C0046/298, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 1320 (28 June 2001)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DUNCAN

C No 00462 of 1998
C No 00463 of 1998
C No 00464 of 1998
C No 61050 of 1999
C No 61051 of 1999

APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW PURSUANT TO ITEM 51 SCHEDULE 5 TRANSITIONAL WROLA ACT 1996 OF THE AGED AND DISABLED PERSONS HOSTELS (ALHMWU) INTERIM AWARD 1996 AND OTHERS RE AWARD SIMPLIFICATION

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 111(1) (1) OF THE ACT FOR AN AWARD RE ANGLICAN HOMES (INC) AND OTHERS

SYDNEY

4.32 PM, WEDNESDAY, 6 JUNE, 2001

Continued from 27.04.01

Hearing continuing

PN222

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good afternoon to both of you. I note that MR J.BLACKBURN continues his appearance for some of the employers and MR D.KELLY for the ALHMU. The matter is in the list at the request of the union with a further request that a number of issues be dealt with. Mr Blackburn, do you have a copy of the letter of 1 June to myself?

PN223

MR BLACKBURN: Yes, thank you.

PN224

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Kelly?

PN225

MR KELLY: Good afternoon. I might indicate that I did, prior to sending you the letter, have some discussions with Mr Blackburn in an attempt to reach agreement but that did not happen. That is why I have asked for the matter to be re-listed. If your Honour would like, I will deal with them in the order in my letter.

PN226

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that is the best.

PN227

MR KELLY: The Full Court matter was heard on Tuesday of last week. The union has always been reasonably confident that we would be ultimately successful in that application and the hearing has certainly fortified us in that view. The Full Court did indicate that they would attempt to hand down a decision as soon as possible and in the light of that it is our view that it is not desirable to have these matters proceed any further if essentially now we are waiting on a decision from the Full Court which, if the union is successful, would significantly pare back the matters that would be before the Commission. Effectively, the two applications 61050 and the associated applications, both of those in our view would be effectively dead, if you like.

PN228

On return from my annual leave I received the 152 pages of submissions from the employers represented by Mr Blackburn. I think the original submissions they put in back in 1998 were, from memory, and I do not have it in front of me, somewhat less than 30 pages. Clearly there is a mountain of matters that the union needs to address in providing its submissions in reply. These matters already have gone on for a significant period of time, in fact the hearings would have taken place in March had it not been for the fact that the employers were not ready to proceed. In our view it is just simply preferable to now wait for the Full Court to make their decision and then to proceed with this matter depending upon which way the Court rules.

PN229

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What do you have to say, Mr Blackburn?

PN230

MR BLACKBURN: Firstly, we do not share the union's view as to the way in which the Full Court might decide the matters. We are again confident that the Full Court will find in our favour for a whole range of reasons. The union's application today is simply a repetition of the application they made previously before your Honour to delay the hearing of these matters pending a decision of the Full Court. That application was previously rejected by your Honour and nothing really has changed. We are a bit irked by the fact that we did, in the Full Court, agree to not seek final orders from your Honour, should your Honour be in a position to make a decision, until either the Full Court has handed down a decision or parties have had leave to apply to the Full Court for a variation. There was leave to apply in those undertakings.

PN231

In doing so we did not anticipate that the union would then seek to take advantage of that to then apply for a stay in the Commission. In other words, this whole issue was dealt with by the undertakings given to the Full Court. We undertook not to press your Honour for final orders but we did say at the time that we saw that there was a great deal that could be done.

PN232

Firstly, there is the final hearings in July, then your Honour will also need to consider these matters and we anticipate that, because of the extent of the matters at issue, the likelihood is that you would make a decision and then instruct us to prepare drafts reflecting your decision and those drafts would need to be settled. All of that is likely to take, we think, a fair amount of time. All of that can usefully be done before we get to the stage where the Commission is in a position to make final orders. It is only those final orders that we undertook not to seek to have made pending the outcome of the Full Court decision or, alternatively, recourse back to the Full Court.

PN233

We feel that the union is now seeking to get around the agreement that was made in the Full Court relating to the conduct of these proceedings because the union's position in the Full Court was that it wanted a stay. Now it resolved from seeking a stay in the Full Court on the basis of the undertakings that were given and having obtained those undertakings it then comes back to the Commission and seeks a stay. We see it that the union is not acting in good faith and is simply seeking to get around the undertakings that were given before the Full Court.

PN234

The other point I would make is that the union says this is going to cause a whole lot of unnecessary expenditure of the union's resources and the Commission's resources to deal with these two applications when there is a prospect that they could come to an abrupt halt. As your Honour is aware these applications overlap with the award simplification applications and, as we said in our submissions, and the union actually complained about this in the Court, they put in an affidavit complaining about this, we have said in our submissions that unless we specifically indicate to the contrary all of the claims that the CCI employers are making are made under both the Industrial Relations Act and WROLA Act. The only places in which there is any indication to the contrary are those cases in which we say items are not allowable. All of the other claims are made under both heads.

PN235

Even if C numbers 61050 and 61051 are stayed all of the claims will still need to be dealt with by both the union and the Commission in their entirety. It would be, in our view, more of a waste of the Commission's time and the union's time, let alone the employer's time, for the matters in effect to now be split so that the award simplification hearings would occur first and then there would be a further hearing or decision in relation to the same issues but this time under the Commissioner's general powers. We say it does not cause much additional expenditure of time on either the union's part and, we say, on the Commission's part because the same matters will need to be considered under both heads.

PN236

Mr Kelly complains about the fact that the original submissions were 30 pages and the new ones are 152. I point out that at the time that the original submissions were made Mr Whitehead and I had reached agreement on a great many clauses and those clauses were before the Commission in the form of an exhibit and hence the original submissions had no need to go to those clauses. Now, unfortunately, we have no agreement on anything and hence the length of the submissions.

PN237

Mr Kelly says that these are matters that the union now needs to address. The union ought to have been aware that these matters were at issue. They put them at issue and they ought to have addressed them themselves in their initial submissions. They ought not to have left it to us to point out in our submissions that on a whole range of matters the union has said nothing. The union says, "That is because we are simply seeking the status quo" but as we have pointed out throughout our submissions in various places the union has not sought the status quo. It has changed, it has sought a different entitlement but has said nothing about it and not made any submissions in relation to it. That is why these submissions are as long as they are. It is regrettable but that is the history of the matter.

PN238

In relation to stay, the union's request now, we say that there is simply no basis for it, it seeks to renege on the undertakings made before the Full Court and it will result in more expenditure of time and resources than if the matters proceed as planned.

PN239

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. I do not rule on this matter just at the moment but draw your attention, Mr Kelly, to the fact that so far you have argued for the hearing dates in July to be vacated. You have put an alternative proposition which I would like you to speak to before I make up my mind over all.

PN240

MR KELLY: Yes, if you do find against us in respect of the effect of an application for adjournment, not a stay, the proposal that we would put forward is that we file our submissions in reply in respect of the award simplification matters by 15 June. I understand that it is an alteration from 8 June to 15 June and understand Mr Blackburn previously does not have a problem with that. I will say a bit more about that if need be later. That the hearings in respect of both applications take place on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th and that we hear evidence in respect of both applications and that would remove the necessity to recall any witnesses. The parties would then await the decision of the Full Court and if the Commission is of a mind the Commission could in fact make a decision if it wished in respect of the award simplification matters but we would await the Full Court's decision.

PN241

If the union is unsuccessful in its application we could then provide written submissions in respect of the two other applications. We would not see that there would be a need for a further hearing but that we could be required to provide the submissions within a relatively short time. The alternative would obviously allow the hearing dates in July to go ahead but it would not require the union to address those applications until the Full Court had made its decision.

PN242

Mr Blackburn had made something of the fact that the claims are overlapping and therefore the work involved is not different. In our view that completely fails to appreciate that while the employers claims are the same, the principles that need to be addressed in the two groups of applications are completely different. The award simplification matter is a more limited exercise as opposed to the award matters which are a general review of every award condition available. While the claims are the same the matters to be addressed and the principles to be addressed and the evidence that is relevant are completely different.

PN243

In respect of Mr Blackburn's submissions that the matters that they have raised in their recent submissions should have been matters that we were fully aware of, what we would say in response to that is in respect to that second group of applications they are the applicants. In respect to those matters that is the first time we have actually heard submissions from them on many of those issues.

PN244

If you are not of a mind to grant the adjournment in respect of the hearings in July we would urge you that it not be, as Mr Blackburn says, that the parties have the hearings in July and then the union having done that work and then the Commission embark upon making the decision but that the alternative approach be adopted whereby the union can go ahead but simply final written submissions in respect of the award matters be delayed until the Full Court hands down its decision.

PN245

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will deal with that discretely and will do it now. I've considered the applications put in the alternative by the LHMU. In the light of the history of the matter, I'm satisfied that no variation for the existing directions should be made except that the date of reply by the LHMU in all matters be moved to 15 June 2001 from the current, I think it's 8 June 2001, and that's my ruling on future programming. Now we move to the application for discovery. Mr Kelly?

PN246

MR KELLY: Your Honour, in the witness statement filed by the CTI employers on 15 March, each of the witnesses make statements concerning the financial position of the respective employers. Now, we can only assume, I think we right assume, that the employers seek to have their claims heard in a background where the Commission should be of the view that these claims are somehow needed at address financial difficulties being experienced by the employers.

PN247

Your Honour, I don't have the statements before me. I think your associate probably would have advised you, I'm at home today.

PN248

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I'm aware of that.

PN249

MR KELLY: But the statements essentially outlined adverse budgetary positions over the last 12 months. Now we can only assume that that's there in order to convince the Commission that the reduction in award entitlements that they are seek are necessary because of this budgetary position. Now, the union doesn't accept that those four employers are in a position to justify the claims they make on the basis of any adverse financial position and would therefore seek some discovery in order that their financial position can be more transparent and have therefore sought financial papers for the last three full financial years for those periods relating to the, certainly since the introduction of the 1997 Aged Care Act.

PN250

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. What do you say, Mr Blackburn?

PN251

MR BLACKBURN: Your Honour, firstly the union was asked previously to indicate which witnesses it proposes to call, but I shall come back to that in a moment. The witnesses from all four organisations have previously given evidence in these matters, I'm not sure about Angen Homes, but certainly the other three have given evidence in these matters and have previously given evidence as to their financial status.

PN252

It was never suggested that the figures they had put forward at that time, which I think was in '98/99, were wrong, and the union never sought to challenge those assertions. We just see this as coming late in the day and we just regard it as oppressive. We don't see why the union needs these documents. It has no basis for its order. As I say, we just see it as something coming later in the day to try and harass the employers concerned.

PN253

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is part of your case that there is a need for the award amendments based on the financial situation of the various employees?

PN254

MR BLACKBURN: No, your Honour, that's not part of our case. I indicated to Mr Kelly previously that we did not propose to make any submissions on that issue other than those that we have included in our written submissions, and your Honour can see from our written submissions, or will see, that they rely on operational matters and the objects of the Act and the changes and now the structural impediments which these individual awards create for the industry as it is now structured rather than relying in any great extent on the financial position of the agencies concerned.

PN255

So we certainly don't resile from the fact that these agencies have deficit budgets and are in difficult financial positions, but that is not the primary thrust of our submissions as can be seen from the submissions we have filed, nor do we intend to make it the primary thrust of our submissions in July.

PN256

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you take me to where that point is made in your submissions? I presume it's the latest submission?

PN257

MR BLACKBURN: Well, it's not made, your Honour, that's the point. We don't in our submissions - - -

PN258

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, but what you said you'd do do, the positive, can you take me to that?

PN259

MR BLACKBURN: Yes. If your Honour would just bear with me a moment, I'm just getting the document out. Your Honour, at pages 18 to 21, we - - -

PN260

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Deal with the circumstances of the union's position

PN261

MR BLACKBURN: Exactly, and you will see that throughout that, we mention at paragraph 70 that they are funded by the Commonwealth, of corse. We mentioned that in previously in paragraphs 71 and 72 there was a combination of nursing homes and hostels and they were administered under separate Acts. We mention in 74 that they have different types of classifications; one is assistant supervisor, the other is nursing assistant. We then mention 75 and 76, the different awards that apply.

PN262

In paragraph 77 we mention that they a key aspect of the Aged Care Act was the integration of the former nursing home and hostel sectors, the removal of the distinction between hostels and nursing homes on which the existing award coverage is predicated. At paragraph 79, the removal of the funding distinction. At paragraph 80, the fact that while there's reference to low and high care facilities, those terms don't appear in the Act, and any such distinction is becoming increasingly blurred as a result of hostels taking on more high care residents.

PN263

At paragraphs 81 through to about 85, we talked about the policy of ageing in place, and the extent to which that is occurring, again leading to a blurring of the lines between what was formerly hostels and nursing homes and the fact that these facilities are now becoming indistinguishable. At paragraph 86, the fact that it's common for those facilities to be located next to one another on the same site.

PN264

87: one of the advantages of a single award or awards containing common conditions that will enable, are to be used across both types of facilities and so forth. So that is the thrust, that is where we describe the industry, and your Honour can see from that, that we are relying on the structure of the industry and the fact that the awards now do not reflect that structure rather than making any express reference to the financial plight of the organisations concerned.

PN265

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I suppose, Mr Kelly, you haven't been so enamoured of Mr Blackburn's submissions that you've taken them home for bed side reading?

PN266

MR KELLY: I've thought about it, but I thought it might delay my recovery. Your Honour, you know, with respect to what Mr Blackburn has said, the employers are seeking to have it both ways. Mr Blackburn started off by saying it's not part of their casse that these changes are necessary because of incapacity to pay or financial difficulties, but in the end he could only put it as high as, well, it's not our primary thrust. Now, it seems to us that while that evidence is in there and the employers wish to have it, the Commission to have regard for it, you know, simple statements like the last financial year we have an operating deficit. It says nothing about what the organisations overall financial situation has been, what its other assets are, what its reserves are.

PN267

In our view, it is completely unhelpful and only there to put a background if you like of unfavourable financial circumstances in which they have their claims for award reduction to be heard. Now if the employers are going to say all right, it's not part of our case, that it's unnecessary because of - the changes are necessary because of their financial plight, well, then, the Commission can just disregard that evidence and the discovery is not necessary, but if they are insisting that the evidence is relevant, well, then, we say we're entitled to see that material. I object to Mr Blackburn suggesting that it's harassment.

PN268

All these organisations are incorporated institutions, most of them I would have thought community representatives on the board. They probably all produce annual reports and the annual reports would contain all of this information, so I would assume most of the information is information which, well, I don't have it at my finger tips, it is material that they would publicly release in any event, so I can't se that it's of any difficulty if the employers wish to maintain that it's relevant to their case.

PN269

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Look, what I'm going to do about this is that I will not issue orders at the present time. I do that because of what's been said by Mr Blackburn today as to what his clients would be relying on, in particular the reference to the background material that we've been taken through this afternoon. If there is any reliance made or to be made on the specific financial position of the respective employers, then I would be quite sympathetic that whatever stage the matter arises for the issue of, at that stage it would be the issue of a summons for the production of documents, I'll leave it at that. Representation of the parties?

PN270

MR KELLY: Yes. Your Honour, if I can just say in respect of this. As you're aware, the union originally sought to be represented by counsel in this matter, as certainly in the previous matter, and in the absence of consent from the employers the Commission made a decision that there weren't the circumstances which would require the Commission to permit that. Now, since that decision was made, as the parties are now aware, Mr Blackburn is now legally qualified.

PN271

Now, since writing this letter I've had a closer look at the Act and probably to my disappointment I'm not sure that there's much we can do about it to remedy the situation. The test that I understand that Mr Blackburn relies on in order to appear either as agent or as legal practitioner of these parties is that they were unable to be represented, I'm paraphrasing here, that they were unable to adequately represent themselves. If that is the case they can be represented by an agent or by a legal practitioner, so regrettably, I think it's regrettable, I'm not sure that there's anything we can do about Mr Blackburn's change of status.

PN272

In that regard, I probably don't want to take that matter any further in the general other than to say that, certainly in respect of one of the employers who Mr Blackburn represents, and that's ..... Health Care Group. Now they certainly do have of recently employed staff, certainly one individual, Mr Ian Oakley, who was previously an advocate in Mr Blackburn's unit at the CTI, and I understand he's now in the John of God Health Care System, and a major employer in this State. Certainly on that view, your Honour, if they intend to be represented in these matters, he is an advocate previously working in Mr Blackburn's department at the CTI, and they are certainly able to be otherwise represented by one of their own employees as opposed to being represented by agents or by counsel, and we raise that issue.

PN273

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You do raise that issue? Listening to you, I got the impression that you do not press the general objection.

PN274

MR KELLY: Only, your Honour, because I don't think the Act allows it to. I think the provision under which Mr Blackburn appears, the test for an agent or for a legal practitioner appears to be the same, and that is that the employer couldn't properly be represented otherwise. Now I could be wrong, but that's my reading of the Act. So, in the general sense, your Honour, we don't take the issue, but certainly in respect to John of God's Health Care Group who are a major employer they certainly could be adequately represented by their own resources.

PN275

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I'll work backwards. I don't believe I need to hear from you, Mr Blackburn, in the circumstances. I'll work backwards. As far as the John of God is concerned, I note what you say, but quite frankly believe that to split representation will not assist the Commission, particularly not assist it in dealing with the matter expeditiously. So far as the general. So far as the general - I don't know whether it gives you any comfort but I believe on my knowledge of the case and in particular the history of the case that I would have to find that whether or not the parties can only adequately be represented by counsel, solicitor or agent there are for the purposes of 42(3)(b) special circumstances that make it desirable that the parties may be so represented and I rely on that as much as on 42(3)(c) to leave representation as it is. If there's a formal necessity now because of the change in Mr Blackburn's circumstances to grant leave then I would and do grant leave. I think your approach to the Act, Mr Kelly, is correct. That's what I say.

PN276

MR KELLY: Your Honour, leaving that matter, there is one other issue that I did wish to raise. It's not contained within my letter, it's just something that's occurred to me over the weekend having had a look at Mr Blackburn's submissions. As you're aware these proceedings have been divided into two. The wages and classification structure has been separated out. These submissions and hearing are to take place in respect of the other award entitlements. That's the way we've approached the proceedings so far. In Mr Blackburn's submission he has pressed for the Commission out of these proceedings to make a decision to in effect dispense with the Nursing Assistants Interim Award and include the nursing assistants classification into the Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals Award. I think in submissions he refers to that as an interim measure.

PN277

Now we haven't addressed the issue of whether or not the nursing assistant classification should be replaced by a general carer's classification which is what the employers seek. We haven't addressed that issue in the submissions because in our view that's something that properly will need to be determined when the Commission hears evidence on what the wages and classification structure should be. Now in our view for the Commission to, without having heard submissions or evidence on what the wages and classification should be, to make a decision to dispense with the Nursing Assistants Award as an interim measure seems to us to cross the boundary between where we're up to in these proceedings.

PN278

I mean is Mr Blackburn proposing that if out of these proceedings you dispense with the Nursing Assistants Award and put the classification into the Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals Award as an interim that once you've heard the arguments in respect of classification structures you're of the view that the nursing assistants classification should be maintained then you will reinvent the Nursing Assistants Award. In our view that would be a nonsense and Mr Blackburn in his submissions is trying to pre-empt the argument and the evidence that will take place in respect of the wages and classification structure.

PN279

In our view out of these proceedings there can be no decision to dispense with the Nursing Assistants Award prior to hearing evidence and making a determination on the wages and classification structure. I simply raise that because if that's not the case well we certainly didn't approach our evidence on the question of the relevant importance or significance or otherwise of the nursing assistants classification and we'd seek clarification to do that.

PN280

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Blackburn, you might clarify the position. I'll hold back until I've heard you on that.

PN281

MR BLACKBURN: Your Honour, we don't propose or seek in any way to pre-empt the evidence or argument or any decision that may be made in relation to wages and classifications including the important question of whether the nursing assistant classification is absorbed or combined with an assistant supervisor classification, for example, and it may be, though it's not our desire obviously and we would strongly argue against it, but it may be that your Honour is minded ultimately to maintain the nursing assistant classification for whatever reason.

PN282

In that circumstance we would say that that classification ought to be included in an award along with the other classifications. We regard it as inefficient for there to be a separate award dealing with one classification when that award is so closely aligned with the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Award and in fact one of the things that we're seeking out of these applications as far as we can achieve it is consistent conditions. So the Nursing Assistants Award is already fairly closely aligned to the conditions in the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Award. We're seeking to have consistent conditions for all employees covered by these categories. In that circumstance it wouldn't make any sense to have nursing assistants covered by a separate award and that's quite irrespective of whether the nursing assistants classification remains as a separate classification or is absorbed into another general carer's classification.

PN283

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, look, what I suggest be done with that matter, Mr Kelly, is that it be part of your submissions in reply. I've heard enough today to understand the situation. I don't think it's necessary to determine what I will do in advance of the submissions and whatever submissions are made by all the parties will be given consideration after the matter is completed.

PN284

MR KELLY: Your Honour, I suppose I'm just not clear as to whether you want us to actually fully address the issue or whether you simply want - for our point of view we would want to call evidence in respect of that matter, I suppose, is what I'm saying.

PN285

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but you'd be wanting to call evidence in respect of the terms of the classification and the amount - the wage to be attached to it, isn't that right?

PN286

MR KELLY: The whole classification structure - it's a bit hard to deal with one classification outside the rest. In our view we haven't got to that point in time and Mr Blackburn is trying to pre-empt the final decision in that regard by, you know, as an interim measure we'll just get rid of the Nursing Assistants Award. Now, in our view that goes way beyond this stage of the process.

PN287

MR BLACKBURN: Your Honour, we have addressed one by one each of the provisions of the Nursing Homes Award. We haven't simply left it as bland as that. As we have gone through the claims we have in each case looked at the Nursing Home Award and the Hostels Award and the Private Hospitals Award and it's part of my general case to align the conditions for all employees and it makes sense once those conditions are aligned to put that single classification in with the other awards. There's no great, I wouldn't have thought respectfully, any great drama about deleting the Nursing Homes Award if the classification and its wages are preserved and the conditions are as they otherwise would be.

PN288

MR KELLY: Your Honour, that simply pre-empts the whole debate in our view. I mean I'm sure from Mr Blackburn's point of view there is no drama with doing that because that's what they want to do. Now in our view there's a whole history as to why nursing assistants are different from carers in aged hostels.

PN289

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And why a separate award should be maintained.

PN290

MR KELLY: That's correct. We haven't called evidence in respect of what the relative roles and duties of those individuals in nursing homes and hostels are. So as an interim measure to ..... the award absolutely pre-empts it.

PN291

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that's a matter for submissions.

PN292

MR KELLY: All right, your Honour, I'll take that onboard. Your Honour, that concludes the matters that we wish to raise today.

PN293

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There's one thing I want to make clear. It's a relatively small matter I trust and that is that the directions as varied which are importantly and only extend the time for your reply, Mr Kelly, also maintain the requirement that you advise who you wish for cross-examination. If that's not been done it has to be done within the extended time limit.

PN294

MR KELLY: Your Honour, I can advise Mr Blackburn now that I will require those employees who have put in witness statements to be available for cross-examination.

PN295

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. I think that does complete everything that's been raised by the LHMU this afternoon and I therefore adjourn this matter until 2 July as previously arranged and I adjourn the Commission indefinitely. I thank you both for your assistance this afternoon.

ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 2 JULY 2001 [5.13pm]