That meeting took place. At that stage, Commissioner, the state level discussions had not been completed. I will get back to those in a moment, and the union wasn't in a position to start talking about the national level issues that might be tied up with the implementation process. We agreed to - that we would stay in touch during that week without actually having any formal meetings, but we would get back together in a meeting sense the following Monday, the 28th, at which time our expectation was that we would sign off on the state level discussion process and also the discussions about the national issues the union might have about the implementation process and also the discussions about the national issues the union might have about the implementation process.

PN130

Those discussions took place on the 28th, and if I could at this stage hand up a further exhibit, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 5 FURTHER DOCUMENT RELATING TO DISCUSSIONS ON 28 MAY

PN131

MR ROGAN: I don't think it is necessary for the purposes of today's proceedings, Commissioner, to take you through the detail of each particular report back. You will note that from quickly scanning through the documentation that the level of details provided varies from state to state. But I think that we essentially agree that the national level in the meeting that we had on 28 May, that in terms of the pilot process, that there were no national issues that were being pushed up to our level to resolve. There might still have been some issues that needed to be talked through at state level, but in terms of the national level, that process had cleared away, what I would call, state issues.

PN132

That turned our attention, Commissioner, to the second, what we regard as the second critical part of this exercise, and that is the national implementation guidelines and documentation. We were advised by the union on the Monday that they were not in a position to give us a list of the concerns - the issues that they might have with those - with that documentation. We were surprised at that and I have got to say disappointed, Commissioner, given the fact that documentation had been given to the union some two and a half months previously.

PN133

The union position at that meeting essentially was that they wanted a - this national work shop involving representative from all states and involving national people to do two things, as we understood it. One, was to resolve those - any issues that they might have about the documentation, about the implementation arrangements,and secondly, to get - to achieve some uniformity, some standardisation when the exercise actually kicks off. We reiterated reservations, concerns, we had expressed previously about such a national work shop. We don't believe that it is an appropriate way to try to resolve issues.

PN134

Our experience tells us that putting 20 or more people in a room to deal with issues which are still unspecified, I might add, Commissioner, is simply not an effective process for resolving issues. We have tried to do this previously during the V Sort exercise. When we got to the implementation stage my recollection, at any rate, Commissioner, was that we had an issue to do with sort rates. We convened a national meeting to try to resolve that issue and the outcome of that process was to set up a working group to go away and do some detailed work.

PN135

We also have concerns, Commissioner, in terms of just the cost, the logistics involved in that sort of process. We simply don't believe it is necessary to have that number of people involved. In terms of achieving some standardisation, some uniformity in implementation, we also didn't believe that that was the most effective way of achieving that. Those discussions were left on the basis, Commissioner, that we would - Australia Post would consider - would put to the union within a day or so a proposal as to what we believed should be the way forward in terms of the process and a timetable.

PN136

And Mr Goulding, as we understood it, was to convene a - was to arrange a consultation with his state people over the same period. We put to the union early on the morning of the 30th a written proposal regarding this exercise, Commissioner, and if I can now hand up that as an exhibit.

EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 6 WRITTEN PROPOSAL

PN137

MR ROGAN: This letter, Commissioner, as you will note essentially outlines three dot points in terms of the process. Firstly it suggests or would propose that we establish a small group to be convened immediately to resolve any outstanding issues relating to the national documentation. We are proposing that that group would comprise no more than three representatives from both Post and the union and we were proposing further that it complete its charter as soon as possible, but no later than the end of next week. Secondly, the process would involve referring back to yourself, Commissioner, any unresolved issues that couldn't be resolved through that working group process.

PN138

And, finally, we were proposing that the parties at state level should be discussing - should have commenced immediate discussions on state implementation arrangements. And in order to ensure - to the extent that we can at this stage and at this level - a uniform standard approach to this exercise, we were proposing that a national representative from both Post and the union should visit each state and to have discussions with each state about the process that they intended to put in place and about any issues that they had at state level.

PN139

And we believe, Commissioner, that would be a far more effective process in terms of ensuring the parties at state level do in fact understand what is required and are in fact committed to a standard uniform approach. The response we got from the union was that essentially that they would consider it but they were not prepared to give any commitment as to when they would respond to this particular proposal and certainly gave us no indication that this particular proposal would be acceptable. I previously indicated to you, Commissioner, that time was of the essence with this exercise.

PN140

It has dragged on for a long time already and we once again found ourselves in a position where we didn't have any clear timetable as to how this was going to be drawing to a close. We didn't have a list of issues that were outstanding between the parties and we didn't have agreement on the process for moving it forward. So, we believed, under the circumstances, Commissioner, it was appropriate to seek your further assistance.

PN141

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Goulding?

PN142

MR GOULDING: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, we keep hearing time and time again that there is a delay and it is intimated, let us say, on the part - it is a delay on the part of the CEPU. Now, just to go through, just a little bit of history. We put a proposal in March to Australia Post. We put the proposal in March that would have solved the problem and that entailed converting the worker party and the steering committee to sort out the problems and just lay the ground work for the future. We got a response not dissimilar to the first - second paragraph, sorry, of AP6:

PN143

We are of the view that this approach does not represent the most effective or appropriate way of resolving outstanding issues.

PN144

That was in March. Now, in April we put it to Australia Post for a national delivery conference. When we got the same response:

PN145

We are of the view that this approach does not represent the most effective or -

PN146

Now, we put another proposal to them in April. The Commission put a proposal to them in May and we put another proposal to them in May and we have got the same - everybody has got the same response, "We don't think it is the most effective - ". That is three months, three months that we have been waiting. But anyway I will go back to the union - the union's action after the last meeting was, yes, we held joint meetings in every state and we discussed the trial problems and they were recognised and we set in train mechanisms to correct the previous submissions and misunderstandings.

PN147

And for that part of your recommendation, Commissioner, that was a fairly satisfactory account for both parties. Following those discussions the union held a telephone hookup to confer and compare notes on the discussions that were held between the parties in each state. This was done on 24 March. One of the decisions, apart from endorsing each other's actions and noting for future reference any issues that may have been, sort of, not recognised in their own state, the branches, in accordance with your recommendation, the branches resolved that a national meeting should be held to ensure that there were uniform standards and agreement on the implementation process because the lack of - or divisive, sort of, action in implementation without such a thing was very evident in the trial process - the problems that could arise.

PN148

Now, we had a pre-arranged meeting with Australia Post on 28 May to discuss the result of our telephone hookup and the results of the discussions from our point of view. So we advised Australia Post of the union's commitment to national discussions and then I find this letter on the 30th - I wasn't able to attend work on the 29th - but I find a letter on the 30th is delivered to me by fax - and it is written on the 29th - and they are putting a totally different proposition to us, one that we have never heard of before. And I have got until 4.30 that afternoon, close of business, that afternoon, to answer it.

PN149

I have no - that is the bottom line of the letter, Commissioner, AP6:

PN150

I have no opportunity whatsoever of reasonably contacting my states for any decision on it.

PN151

And I would have to say that the letter was written in haste and it is quite evident because of the content of it. It is just an unrealistic proposal and it is more unrealistic from Australia Post point of view than anyone else. When you see the first dot point it suggests that a small group be convened to resolve the outstanding issues consisting of no more than three representatives from Post and the CEPU. Now, we have got two representatives from Australia Post here this afternoon - this morning, and I am sure, Commissioner, if you ask them - either one of them or collectively - that they cannot commit the states to any course of action.

PN152

And neither could three people. So how that is going to be effective I really don't know but I still haven't had the opportunity to discuss it with the states anyway but it is totally unrealistic. I have no doubt what their response would be. Commissioner, we remain committed to having this matter dealt with in the most expeditious manner - the most efficient manner of all - possible. And as I said, we have put proposal after proposal after proposal to Australia Post, which had they been picked up at the time, would have resolved the issue.

PN153

We are committed to doing that and we are firmly convinced we will do it. Every time we have been refused. Commissioner, we remain committed to the recommendation made here on 9 May following the hearing then. Thank you.

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: Is the concerns of the union been - all the concerns of the union been formulated and presented to Australia Post?

PN155

MR GOULDING: Commissioner, in respect to the implementation process, no they haven't, Commissioner. The branches want to deal with those themselves with their own representatives but they want to deal with it in a common situation to make sure that one state - now, we have got a raft of different personalities and different operating principles and stuff like that. And that is common to Australia Post too. And they want to make sure that the same approach is uniformly followed and they want everybody to agree to it together. That is all they want to do is to commit themselves.

PN156

And as I said we put that in March, April, May twice and we put it again.

[10.10am]

PN157

THE COMMISSIONER: How many people would the CEPU say should be involved from their side at any meeting?

PN158

MR GOULDING: Commissioner, we would be looking at one representative per state, and we would expect Australia Post would - well, I can't answer for them but we would be looking at one representative per state, plus national representation; maybe two people.

PN159

THE COMMISSIONER: So that is seven, is that right? There are six states.

PN160

MR GOULDING: Well, it is eight. Yes, it is eight, Commissioner, but - - -

PN161

THE COMMISSIONER: Why eight?

PN162

MR GOULDING: Well, two national - - -

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: One.

PN164

MR GOULDING: One.

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: Why do you need two?

PN166

MR GOULDING: Well, one from each state.

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. How many states do we have?

PN168

MR GOULDING: Six.

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: And one national.

PN170

MR GOULDING: And two national. Well, maybe one national perhaps but, I mean, that is - - -

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, so seven.

PN172

MR GOULDING: That is not really of concern in assessing any costs because the national and Victoria representation are here anyway so - but it is two from the national office wouldn't be any great - or would not involve in any increase in cost. And I would imagine there would be more than - - -

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: It is not the cost issue that the Commission is worried about. It is just that - I mean, there is that old joke, you know, that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. And it would appear from Mr Rogan's argument that the concern is if there is, say, seven from the CEPU and there is seven from Australia Post, that makes 14. What do you get out of a committee of 14 or a working group of 14?

PN174

MR GOULDING: Commissioner, we have had a very large group and we are - Mr Rogan did raise an issue of these sort of rates and it was a very emotive issue for the union. And Australia Post were trying to enforce a process of ram-roading an issue through that was of great sensitivity. Prior to that, prior to that with the V Sort, we have a meeting in Brighton-Le-Sands in New South Wales and we had about 50 people there, and that was to organise a trial. And what that meeting required was state representatives from the union, and more than one in each case, and state representatives from Australia Post to sit down and work out a way of running the trial in their state. And there was no animosity, no drama at all, it all went along swimmingly. Now, one instance is certainly not enough to write a proposal off or write a process off as unrealistic.

PN175

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Rogan.

PN176

MR ROGAN: A couple of comments, Commissioner: we don't believe there is any inconsistency between what we have put to you today and what we put to the union in AP6 and your recommendation of - which was formally issued on 16 May. That recommendation called for that statement in the process and then, as a matter of some expediency, Australia Post should convene a national meeting of senior post management, senior officials to deal with the issues in question.

PN177

We believe that what we put forward in that first dot point in AP6 does involve senior representatives from both Post and the union, and we agree firmly with the view that that is a most effective way of dealing with the issues. To put a big group together to deal with issues which still have not been specified, one of which I might add has been specified and that is the date of effect of implementation. Now, the union has put to us a position that the date of effect of implementation should be back in December despite the fact that this new role probably won't be implemented for another two or three months even if we started today.

PN178

Now, we can spend the next three weeks with that sort of process trying to sort out that sort of issue, and having a group that size we don't believe would facilitate sorting out issues which are still in dispute between the parties. Previous workshops that Mr Goulding has referred to were workshops that were involved essentially with implementation. They were not processes aimed at sorting out issues.

PN179

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. All right. The Commission would direct the following: that all outstanding issues in regards to the team leader and delivery support structure identified by the CEPU shall be conveyed to the national office of Australia Post no later than the close of business on Tuesday, 5 June. In between 5 June and 1 pm on Tuesday, 12 June, the parties will confer at a national level with no more than seven representatives from each side. There will be a report back to the Commission at 1 pm on 12 June. At that point, if there are still outstanding issues, those issues will be determined by the Commission. That is the timeframe that the parties have to work in. Is that clear, Mr Rogan?

PN180

MR ROGAN: Yes, Commissioner, that is very clear.

PN181

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Goulding?

PN182

MR GOULDING: Yes, Commissioner.

PN183

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. The Commission will stand adjourned till 1 pm, Tuesday, 12 June, in Melbourne. Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY, 12 JUNE 2001 [10.16am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 4 DOCUMENT RELEVANT TO DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES PN126
EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 5 FURTHER DOCUMENT RELATING TO DISCUSSIONS ON 28 MAY PN131
EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 6 WRITTEN PROPOSAL PN137