C3924/900, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 1290 (28 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 7508

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON

C No 39249 of 2000

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION

and

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re the Company's refusal to apply
clause 7 of Part B of the ACTU/SBU (Qantas
Airways Limited) Enterprise Agreement IV

MELBOURNE

10.05 AM, THURSDAY, 17 MAY 2001

Continued from 27.4.01

PN672

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Who wants to report back?

PN673

MR WINTER: If your Honour pleases, if I could state that the parties, since we were last before you on 27 April, have made significant - or a fair amount of progress in regard to your recommendation, the trials basically commenced at Heavy Maintenance and we have a Heavy Maintenance document which I can hand to your Honour, which is basically agreed. We only got this yesterday, so we haven't had - ticked off on all points.

PN674

We were informed by the company that in regards to the other cost centres that they would present documents to us today in relation to those cost centres and we would need to study those documents, of course, before we could comment on those. There is one outstanding area that we haven't been able to resolve, it has just raised its head, and it is in regard to the amount of money that the leading hands would be entitled to at the end of the day if they achieved the KPIs, and it has to bear in mind that this is all predicated on achieving these targets.

PN675

Now, we have always worked on the basis, and you would be aware that there is - if we can achieve the targets there is an amount of $86.10 there, and that is what is in line with what has taken place in Sydney, and they have always been - that has always been the figure that we have argued about. The company, as of yesterday, came back to us and stated that there isn't $86.10 there fore everyone, that there is amounts ranging from $86.10 to $33.80 per week, based on how many leading hands - or how many employees the leading hands are responsible for.

PN676

Now, that is not in line with what has gone on Sydney, etcetera. So we would like to go into conference with your Honour to see if we could progress that matter, and also I believe it would be appropriate if we had some time, I suppose, to go through the other documents that the company has and has agreed to give us today. If your Honour pleases.

PN677

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will mark the document you handed up regarding senior AME structures, Heavy Maintenance, Melbourne.

EXHIBIT #W11 SENIOR AME STRUCTURES, HEAVY MAINTENANCE, MELBOURNE

PN678

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mills.

PN679

MR MILLS: Yes, thank you, your Honour. I am pleased to hear Mr Winter make a comment that there has been some significant movement and some significant progress, and that has been achieved quite adequately at the local level by management and leading hands involved in the process. I am happy for a W11 to be accepted, but W11 has been amended, only slightly, to reflect the slight changes made with - in fact there was only one word change really, with Mr Rae yesterday afternoon. We are happy to either hand up to you the slight change or are you happy to keep this document where there is just the slight handwritten note. I don't really care. It doesn't particularly bother me.

PN680

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Tell me where it is.

PN681

MR MILLS: You go, I think, to about the - it will be the seventh page. And you see the word in handwriting "joint". There is just a slight - that is just we amended that to reflect that change.

PN682

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mine has got the "joint" in there.

PN683

MR MILLS: Has it, well mine hasn't, sorry. The one that I have just been handed by Mr Winter which would surprise me. It should be "jointly assist" do you have "jointly assist"?

PN684

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I have got "joint assist" and I have got a "drawing" maybe that is the is the "ly".

PN685

MR MILLS: No, yes, that is - yes, we have just got - we have actually got the proper typewritten note, that is what I am saying.

PN686

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN687

MR MILLS: It doesn't matter either way, if you want a more sort of correct version that we have had an opportunity to amend, I am happy to - - -

PN688

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But the word is meant to be "jointly assist" is it?

PN689

MR MILLS: Yes.

PN690

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that is fine. Yes. I will just write it in. Yes.

PN691

MR MILLS: I don't think that is any reflection at all on Mr Rae's artistic skills. We have got some documents in relation to the costings as well of this particular - of W11, which we are happy to provide to the Commission and obviously to Mr Rae and Mr Winters and the AWU. I understand that those costings - and what I might do I might actually tender those and talk to them, it makes it a bit easier.

PN692

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN693

MR MILLS: I understand that the leading hands in particular involved in this process are fully aware of these cost discussions and the targets and the figures, and I will just talk to them. We want to mark that one.

EXHIBIT #Q6 REVIEW JUSTIFICATION FOR COST CENTRE 302841

PN694

MR MILLS: In very simple terms the way these costings have been calculated are as follows - now as you can see the figure we have used here is the 86.10 rate. I will come to the comments made by Mr Winters about that, but for all intents and purposes in this particular cost centre, it is anticipated that people will have - well, will have leading hand responsibilities for 10 or more employees. That is why the 86.10 figure has been utilised.

PN695

And quite simply, if you go to the outcome first and look at the requested increase - the current is 48.80, there is an increase of 37.30. You can see the increase cost for leading hands, there is a shift average of 7.5 per cent, there is a 4.5 per cent on cost factored in there and there is no science to the sums, they are pretty simple. The calculation then goes back to the review justification and the way in which I understand Mr Harewood, who is the manager of this area, has established it is to say, "Right, I need to save $8628.25 and I am going to do that by having a 1.2 per cent reduction and a 2 per cent reduction - a 1.2 per cent reduction on absenteeism and a 2 per cent reduction on overtime. So it is a very simple exercise.

PN696

Now, certainly those figures are for scrutiny and certainly if the AWU and the leading hands have some concerns about that, then Mr Harewood, and any of the other managers involved in this process are more than happy to sit down and address those concerns at a local level. There is nothing being hidden here. Those figures have been - are there to justify the cost increase and meet the requirement of EBA4 which is - there would be no significant net additional cost increase to the company. So my view would be, as I don't necessarily anticipate that the AWU would need to sort of spend time on that today, unless they choose to, and these things really can be sorted out at a local level.

PN697

In relation to a couple of comments made by Mr Winter, the other documents - we do have draft copies of those documents today, they are draft, they are close to completion. The main reason they are draft is to give the AWU an opportunity to consider the document, to be comfortable with the document before we say this is our formal position. I am not really of a mind to necessarily go through that today, unless your Honour directs us to. I don't see it as necessary. I really do think the parties are in a position where they have made significant moves towards an agreed position. We will talk to you in the next couple of minutes about where we say the differentials are between payments.

PN698

We are happy to make those documents available today, but our preference would be to make - to hand them over to the leading hands, back at the work place. If the AWU want them now, it is not a problem, but it really is being achieved successfully at that local level and we believe that is where it stays. But those documents are here and available today, and we are happy for - once those documents are agreed by the AWU that process and those other cost centre will commence.

PN699

Can I say, there has been discussion about different rates for different leading hand responsibilities. There has also been some discussion about different rates for different trades. If you do recall the last time we were before you and when we were in and out of conference and back on record and off record, Mr Hoctor made it quite clear, and went to pains to make it clear, there would be some differentiation, and we would argue for some differentiation in rates, and we agreed that we would address that before we came back to you.

PN700

We have raised it. We have signalled our intentions. There has been some debate and we say that what Mr Winter has put to you about the Sydney document, well it doesn't matter any more as far as we are concerned. The Sydney document was used as the base upon which this trial commenced. The trial is now on a cross centre by cross centre basis. It is here in Melbourne, so what applies in Melbourne and what local management and the AMWU agree to is what is appropriate. Sydney is a completely separate entity now. You can't keep running back to that, if it gives you some comfort.

PN701

What I would say is the point is that in Sydney the 86.10 figure was presented, and it was presented for a very good reason. The numbers of employees that leading hands had responsibility for would vacillate on a weekly basis between 10 - under 10 and over 10. The decision that was made was to save in administrative costs and to remove possible demarcation. It was saying, well if I only get the under 10 payment, I am not prepared to take additional people unless I get paid more, the high tide mark was adopted.

PN702

We are happy to pursue part of that in Melbourne, we are happy to make a concession to that. There are some areas where that very well happens. And currently they get paid the higher rate, even though some weeks they don't - they have less than 10. It is to remove an administrative nightmare and it is also to remove that conjecture between leading hands. So where that is very, very close, where they swing and round about on a week by week basis, we are happy to concede that the high tide mark should be paid.

PN703

And obviously, for an over 10 figure, well the high tide mark has to be paid, there is no objection to that, the 86.10. What we are saying is that there are certain areas, particularly in, is it components - engine and components, where they are never, ever going to have a responsibility for more than four people. They just don't have a requirement. We say, and it is a very important point, that as far back as Commissioner Paine's decision in 1982, and that has occurred subsequent in every award change, every enterprise agreement adjustment, in this industry, not just at Qantas, in this industry, and I would say across most metal trades - in most metal trades.

PN704

There is a defined payment for people who have a lower responsibility and a payment for people who have a higher responsibility. All we are looking to do is a number of things. If you take the moral high ground, so to speak, and hide behind the provisions of the award, Paine's decision and the enterprise agreement, we say we are justified in our position that those who have under 10 - a responsibility under 10, should not get paid as much as those who have a responsibility for over 10. I mean, it is a simple exercise.

PN705

Secondly, there is also a practical application. People who have a greater responsibility is then to be paid more money. People who have a lower responsibility don't deserve the same amount of money. Where we find ourselves in the position where there is a potential dispute where higher and lower vacillates, as we have indicated to you, the company wants to manage that at a local level. It is happy to state, and as they stated yesterday to the AWU, we are prepared to pay the higher figure to avoid any unnecessary administrative responsibility and any unnecessary dispute between the parties.

PN706

It is not just an act of good faith, it is just an act of common sense. So that is our position. Now, if we want to go through an exercise of opening up the whole leading hands provisions, Commissioner Paine's decision re-run, have the rest of the industry involved, then the AWU can make that application. What we would say is, we think we are in a situation where we are simply implying what is correct under the terms and conditions of the award and the enterprise agreement and what we see as being practically correct.

PN707

There is no justification other than that, and the AWU presented nothing other than, well the Sydney document says this - I have given you the reasons behind the Sydney document. I have indicated to you that we are prepared to apply that same principle in Melbourne but don't see how somebody who is never going to have any more than five or four employees as a responsibility should find themselves in a position where they are getting paid the same as someone who has in excessive of 10 week in, week out. Can I also - - -

PN708

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just, Mr Mills, before you go on, on Q6 there is a rate of 48.80, which is said to be the current rate, where does that come from?

PN709

MR MILLS: The 48.80 is the agreed rate that comes out of the Sydney document.

PN710

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN711

MR MILLS: Sorry. It is the current award rate. My apologies, it is the current award rate.

PN712

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is the current award rate for a leading hand?

PN713

MR MILLS: Yes.

PN714

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And you are saying the current award has different rates for - depending on the number of - - -

PN715

MR MILLS: Yes, it does.

PN716

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN717

MR MILLS: As does EBA4.

PN718

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN719

MR MILLS: Unfortunately I don't have a copy of that with me, I see that you do, which I am - - -

PN720

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have got the award but - - -

PN721

MR MILLS: - - - but EBA4 I don't have with me.

PN722

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am not entirely sure I have got EBA4, I have to say. I have got the award. Anyway, go on.

PN723

MR MILLS: I could certainly provide the relevant page to the parties. We also had a discussion yesterday about the payment of a trades rate and a non-trades rate. The view is that they are rates that we have fixed for 86.10 and the lower rate we would say for a trades rate reflects the fact that a trade leading hand had a higher responsibility and we request them, in the review, to undertake greater technical tasks.

PN724

A non-trade individual, a non-trade leading hand, who is in some areas simply a maintenance assistant, or an aircraft worker, and that would be somebody who is responsible for the cleaning of the aircraft, should not be paid as much as a trades leading hand, on the basis that there is not a requirement by the company or upon the individual leading hand to participate an exercise the same responsibility as a trades leading hand will do.

PN725

We have an in principle discussion with the AWU yesterday and signalled that to them. I understand, and I don't want to speak for them, but I understand that there is an acceptance of that figure that there - an acceptance of that principle. The company is of the view that it should just be 50 per cent of the trades rate. We are happy to have a discussion about that. We just believe that, once again, that where people are not exercising the same responsibilities with the same technical acumen, well, there is no requirement on them to be paid as much as somebody who we expect that of.

PN726

So that is the principle behind that. And I do understand that there is not a significant amount of disputation from the AWU. As I said, they are more than welcome to have a discussion about that. What I would say is that we are committed to a regular review at the local level. We have talked about the possibility of monthly discussions, but there is a fairly good relationship between local management and the leading hands. It is only when the smarties from Sydney come down and they pretend to have a few problems. It is a standard joke, your Honour.

PN727

It is a standard joke, I use it with everybody. What I would say is that I think that the reviews there are quite appropriate. Mr Rae and I had a discussion about it yesterday, and once again I don't want to speak for Mr Rae, he is more than capable of speaking for himself. But I think our view was that it was only when people sort of complain and were unhappy that we needed to be involved. Clearly, obviously, you yourself, your Honour, have indicated you would like to have reasonably regular report backs and we leave it to you to decide when you want those to occur.

PN728

I would have thought three months and six months was appropriate, but I am happy to be guided on that matter. What we do know is that the AWU did signal to us their intentions of the possibility that if this review is unsuccessful, then they may very well seek to open up leading hands responsibilities in general on a wider scale. At this stage I have nothing further to add other than we are happy to furnish the draft documents. The preference is really to have it - furnish those documents back at the local level, but if Mr Rae wants them now, I mean, we are not really going to worry about it. We are just quite happy to furnish those. May it please the Commission.

PN729

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Winter.

PN730

MR WINTER: Thank you, your Honour. If I could deal with the issue of the draft documents, I suppose our preference is that we could be given them today and then take them away to consider and I don't think there is going to be too many issues there. In regards to the leading hands trades position, and we are talking about two figures here, we have always been under the assumption that it has been 86.10 across the board in line with the Sydney documents. But we have taken on board some of the issues that Mr Mills has raised.

PN731

I suppose we understand where there is an issue of below 10, above 10 or whatever. The key point for this whole exercise is if we don't meet the targets we don't get any of the money. Right. So the issue of how many people they look after I don't believe is a major issue. What we are prepared to do though, where leading hands look after significantly less than 10 individuals we accept there may need to be some changes to the KPIs, or the targets, in regards to those individuals, if they are to achieve the full $86.10.

PN732

Now, we are prepared to continue the discussions in regards to that to try and get the level playing field of 86.10 across the board, because we think that will be a lot cleaner. We have always worked on this on the basis that there is a possibility of $86.10 there, right across the board. And we take into consideration the commitment that we have already given, that this is a cost neutral exercise, but we believe that through further discussions we can progress the matter in regard to those leading hands that look after less than 10.

PN733

In relation to the non-trades area, Mr Mills is right that those figures that have been given to us we are considering. We don't see too many problems with them but we need to have some further discussions with our members in relation to the matter. So all in all, we would like to set probably another report back before you in a couple of weeks time, if that assists. We could then, if the parties had made progress, significant progress and they feel that they don't need to come back at that stage, we could ask you to vacate that time for us so it doesn't interfere with your timetable, but I think that would be the way to go. If your Honour pleases.

PN734

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr Mills, did you want to say something else?

PN735

MR MILLS: I just want to make the comment that we are happy to have some discussions in relation to a flat payment of 86.10 for leading hands across the entire Melbourne maintenance facility. That applies to people, regardless of how much responsibility they have. Mr Winter must be far more optimistic than I am that that outcome of, in a sense, overturning 20 years of established practice, will occur without any disputation. If you choose to have a report back in the next two weeks, you know, your Honour, I am guided by your decision.

PN736

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am unclear about whether you want to talk to me now about the $86.10 issue or whether you want to talk amongst yourselves and come back to me in two weeks?

PN737

MR WINTER: Well, we would like to progress the issue of the 86.10. Our position is that we are willing to look at those targets in regard to those leading hands that look after less than 10 people. If the company is willing to move on that 86.10 issue.

PN738

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But isn't - if you are - as I understand it, your position is, if it requires more productivity out of those areas where the leading hands have fewer employees then you are prepared to look at that.

PN739

MR WINTER: Yes, we are.

PN740

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But isn't that issue of more productivity dependent on the documents they are giving you for those other areas?

PN741

MR WINTER: They do, they do. And I acknowledge that.

PN742

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So can we, in reality, discuss it until you have a look at those documents?

PN743

MR WINTER: Well, I would like, I suppose, the company to say that they are willing to consider the issue of moving all leading hands to $86.10 if we can reach agreement on those productivity issues. At the moment they are saying they are not prepared to move at all.

PN744

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I am not sure they are entirely saying that. I think they are saying, we think there is sound IR reasons for not doing so, and in any instance we don't think you can do it, but isn't the onus on you then to put back and then we will have the discussion. I think sort of getting a, yes we will look at it, isn't going to advance things much, to be honest.

PN745

MR WINTER: What we have got - we have got a meeting this afternoon with our members, right, and what - all we are seeking from the company at this stage is a commitment to progress negotiations with - that they are willing to look at the issue of the $86.10 for those people who look after less than 10 individuals on the basis that there may need to be changes to the formula. That is what we are looking at. That is all we are seeking today.

PN746

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well before we get into that, I think I will adjourn into conference and speak to Qantas. A

PN747

MR WINTER: Yes.

PN748

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. So off you go.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED [10.30am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #W11 SENIOR AME STRUCTURES, HEAVY MAINTENANCE, MELBOURNE PN678
EXHIBIT #Q6 REVIEW JUSTIFICATION FOR COST CENTRE 302841 PN694