C2001/3641, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 1691 (24 July 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 8298

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER HINGLEY

C2001/3641

AKZ ENGINEERING PTY LTD

and

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND
ENERGY UNION

Notification pursuant to section 99 of
the Act of a dispute re the banning of
product (steel reinforcing) from AKZ
Engineering from two of the company's
sites

MELBOURNE

2.00 PM, MONDAY, 9 JULY 2001

PN1

MR J. HOY: I appear with MR R. ZWIERLEIN for the Australian Industry Group representing AKZ Engineering Pty Ltd.

PN2

MR D. NOONAN: I appear with organiser, MR M. HUDSON, for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Hoy.

PN4

MR HOY: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, AKZ Engineering has a workshop at Morwell which employs some 35 employees, the majority of which are machine operators operating bending and cutting machines. The company manufactures steel reinforcement which is supplied to companies in the building construction area. It does not undertake any installation but merely supplied product. The CFMEU via Mr Dave Pillar has had some initial discussions with the company regarding entering into an enterprise agreement. And in fact a bargaining period was initiated on 4 June.

PN5

The company does not have any CFMEU members and recently employees joined the AWU. The company has been advised by two of its clients that its product has been banned from the various sites, one being the Epworth Hospital site and the other being the Richmond Swimming Pool site. The bans amounted to the non-acceptance of any deliveries from AKZ Engineering Pty Ltd and more recently, Commissioner, L.U. Simon, who is the contractor on the Richmond Swimming Pool site, has informed the company that the contract has been cancelled and will seek the product from elsewhere.

PN6

Commissioner, we say that the bans are not protected industrial action. They could be seen to be secondary boycott action. The company has indicated that it is prepared to enter into an enterprise agreement negotiation with an appropriate union, and that being the AWU, which has membership in the company itself. As I said, Commissioner, the company has already had one contract cancelled and it has further been informed that another half a million job has been lost to it through the current industrial action it is facing. Commissioner, we seek that you issue a direction that any bans or limitations in respect of the company's product be removed, or at the very least that the CFMEU give an assurance that there are no bans or limitations in place. If the Commission pleases.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hoy, why do you say that the industrial action is unprotected?

PN8

MR HOY: We say the industrial action is unprotected, Commissioner, because the CFMEU does not have any employees as members and it is not employees of AKZ engineering that is undertaking any industrial action.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Yes, Mr Noonan.

PN10

MR NOONAN: Commissioner, I have had a conversation with Mr Hoy and his client prior to this hearing and have informed him that there are no bans at either of the sites in question and we say there haven't been any bans at the sites in question. We note that the company has brought no evidence before the Commission today as to the veracity of the allegations that are made and what we have done is invited the company to actually test whether any bans are in fact in place by delivering material to the site. If they do that they will find that there are no bans in place in respect of companies who may have used them, or may not use them, we have got no knowledge of that.

PN11

Companies go to different suppliers for different reasons in a lot of circumstances in the building industry. Our position is clear, there are no bans in respect of this company. There has been an issue which has arisen, as I understand it, at the company's premises at Morwell, whereby there has been a practice of the fabricating of steel columns, work which has normally been done on site, been carried out at the factory. And I think that the situation is that our local organiser has sought to have discussions with the company about that work. It has not been the practice of the CFMEU to seek to cover steel production. We don't particularly seek to cover steel production with this company.

PN12

Insofar as there have been any issues with the company they have been about the practice of actual steel fixers, those people that customarily undertake work on site, working off-site at the company's premises. And I have indicated to Mr Hoy and to the company prior to this hearing that we are happy to have some more discussions about whatever practice the company may have in respect of that. That is where our ambitions stop, other than to reiterate the position in respect of bans and to say that given the absence of any evidence in respect of bans and the assurance which I have given on transcript here today, we would oppose the issue of any direction by the Commission.

PN13

We invite the applicant to test any alleged bans and obviously if seen to be speaking untruths to the Commission, then they come back here.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Noonan, why did CFMEU initiate a bargaining period then?

PN15

MR NOONAN: For the reason that I outlined at the beginning, Commissioner, and I understand that has been undertaken by the organiser. I don't have instructions as to membership or otherwise at the plant. So it is not conceded that we don't have members at the plant, but in respect of any interest that the union has in respect of steel, it goes in as far as covering steel fixers, who the Commission may not be aware, it is a process of joining steel bars together by the placing of steel ligatures and tying them together with wire.

PN16

That is what is customarily known as steel fixers' work. That is the work that we seek to cover. There are a number of operations where those types of columns and reinforcing grids for poles are fabricated off site, where CFMEU members do do that work.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you say this company does any of that work?

PN18

MR NOONAN: My instructions are, Commissioner, that the company is undertaking some of that sort of work off-site in its premises at the moment, but I have no instructions as to our membership or otherwise at those premises.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Did you want to respond, Mr Hoy?

PN20

MR HOY: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, we are gratified by the assurance given by the CFMEU that there are no bans in place and we will certainly undertake to test that situation. In respect to the steel fixing being carried out on-site, there is some steel fixing being carried out but that is carried out by a sub-contractor, and is not carried out by any employees of the company itself. If the Commission pleases.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hoy, on the basis of what you just put to me and what we have heard from Mr Noonan, do you persist with your request for a direction, or do you wish - - -

PN22

MR HOY: No, I don't, Commissioner, I am happy for the matter to be adjourned.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN24

MR HOY: And I have got no reason to doubt the veracity of what Mr Noonan has said and once that is verified we will seek to withdraw the application, Commissioner.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, these proceedings are a matter of record and are on transcript and that transcript will form part of this file. I will adjourn this matter sine die. Liberty is extended to the parties you represent, Mr Hoy, to re-raise the matter if you wish.

PN26

MR HOY: Thank you, Commissioner.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.10pm]