|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
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:(03) 9672-5608 Fax:(03) 9670-8883
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
O/N 8601
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON
C No 39763 of 2000
C No 39425 of 2000
AIRLINE OPERATIONS (TRANSPORT WORKERS)
AWARD 1998
Application pursuant to section 170LS of the Act
by Transport Workers Union of Australia and
D.W. and C.L. Snare for the certification of
D.W. and C.L. Snare Launceston Ground Handling
and Customer Services Agreement
Application pursuant to section 170LS of the Act
by Transport Workers Union of Australia and
Lyle Vicke (Trading as Airport Ground Service)
for the certification of Airport Ground Handling
and Customer Services Agreement
MELBOURNE
10.34 AM, WEDNESDAY, 25 JULY 2001
Continued from 24.7.01
PN1137
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Who is going first today?
PN1138
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I should probably explain that my instructor received word this morning from Mr Dale that he hadn't travelled to Melbourne because he was unwell. We immediately contacted our friends and told them about that. I need to get more information during the day about what that means, whether or not Mr Dale will be well enough tomorrow, and we are going to make inquiries about that.
PN1139
But we got in touch with Mr Farr and Mr Duffin in time to be able to fill the gap. So I understand Mr Snare is here, Mr Cook is available - Mr Allan is available from 2, and we have Ms White here of course to do her re-examination at whatever time it seems appropriate. So there will still be witnesses to fill the day, and we will keep the Commission and Mr Farr and Mr Duffin up-to-date as to Mr Dale's movements.
PN1140
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Farr.
PN1141
PN1142
MR FARR: Mr Snare, could you please restate your full name for the record?---David William Snare.
PN1143
And what position do you presently hold?---I manage a business called D.W. and C.L. Snare, a ground-handling contractor at Launceston Airport.
PN1144
And when you say manage, what particular role do you perform with that ground-handling agency?---It is a ground-handling agency, and I am involved in the day-to-day processes of doing ground-handling for Kendell Airlines.
PN1145
And is that particular agency a corporation?---No, it is not, it is a partnership.
PN1146
And who is your other partner?---My wife, Caroline.
PN1147
Mr Snare, you have made a statutory declaration in relation to your application to certify this particular agreement?---I have.
PN1148
And you have made a witness statement in relation to this matter?---I have.
PN1149
If I might just show the witness his witness statement, please?---Thank you.
PN1150
Could you just identify what that particular document is, Mr Snare?---It is the witness statement that I signed.
PN1151
Is it signed there, Mr Snare?---No.
PN1152
Okay. Do you actually recall whether or not you did actually sign the witness statement or not?---Yes, I did sign a witness statement.
PN1153
Your Honour, I don't have a copy of the signed witness statement. I don't believe that that was actually tendered.
PN1154
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, it wasn't.
PN1155
MR FARR: But in any event, Mr Snare, have you read through the contents of your witness statement today?---I have.
PN1156
And is that the truth of the matter?---Yes, it is.
PN1157
If I might just take you to some parts of that particular witness statement. In relation to paragraph 7 of your witness statement, you indicate there that the appropriate level for - sorry, paragraph 8, I apologise - for the supervisors would be at level 7 under the Clerks Award; that is correct?---That is correct.
PN1158
If I may just show you an extract from the Clerks Award level 7, level 8, it is taken from yesterday. Have you seen that document before, Mr Snare?---Yes.
PN1159
That is an extract from the award that sets out the classification structure for level 7 and level 8. Just in relation to that classification structure, who conducts the discipline of any employees in the Launceston operation?---I do.
PN1160
And who has the responsibility for the over-all supervision of those employees?---I do.
PN1161
And in your experience - Mr Snare, were you previously employed with anybody prior to commencing this operation in Launceston?---Yes, I was. I was employed by Ansett Airlines.
PN1162
And for how long were you employed?---Just on 21 years.
PN1163
And on what date did operation commence in Launceston?---17 January 2000.
PN1164
And when did you leave the employment of Ansett?---16 January 2000.
PN1165
And you were employed under this Clerks Award at Ansett?---I was, yes.
PN1166
And what level were you under that award?---I believe I was level 5.
PN1167
And at Launceston what level were the supervisors above you - sorry, do you know what level the supervisors above you at Ansett were at that time?---I am not 100 per cent sure, but I believe they were level 6.
PN1168
And was there any further supervision above level 6?---There was a position of team leader introduced which was, from memory, level 9.
PN1169
Thank you. So just getting back, you provide the supervision, you have senior clerks that you employ; how many people report to those senior clerks in your operations?---When they are on shift they work alongside two other staff.
PN1170
And who is ultimately responsible for the management of both the ramp and the customer service function in the Launceston operation?---I am when I am present. If not, that role goes on to the supervisors on duty.
PN1171
And if there is an issue whilst the supervisors are there and you are not on shift, where would they refer that matter to?---If it is of an urgent nature, they would contact me.
PN1172
Thank you. Now, if I might just have you cast your mind back to the making of the agreement that we are presently certifying, I think your affidavit or your witness statement says that you sent a memo to employees on 14 September; that is correct?---I did send memos, but I am afraid the dates I am not sure of, but I see they are documented here in my witness statement.
PN1173
So in paragraph 10 of your witness statement you say that on 14 September you sent the memo which is attached to Mr Dale's affidavit; do you recall sending that particular document? Perhaps if I might just show you the document?---If I could see it, thank you.
PN1174
I am showing the witness ED1, your Honour.
PN1175
Would you just have a look at that particular document, Mr Snare. Have you seen that document before?---Yes, I have. I did see that.
PN1176
And what is the date of that particular - - -?---14 September was when I sent it.
PN1177
And then, I think, in paragraph 11 you talk about sending a further memo on 22 September 2000 in your witness statement?---Yes.
PN1178
If I might show the witness ED2. Have you seen that particular document before?---Yes, I have. I do remember sending that.
PN1179
And the date of that document is?---22 September.
PN1180
Thank you. Now your evidence is that on 29 September - in paragraph 12 - you posted a copy of the agreement on the staff notice board?---Yes, I did.
PN1181
Now, to your knowledge was that the first time that employees on 14 September, your memo to employees about an agreement in Launceston, was that the first time that the issue about an agreement in Launceston had been raised?---No, it wasn't.
PN1182
Can you describe how employees may have known otherwise about the agreement?---It was common knowledge that we were looking at an award based on the Hobart award, and a copy of the Hobart award was in the office for quite a long period of time.
PN1183
When you say the Hobart award, what do you actually mean by that particular document?---It was the award that was being negotiated, I believe, by Kendell and the staff in Hobart.
PN1184
Do you know whether that was an award or a certified agreement?---It would be a certified agreement.
PN1185
Now the copy of that Hobart document had been in the office?---That is right. I am not sure how it got there, but it was in the office for quite a long time.
PN1186
And when we are talking about the office, are we talking about your office, or are we talking about somebody else's office?---No, no, there was copies of it - probably one or two copies in the general office for the staff.
PN1187
And do you know how long that particular copy of that agreement had been in the office prior to your memo of 14 September?---It was quite a while. I can't give you specific dates or times, but I believe it was not long after it became available in Hobart to the staff down there to observe.
PN1188
Do you know who voted on the agreement, your agreement, Mr Snare?---All my staff.
[10.45am]
PN1189
And those are employees that are to be covered by the agreement?---That's correct.
PN1190
Now, Mr Dale, in his affidavit, has given evidence that the first time he saw a copy of the agreement was on 4 October 2000. If I might just show you LAW10, which is the annexure to Ms White's second affidavit. And if I ask you to turn to page 12, and a table at page 12?---Yes. Yes, I've got page 12.
PN1191
LAW10 is a copy of the statement of claim in a Federal Court matter of which you are a respondent, alleging a transmission of business. Now, if you go to the top table on page 12, would you agree - what does that table purport to do there, Mr Snare?---That's - it looks like it's a roster of my staff for that period from Monday the 25th to Sunday, the 1st.
PN1192
Now, is Mr Dale in that particular table?---He is.
PN1193
And what days was he rostered on?---On this roster he was off Monday, Tuesday and he was rostered on afternoon shift, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
PN1194
Was he rostered on on 29 September?---He was.
PN1195
And he was rostered on on the 30th and 1 October, that's correct?---That's right.
PN1196
Now, in your roster pattern, that roster there ends on the Sunday, what happens in Mr Dale's sequence in the roster post that particular period of time?---The next week; he would have been on afternoon shift, Monday and Tuesday and then he would have had three days off, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
PN1197
So if we take the dates, the Monday would have been 2 October, and the Tuesday would have been 3 October, that's correct?---That's right.
PN1198
And so his first day off would have actually been Wednesday, 4 October?---Wednesday, 4 October. Yes.
PN1199
Thank you. Now, did you have any meetings with your employees about the matters contained within your agreement?---There was no formal meetings, that was, I believe all given to them by the TWU.
PN1200
Yes. And did you have any discussions with the employees about the agreement at any time?---There were - there were discussions, yes. Sort of some times one on one, probably in groups, like in the typical working environment where discussions occurred.
PN1201
And did these discussions occur prior to you posting the agreement on 29 September?---There were discussions prior to that, yes.
PN1202
And did they occur after posting the agreement on 29 September?---There was the odd discussion with staff occasionally.
PN1203
Now, I might just ask you some specific details about your particular agreement, Mr Snare. Part of the agreement provides that higher duties is only payable after a person has undertaken higher duties for a period of greater than 48 hours. Since you have commenced operation have you had any employee perform higher duties for less than 48 hours?---I can remember one - one incident, yes.
PN1204
So only one incident and is that - when we are talking about the period since you commenced operation, is that from 17 January 2000, the period we are talking about?---Yes.
PN1205
And in relation to multiple starts within the roster, what are the arrangements in terms of start times for your customer service people for example?---They work basically two shifts. They work an early shift which commences at 5.15 in the morning and the afternoon shift, the customer service officers start on the current roster at 11.45.
PN1206
Yes?---And the supervisors start at 2.30.
PN1207
All right. And in your roster how many times does a nil-10 break occur?---There is no incidences of that.
PN1208
Now, you were previously employed at Ansett. Are you aware of any persons who were qualified to receive the foreign language allowance at Ansett who now no longer receive that allowance under your particular - - -?---There's nobody that I'm aware of.
PN1209
The agreement also provides for annualised pay. Are you currently paying an annualised pay?---Yes, we are paying an annualised pay or an average salary if you like.
PN1210
And how did you go to calculate that particular average salary?---We took everybody's roster. We priced - they work a three week roster, we calculated the wages on the three week roster. We included - we added in all the shift penalties, the appropriate shift penalties, the weekend penalties. We also - we included the total cost of - we multiplied that by 52, but also included the cost of all public holidays. And arrived at a figure and divided it by 52.
PN1211
And how did you arrive at a rate for part-timers?---Part-timers, gave them the same hourly rate as the other - the other staff.
PN1212
As a full-time person?---As a full-timer, yes. The same hourly rate.
PN1213
And in your view is that hourly rate still correct, is the hourly rate for a part-timer a correct reflection of their rate of pay?---I believe it is.
PN1214
When you calculated the rosters, how many weekends did you have them calculated as working that through week roster period?---They work two weekends out of three.
PN1215
And do your part-timers work two weekends out of three?---Currently they are only working one out of two.
PN1216
So if they are working one out of two, and you calculated the average pay on the basis of two out of three, what is your view on their rate of pay?---We're still paying them the original rate.
PN1217
So it is to some benefit to those part-timers - - -?---It is, it is a benefit to them, yes.
PN1218
Now, between the time of taking the vote in relation to your agreement and actually lodgment of the application here within the Commission, so just very approximately 13 October, when the vote was taken and the application being lodged sometime in November, was there a significant change in the employees who voted on the agreement to those employees in November 2000, was there any turnover in personnel?---From what date, sorry, the - - -
PN1219
From 13 October 2000 through to November 2000?---No.
PN1220
And the agreement has been lodged outside of 21 days from when the vote was taken, do you know why that occurred?---Possibly if you excuse the pun, but this is all a new ball game to me and we are a new business and we haven't been down this road before, so there probably might be the odd discrepancy.
PN1221
PN1222
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Duffin.
PN1223
MR DUFFIN: No questions, your Honour.
PN1224
PN1225
MS DOYLE: Thank you. I might just start at the end, Mr Snare. You were just asked about whether there was any turnover between the vote, 13 October and lodging this application and I can tell you that it was lodged, well it seems from the file that it was lodged on 23 November. What about since 23 November, has there been any turnover of your employees between 23 November last year and today?---And today, yes, there has been.
PN1226
Can we start with the customer service staff. What degree of turnover has there been?---There's been one of my part-time staff left me probably about two months ago. There was an additional - an additional casual put on for the busy Christmas period that we came through, the January period. And he remained with me for quite a while, probably about a month ago he left to pursue another business of his own.
PN1227
Sure?---That's in the actual customer service area, although he was able to work outside for me as well.
[10.56am]
PN1228
Okay. Any other turnover of people in the higher ranks of customer service or on a ramp or elsewhere in your organisation?---No, there is not actually.
PN1229
Okay. Now, the other matter you were just asked about was various aspects of your roster and the working conditions of your employees. You were asked about multiple starts and if I understood you correctly you said that your customer service staff can work essentially these shifts. They can do an early shift which starts at 5.15 in the morning?---That is correct.
PN1230
And what you called the afternoon shift which starts at 11.45?---11.45.
PN1231
And then you said that the supervisors start at 2.30 pm?---That is correct.
PN1232
Is that set for the supervisors, always 2.30 or can they be asked to do morning - - -?---Sorry, I beg your pardon. The supervisors work an early shift as well and they start at 5.15 also.
PN1233
All right. But it is just that their afternoon shift starts later?---It starts later, yes.
PN1234
I understand. Now, that as far as I understand it is the schedule, roster, but how often are your customer service staff, firstly, how often are they asked to stay on and do overtime in respect of morning shifts that they have started or afternoon shifts that they have started?---Very rarely.
PN1235
What about off schedule work, if I can describe it that way, how often is the written roster that is probably available to the staff, how often do you call staff or tell staff can you switch morning for afternoon or can you start early or stay late?---I have probably never, from memory, asked anybody to swap from early to afternoon. There have been time changes for operational reasons. For example, if a larger aircraft is brought into Launceston then I need more manpower for it.
PN1236
And you might ask people to come early in that instance?---Come early or possibly stay a bit later, or possibly even come in on a day off on a call out. But the incidence of that is not very often.
PN1237
How often?---In the last 12 months from now, just gone, probably two or three times for that reason, for a larger aircraft.
PN1238
And I assume there is another reason that sometimes changed are made, for example, illness or people asking for time off at late notice and you have got to make substitutions?---Yes, there is provision made for that. I generally try and cover that myself or use one of my casual employees.
PN1239
If you are not at the airport on a particular day or at a particular time does one of the supervisors you refer to, do they act in your role or at least perform your roles for that day?---They perform my role inasmuch they are responsible for the operation of the port, to make decisions in the event of delays or anything of that matter.
PN1240
I think you said though that you have not had any instance of people doing higher duties for less than 48 hours. Not even in that scenario where you are having a day off or off site doing something else, are not those supervisors there performing higher duties for that period that you are not there?---They are performing the duties that I believe they are paid for.
PN1241
So you do not pay them anything additional when an instance arises where, for example, you are going to be away for 12 hours or so? You do not pay those people any differently than on a run of the mill day when you are there?---No, I don't because I can't be there for the whole inspection of the roster.
PN1242
Of course?---Yes.
PN1243
And so on those times when you are not there how many of your staff have that capacity to be left as the person in charge, if you like?---I have three staff in the supervisory role.
PN1244
And on that day, a day that you are not there, if one of those supervisors is on shift performing the duties you say you pay them to do, it would be them who would do any disciplining or supervising of the customer service staff, is that right?---They do the supervising but they are not expected to do any disciplinary work.
PN1245
But they would handle all queries that arose both from employees and from clients and customers during the day?---That is correct.
PN1246
Can I take you back to your witness statement, I assume you still have a copy of that there?---Yes.
PN1247
You say - I just want to jump to the end of it really. You say at paragraph 12 of that statement that on 29 September a copy of the proposed agreement was placed on the staff noticeboard. I understand the answers you have given about the Hobart agreement but that date, 29 September, was the first time you provided to you employees a written copy of the agreement for Launceston, is that right?---According to the witness statement, yes, that is correct.
PN1248
Okay. Can I take you to the letters that - the memoranda that you sent to your staff. I assume you still have copies of those as well. The first one that Mr Farr drew your attention to was dated 14 September. Do you still have that one there, it is exhibit ED1 to Mr Dale's materials?---Yes, I have got that.
PN1249
That memoranda, as you said, dated 14 September. In the body of that memoranda, paragraph 3, you say:
PN1250
Once that agreement is reached, we hope it will be in the next two or three weeks, and then the agreement will be given to you to look at.
PN1251
And you explain to them that they may then be asked to vote. Now, can I suggest, Mr Snare, that the employees have not had access to drafts or to the comparable Hobart agreement prior to this memoranda. This memoranda was the first time they were told about the possibility of seeing a written version of the agreement that might cover them, were they not?---Well, as I said, you know, before, the dates I have forgotten but it is written here, but the Hobart agreement was out very early in the piece. I can't give you a specific date and I - - -
PN1252
Were you cannot remember the date I assume because, as you have said, you did not give the Hobart agreement to employees or a copy?---No, I didn't.
PN1253
I think you used the phrase it was in the office, I don't know how it got there?---That is right.
PN1254
But it is certainly nothing that you provided to the employees?---I didn't provide the Hobart agreement, no.
PN1255
The next memoranda, I take it, that you sent out was the one marked ED2 and it is dated 22 September. Have you got that letter in front of you?---I have.
PN1256
Do you see the last paragraph on that first page it says:
PN1257
The proposed new agreement is in the process of being finalised for your inspection and both Kendell and the TWU have made a commitment to expedite the process.
PN1258
Now, I will just ask you about that. What has it got to do with Kendell, were they drawing up the terms of the agreement with the TWU, were they?---Well, agreement was being negotiated by the TWU and Kendell in Hobart and it was suggested by industrial adviser, Ian MacDonald, that we adopt the same agreement.
PN1259
But Mr Snare, this suggests that the new agreement, namely, the Launceston agreement, is being finalised by Kendell and the TWU. So all I am getting at is was someone at Kendell advising you or helping you in your negotiations with the TWU?---Nobody at Kendell was helping me, no, but I had advice from Ian MacDonald whose services were recommended to me by Kendell and also I had the advice from my legal people.
PN1260
Well, at this period, as at 22 September 2000, had you been involved in meetings with representatives of the TWU yourself in terms of nutting out at the terms of the proposed agreement?---I had had a meeting from - when the Hobart agreement was in the process of being worked through I had a meeting with a gentleman called Chris Wilkes, who was the northern Tasmanian representative at the time, trying to get the Hobart agreement quantifications put in it specifically for Launceston.
PN1261
The Hobart agreement, I do not expect you to know these dates off by heart or anything, but the Hobart agreement was certified back in June 2000, so I take it from what you are saying that you had it recommended to you by the Kendell to use that as a template or a draft. Is that what you are saying?---That was recommended to me by Ian MacDonald, yes.
PN1262
All right. And then what, you had a meeting with Mr Wilkes at some stage in August or September 2000?---We had, probably be three or four meetings with Mr Wilkes, from memory.
[11.06am]
PN1263
All right. And always what was under discussion was adopting some form of the Hobart agreement?---That was - it was common knowledge at that stage that we were trying to get a mirror-image, if you like, of the Hobart agreement, with modifications specifically for our needs, but Mr Wilkes was embarking on trying to get improvements put in that agreement - - -
PN1264
For Launceston?--- - - - for Launceston, yes.
PN1265
Right. And your meetings with Mr Wilkes, were they attended by Mr MacDonald?---No.
PN1266
Mr MacDonald, as far as I understand it, is or was advising Ansett and Kendell on their industrial arrangements. Did he have - is that your understanding?---I believe that is so, yes.
PN1267
Okay. And I want to make sure I understand what you are saying his role is in relation to you. Was he engaged by you as a consultant?---No, no, he was not. He was - after our original agreement that we started business with was nullified, it was suggested to me by Kendell that I be in touch with Mr MacDonald to gain assistance.
PN1268
All right. So then what form of assistance did he provide during those early stages of negotiations?---The assistance I got from him was that we were to adopt - or suggested that I adopt the Hobart agreement for my business.
PN1269
I see. Now, you said Mr Wilkes was keen to get some improvement and perhaps this is the best time to have a look at the letter I am taking you to, 22 September; this is your letter to your staff bringing them up to date with the agreement. Now, we have looked at part of it. Can you go to the second page of that letter?---Mm.
PN1270
You tell them the proposed agreement - at the top of that second page - will be a mirror-image of the Hobart agreement with minor adjustments. Then you talk about the rates of pay. Then you talk about what the TWU are after, and there is an indication from them that they want different rates. And you then make some points for your staff. Now, can I go to the second paragraph of the points you make to your staff. That paragraph starts:
PN1271
Our last meeting with the local branch of the TWU resulted in the TWU and its members forecasting they will reject the proposed agreement, and it is brought to my attention possible industrial action could be forthcoming.
PN1272
If I could just pause there, I take it that as at 22 September you had two concerns; the first was that the agreement might not be accepted in the vote. And the second one was that worse than that there might even be industrial action in the lead-up to such a vote. Were those two matters in your mind at the time you wrote this letter?---They were.
PN1273
All right. You then go on tell your staff that that is going to cause - industrial action is going to cause me some difficulty, and if I understand you correctly, you are also going on to tell them, look, it might actually lead to Kendell terminating my contract; was that a real concern you had at that time?---It was a real concern, yes.
PN1274
And is that because your agreement with Kendell would entitle them to say, well, you are not performing as per our agreement with you, we do not care why, see you later?---I did believe that the case, but it was never indicated to me by Kendell that that would happen. But - - -
PN1275
So as at 22 September, you were keen to reassure your employees that you thought that the agreement was worth adopting and that indeed it was one you needed to have adopted so that you could keep making the requisite profit under your arrangement with Kendell; is that right?---Well, I do not know about the last bit, but it was in my interest to get the agreement up and running, yes.
PN1276
Well, you do say, though, going back to the point you make:
PN1277
I would now like to make the following points.
PN1278
In that first paragraph, you remind these people that:
PN1279
You no longer work for Ansett nor do you work for Kendell, you work for our agency which has an agreement to provide ground handling services to Kendell at a contracted price. Extra demands above the proposed agreement could result in us being uncompetitive and could jeopardise the viability of our agency.
PN1280
So you are telling your staff, aren't you, that it is not just industrial action that is a problem; if you push me for more, I might not be competitive. In other words, we might all be out the door. That is what you were telling your staff, weren't you?---That is correct, yes.
PN1281
Now, it is then after that on the 29th that you put a copy of the Launceston agreement up in the lunchroom; right?---That is right.
PN1282
Now, Mr Dale says in his affidavit material that he was aware there was a copy in the lunchroom. His difficulty was that it was a copy and he was not able to get his hands on it till 4 October. You did not provide individual copies to your staff until some time after 5 October, did you?---I am not sure of the times, but I know the copy went up on the lunchroom there, well, according to my witness statement the 29th. I was aware that it needed to be up 14 days before the vote. But you are correct in saying that individual copies did not go to them until a couple of days or a few days after that particular date.
PN1283
All right. Now, the agreement has a number of terms, but it needs to be read with the Transport Workers' Union agreement, doesn't it?---That is right, yes.
PN1284
And you did not ever provide a copy of the Transport Workers' Agreement to your employees, did you?---I did not provide one but there was one in the office and it was common knowledge that it was there.
PN1285
Right. You were asked also about meetings and you said you did not hold any formal meetings with your staff but you were aware of them being held by the TWU. Do you recall the dates of the meetings run by the TWU?---No, I am not aware of the dates, I am sorry.
PN1286
Okay?---I mean, I am sorry, I cannot remember the dates.
PN1287
Sure. Mr Cook gave evidence yesterday, an organiser for the TWU, and he said that during this period there were two meetings that he attended or held with your employees; one on 5 October and one on 13 October. Do those dates ring any bells with you? The 13th is after all the date of the vote?---After the day of the vote? I remember there was one before the day of the vote. I do not specifically remember one the day after the vote.
PN1288
No, the vote was on 13 October, and Mr Cook said he had a meeting, if you like, has a meeting and then people vote - - -?---I beg your pardon, sorry, there was a meeting on the 13th then, sorry, I thought you said the day after.
PN1289
All right, but you had a meeting with the TWU the day after the vote, didn't you?---You will have to forgive me, I do not remember.
PN1290
That is all right. I will give you a document. It was actually attached to Mr Cook's affidavit. I give the witness a copy of exhibit MC3, which was attached to Mr Cook's affidavit. There is a copy there for the Commission for its reference. This again is a letter from you, Mr Snare. Just have a look at that; it is dated 24 October. Do you remember sending that letter to Mr Allan at the TWU?---Yes, I do remember seeing that letter. It may have been the day after - actually it wasn't - I thought that meeting that you are probably referring to was on the day after the vote.
PN1291
Okay, well I - - -?---Yes.
PN1292
- - - that may be right?---That may be right. Look, honestly as I said I can't remember the dates but I do remember the date. It was after the vote was taken.
PN1293
And you met with who, Mr Cook and Mr Allan?---They were both present, yes.
PN1294
So you think it may have been all on the same day in a sense - - -?---I believe it was after the vote, immediately after the vote.
PN1295
So they come and see you and did Mr Cook and Mr Allan tell you that the vote had carried?---They did, I believe, yes.
PN1296
But did they then go on to say, look, we need some extra commitments in order to reach an overall agreement with you about this site, and they raised with you these five matters set out in the letter, is that right?---That's correct.
PN1297
Not to put too fine a point on it, I assume that Mr Cook and Mr Allan were saying to you, well we have got your agreement up, but we need some other extras, or sweeteners at this site and these were the five points that they wanted you to agree to outside the certified agreement for the employees that you have at Launceston, is that right?---They were - they were points that they brought up to me they would like addressed, yes.
PN1298
And was this meeting on, that you think was on 13 October, was this the first time Mr Allan and Mr Cook had sought your agreement to these five points?---It was - I think it was mentioned earlier on than that, prior to the vote I believe that they wanted me to consider those five points.
[11.15am]
PN1299
And when did you give your answer, in the meeting on the 13th or not until this letter of the 24th?---I gave them - I gave them the answer in that letter that you have tabled there.
PN1300
So at the end of your meeting on 13 October did you say to Mr Allan and Mr Cook I will consider ..... if I agree, I will follow up in writing?---I did.
PN1301
These five points, they are all quite different in nature, but we can say something about all of them, none of them are in the written agreement are they?---No.
PN1302
So none of them are enforceable by an action for a breach of certified agreement?---No.
PN1303
They are an in good faith agreement between you and the TWU, is that a fair description?---If you like, yes.
PN1304
And what did you understand would be done with this letter, is it something that you just wanted Mr Allan to keep as a record of your agreement or had you given him authorisation to give it out to the employees or do anything else with it?---It was at his request and if he could have it in writing, if we could address these issues.
PN1305
Did he tell you it was going to be placed on the files of the Industrial Relations Commission as part of this application?---No.
PN1306
I can tell you, Mr Snare, it is actually filed with the Industrial Relations Commission, in a sense that it is a piece of paper which is in the file, that doesn't give it any particular force or import. But is that something you were aware of?---No, I'm not.
PN1307
And I assume, because you haven't said otherwise, you haven't given copies of this letter to your employees at Launceston?---I never gave them copies but they did get hold of a copy. A copy was sent to them, I believe either by Mr Allan or Mr Cook.
PN1308
I see. Can I ask you about point 1 in the letter?---Mm.
PN1309
You say:
PN1310
In the spirit of good faith we undertake to remove the warning letters previously issued from the files of appropriate staff.
PN1311
What is all that about, does that relate to TWU members with disciplinary warnings?---It did, it related to the guys that work out on my ramp.
PN1312
How many of those employees were effected?---Six of them.
PN1313
Six out of six?---Six out of six, yes.
PN1314
Had letters they wanted removed?---That's right.
PN1315
No customer service staff fall within this undertaking?---No, because the issue at bay did not concern them.
PN1316
Then there is the question of part-time staff. I think you have got - you have explained you have got at least one part-timer have you in customer service?---I have. I have two at the moment.
PN1317
Then there is this back dating, if you like of the three per cent increase. Now, again that is point 3, that is something you undertook to do, but not something that is in the body of the agreement?---It is not in the body of the agreement, but we did it.
PN1318
Then you talk about the 15 per cent, the $15 safety net. Again, the same character as point 3 - - - ?---That's correct.
PN1319
- - - something you agreed to?---But I - but I believe that was an oversight on my behalf. I should have been paying that anyway, but it was overlooked on my behalf and we paid it.
PN1320
Now, point 5 is probably best described as an agreement to negotiate. You are not saying in point 5 are you that there will be a wide bodied aircraft allowance, because you didn't know if it would ever be needed; you are simply saying to the union I will talk to you when it arises, is that a fair summary of that?---Yes. We - that's a bit of a difficult one that one, because we don't get wide bodied aircraft in their very often. One every three or four months.
PN1321
I suppose what you are indicating there to the TWU is, my mind is not closed off to that possibility - - -?---No.
PN1322
- - - I will talk to you about it if it becomes more frequent?---That's correct.
PN1323
Can I ask you, Mr Snare, was this - were these five points offered up by you in good faith as you say in exchange for the TWU agreeing that they wouldn't take industrial action?---No, it wasn't put up for - not to take industrial action. It was put up, as you said, in good faith.
PN1324
I'm just not clear about that Mr Snare because you had been told the vote had been carried, you had your agreement. What did you get for these five benefits that you offered?---What did I get?
PN1325
Yes?---I got - I don't know what I got actually, but - - -
PN1326
Hope of industrial peace or?---Well, yes, an amicable area to be working in.
PN1327
Just for completeness, Senior Deputy President, can I ask that those two letters that were written by Mr Snare, be tendered. The first was the one dated 14 September and the second was the one dated 22 September.
PN1328
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: These are the ones that are attached to Mr Dale's - - -
PN1329
PN1330
MS DOYLE: Okay, Mr Snare, another topic. I want to go back to the start of your business. I understand that you tendered to do the ground handling work at Launceston Airport?---I did.
PN1331
You submitted your tender in 1999, is that right?---I did.
PN1332
And when did you find out you were successful, late 1999 I assume or?---It was probably about, around about September I think.
PN1333
And then you started in January 2000?---That's correct.
PN1334
Did you form the partnership purely for the purpose of operating this agency or was the partnership conducting any other businesses?---No the partnership is purely for this agency.
PN1335
Now, the partnership has an agreement with Kendell, pursuant to which I take it you get a particular or part of the volume of work that you do at this airport?---It is on - it's per aircraft turnaround.
PN1336
Okay?---Yes.
PN1337
And your partnership has a similar agreement with Ansett, I assume?---We do have an agreement in place with Ansett, bearing in - - -
PN1338
In the event that their aircraft come to Launceston?---We are still recognised a diversionary port.
PN1339
Okay?---Yes.
PN1340
Has the partnership got similar agreements with any other airlines or are you looking to get agreements with other airlines?---We are looking, we would like to eventually but not at the moment.
PN1341
Now, the work you do at Launceston Airport, you are in the premises that were formerly occupied by Ansett?---That's correct.
PN1342
And that now Kendell fly out of?---That's correct.
PN1343
Do you pay lease, or do you lease that premises from Kendell or pay them something in recognition of you using their premises?---No, no, not the building, no.
PN1344
Do you use, in terms of the computers, computer systems and the physical business of taking luggage and tickets, is that all Kendell's equipment?---It is - well, yes, Kendell's equipment. You would have to talk to Kendell on that whether it's been - whether it is in fact now their equipment or still belongs to Ansett.
PN1345
Right. Well, what do you pay for it and who do you pay?---I don't pay for the use of the - of the check-in equipment, the computers. The only thing that I pay for is I lease the ground equipment, the tugs and the carts and what have you.
PN1346
So that is the only thing you pay for, everything else, software, computer system, the stickers themselves, the tickets themselves, you don't pay a cent for?---No.
PN1347
And when you say you lease the ground handling equipment, what is that, is that just vehicles or is that some other structures?---No, it's - it's two - two tugs, about four luggage carts. What else is there, a ground power unit, that's about it.
PN1348
And you pay that money to Kendell?---I do.
PN1349
Now, in terms of the - I've mentioned the computers and the computer systems used, they are integrated with both Kendell and Ansett aren't they, in the sense that bookings made by your staff and luggage checked by your staff can go on through Kendell and Ansett flights around Australia?---That's correct.
PN1350
And Ansett's international routes?---That's correct.
PN1351
So from the customer's perspective who turns up at Launceston Airport, what do they see when they come in, is the logo Kendell, Ansett or both?---It's both.
PN1352
All right. And the tickets they get are marked?---The tickets they get, the paper tickets they get are Ansett.
PN1353
Yes?---To be quite honest I'm not sure whether they acknowledge the other carriers at all like Kendell and all the other Star Alliance carriers, there would be some recognition of them there I would assume.
PN1354
And the tasks performed by your customer service staff and your ground handling staff are also integrated with Ansett, by which I mean if you take a piece of luggage and check it through it will be dealt with to the same standards as required by Ansett and Kendell, is that right?---That's correct.
PN1355
And it will have physically the same ticket and the same system applied to it?---That's correct.
[11.25am]
PN1356
And the same goes for reservations; they are integrated in the computer, and literally, in terms of the bits of paper, handed to customers with Ansett and Kendell?---That is correct.
PN1357
The staff you have at present, leaving aside the couple that have come and gone that you explained earlier, a large number of them were, like yourself, formerly employed by Ansett; is that right?---Yes, they are, not all of them, probably the majority of them though.
PN1358
If I have counted correctly, I think you have got 11 staff at present; is that right?---At present as we speak I have 14 - sorry, if you take casuals I have employed with me at the moment, I have 16, two casuals, yes.
PN1359
So 14 full or part-time and two casual?---No, out of the 14 - sorry, out of the 14 I have two part-timers and 12 full-timers.
PN1360
Twelve full-timers, okay. My understanding is seven of those 14 were formerly employed at Ansett; is that right?---If you just give me a minute to go through them. There is 13, I believe.
PN1361
Thirteen were employed at Ansett?---I believe it is 13, if you take in the whole operations.
PN1362
So 13 out of 14 - leave aside the casuals - but 13 out 14 full or part-time?---No, sorry, out of the 14 there is 12, I beg your pardon. There are two that are non-former Ansett employees of the 14.
PN1363
Do you know what classification those former Ansett employees had applied to them by Ansett when they worked for Ansett?---The six ramp guys you would have to exclude them, I am not sure what they were on.
PN1364
Fair enough, just confine yourself to customer service?---Okay. Now the inside guys, they would have been - two were former supervisors with Ansett on level 6.
PN1365
Are you sure about that level 6; they were level 8, weren't they, at Ansett?---I believe they were level 6; I may be wrong.
PN1366
All right, but they were called - as far as you knew, they were called supervisors?---They were customer service supervisors with Ansett. One would have been a level 5 load controller, and the others were, I guess, on the level - you will have to forgive me on the levels here - level 3 or level 4.
PN1367
Can I just, for completeness, ask you, in your statement at paragraph 7, you make some comments about - - -?---This is on - - -
PN1368
Your statement. At paragraph 7 you make some comments there. I take it that you don't press what is said there in paragraph 7 about level 3 and level 4 etcetera.
PN1369
MR FARR: Your Honour, that concession was made clear from the start of the proceedings.
PN1370
MS DOYLE: It is just that the witness statement has been adopted in total, so I just want to be sure.
PN1371
MR FARR: We said that, notwithstanding the views of what the employers may have, we were prepared to concede the level 4 issue for the purposes of these proceedings, with a whole view to obviating the need to go down this track of a line-by-line analysis.
PN1372
MS DOYLE: If paragraph 7 isn't relied on I don't need to, but that wasn't quite made clear.
PN1373
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you rely on para 7?
PN1374
MR FARR: We are saying, for the purposes of the no disadvantage test, you are permitted to examine the level 4 as the appropriate comparator. What somebody is classified at, or somebody's view as to what the appropriate classification structure level may be, is not conceded. It is just that, if the employer view is that it is level 3, then that is the employer's view, but for the purposes of this hearing the no disadvantage test can be assessed against the level 4. That is the extent of the concession.
PN1375
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. You have got the extent of the concession; do you still wish to press the question?
PN1376
MS DOYLE: No, I won't take that any further. I will assume that that simply represents Mr Snare's view.
PN1377
Just a couple of further questions about the nature of the work performed by your employees. What is the typical length of a shift for your employees, 7 or 8 hours?---It varies from day to day but not exceeding 38 hours per week.
PN1378
If an employee works, let us say - - -?---Sorry, if I could just rephrase that. When I say 38 hours per week, it is averaged out at 38 hours per week over 3 weeks. The 3 week period. It is averaged at 38 hours per week. One week might 39 or 41, one might be 35, yes.
PN1379
I understand. But the length of the shifts themselves, a single shift can be as long as 9 hours; is that right?---It can be, yes.
PN1380
And it is typically at least 7 or 8 hours?---Yes, on average. It is sometimes less than that too.
PN1381
If a shift is seven hours and it is typically at least seven or eight hours?---Yes, on average, it is sometimes less than that too.
PN1382
If a shift is seven hours, let us take that example, your employees under the agreement, are they entitled to any paid breaks during that seven hour shift?---They're entitled to a minimum 20 minute lunch break and - - -
PN1383
Paid or unpaid?---Well, it's included in their duty time, yes, to be paid.
PN1384
What about if the shift goes up to eight or nine hours, any additional breaks?---No, except for - except for - I mean, there is a morning and afternoon tea break that they're allowed to take, but - officially.
PN1385
All right. You have given some evidence about the way the cycle of the roster works?---Right.
PN1386
And about the averaging of the hours. You were also asked in particular about 29 September. I do not think I need to take you back to that document, but can I ask you this: on 29 September not all of your staff would have been rostered off, right?---No.
PN1387
How many would have been on duty on that day of the customer service staff?---The 29th, it would have been - on both shifts there would have been, including the supervisors, would have been six.
PN1388
All right?---Which includes the part-timers as well.
PN1389
Okay, and so that leaves how many not rostered on?---Three.
PN1390
Now, it is possible, is it not, that of those three they may not have been rostered on for the 29th, the 30th or 1 October?---The 29th - if I know what days they are.
PN1391
From the chart you were shown there today, the 29th is a Friday?---The 29th is a Friday, okay.
PN1392
30th a Saturday, 1st a Sunday?---If they weren't at work on the 29th they would have been at work on the weekend, on the Saturday and the Sunday, being the 29th being a Friday, is that right? If I can find the roster. Yes, I've got to find the roster, anyway, the 29th was a Friday, wasn't it?
PN1393
Yes, that is right?---Okay, if they weren't at work on the 29th they would have been at work on the Saturday and the Sunday.
PN1394
And is the reverse true, if you were at work on the Friday, it may be that you have Saturday, Sunday and, what, Monday off, depending on where you - to your - - -?---Oh, yeah, okay, you're correct there. If you were on early shift on the Friday you would have had the weekend off. You would have been at work on the Friday afternoon.
PN1395
What time does the early shift start? It starts at 5.15?---Early shift starts at 5.15 and goes through to - well, presently it goes through till about 1.45.
PN1396
Okay. So if you did the early shift on Friday the 29th, you left at 1.45 that day and then had, what Saturday - the rest of Friday?---Yes, the rest of Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday off.
PN1397
Right, so you - - -?---If you were on early shift, yes.
PN1398
Okay, till the Wednesday?---Till the Wednesday.
PN1399
All right. I want to ask you the same kind of question about the day of the vote, 13 October, not everyone was rostered on to be at work that day, were they?---That's correct.
PN1400
All right. We have heard evidence from Mr Cook that there was some, what he called postal votes that were part of the voting on 13 October, were you aware of that?---I was aware of that, yes.
[11.35am]
PN1401
Mr Cook said that those - he wasn't sure if they were physically posted, it was just a term he used but those votes he understood were collected by a delegate, is that how you understood it?---It was collected by one of my staff who - yes.
PN1402
How long prior to 13 October were the postal votes collected?---Well, I wasn't privy to that but they were handed to the gentleman concerned over a period of days, like, if people were going to be rostered off or weren't going to be at work on that day, they gave it to him whenever. I mean, I'm not sure how or what frequency he collected them under.
PN1403
Okay. But have I got this right, you or the TWU had looked ahead to 13 October and realised: Well, they are not all going to physically be here. If we can see someone is not going to be rostered on on that day we should make sure we get a ballot paper to them on their last shift before that day, is that how it was arranged?---Well, okay. I wasn't involved in that but my understanding was that one of the staff that approached that subject said, "I won't be here but I want to vote. How do I go about it?" And I believe approval was given - got from the TWU to accept votes in that way.
PN1404
Do you know how many votes were accepted in that way?---I've no idea.
PN1405
Can you help us out though with this? How many people would have been affected by that? How many people would have needed to make arrangements earlier because they are not going to be there on the 13th?---Well, people that were rostered off, there would have been - there would have been one gang - - -
PN1406
Is that five or six people?---That - well, if you take it over the whole spectrum would be five people altogether. That would be the guys inside and the ramp guys.
PN1407
Did you keep a separate record of how many postal votes you received?---I didn't get any postal votes they weren't given to me.
PN1408
But did the TWU give you any bit of paper or any indication, "these are the yes's and the no's and these are the ones that we" - - -?---No, didn't see them.
PN1409
All you were told was it was carried?---It was carried, yes. I was - yes.
PN1410
I don't know whether you have a copy of this with you, Mr Snare, do you have a copy of the agreement itself? If not, I will have one handed up to you?---No, I don't actually. I don't think I have.
PN1411
I will just provide you with a copy. This is a question I have about part of the content of that?---Thank you.
PN1412
Can you look at claus 9? It is hard to read some of the print - yes, clause 9 of the agreement? Can you see that, average payment for working in accordance with the agreed roster?---That's correct.
PN1413
Now, my understanding of the agreement, read as a whole and including this clause, is that what it does, it says: These are the terms of the agreement. And in some respects you go off to the TWU Award and see which allowances apply and other clauses of that award and fill the gaps, is that the basic way in which the agreement works?---Yes, I believe it would be.
PN1414
Now, looking at the clause I have drawn your attention to, clause 9, and the other substantive clauses. There is no suggestion in this agreement that employees are entitled to a particular break or paid break is there?
PN1415
See, clause 9 simply says you have agreed:
PN1416
This agreement provides you will work according to the roster. Hours of work performed in addition to the rostered hours shall be overtime in accordance with the award.
PN1417
As you would expect. Sick leave will be paid as you would expect:
PN1418
The agreed roster and the average rates may be varied.
PN1419
So that is the basic situation?---Yes.
PN1420
You then need to read it in addition to clause 15 which tells you certain parts of the award are included. So if you move down to clause 15. Can you see that?---Yes, got it.
PN1421
Continuing:
PN1422
The provisions of the award shall be excluded or modified as described.
PN1423
And then it gives you a whole list. There are certain things it says shall not apply. And then at 15.3 it tells you the allowances set out in clause 25 of the award. It works the reverse way. It says, "Only the following shall apply"?---Right.
PN1424
It runs through a whole number there. And then when you get to 15.6 it says, "Clause 30, Breaks". So the Transport Workers Union Award would have a clause called, Clause 30, Breaks. But underneath that the agreement says:
PN1425
Breaks to be taken in accordance with the normal roster or as mutually agreed.
PN1426
Now, if I have understood the way this document works in with the award correctly the situation at Launceston is breaks are as set out in the roster or by some sort of agreement between an employee and the partnership. Is that your understanding of how it works?---Well, well, it would be, yes. But our operation goes on mutual agreement.
PN1427
In other words, this agreement doesn't set in stone the time that a break is required or the length of a shift period that you have to be working before you are entitled to one. It is something that you work out on the basis of operational requirements?---Something that I work out and my employees work out. It all revolves around when the aircraft are there and when they are not.
PN1428
Sure. And usually, what you have told us, is the way that is worked out is, it is a 20-minute break during a shift that could be 7, 8 or 9 hours as well as morning tea and afternoon tea?---That's correct.
PN1429
How long for morning tea and afternoon tea?---It would be - I don't know, 10 minutes, I honestly don't know. It would be 10 minutes I guess but - in my establishment there are several breaks taken.
PN1430
I take it from what you said, though, in your establishment if people - if a plane arrives it's all hands to the deck. Someone might miss morning tea because there is simply work to be done?---That's correct.
PN1431
I have no further questions of Mr Snare.
PN1432
PN1433
MR FARR: Your Honour, if I just may ask a couple of questions in re-examination.
PN1434
Mr Snare, you just said there about if a plane was on the tarmac and it is all hands on deck and somebody might miss their morning tea. Do they actually forgo the whole of - forgo morning tea or are they entitled to take it at some other time?---No, take it at some other time and they use their discretion to when they do take it.
PN1435
Now, if I might just take you to the letter of 24 October which I think you still have a copy in front of you, do you, MC3, to Mr Allan?
PN1436
Did you have a copy of that letter?---Oh, sorry, I beg your pardon, sorry.
PN1437
Your letter there?---Yes, I have got it here, yes.
PN1438
Now, you say that you had these matters - the first line - brought to your attention after your meeting with our employees on 13 October. Was it in actual fact the first time that these issues had been raised with you after that 13 October meeting?---It was the first time?
PN1439
That these issues had been raised with you?---Most of them, yes, but the main issue - actually, in all fairness, the issue of the warning letters was raised prior to that, from memory now - now, I think back.
PN1440
And had you had discussions with the TWU about a range of demands from employees prior to 13 October?---From the TWU, with the meetings with Chris Wilkes I had a range of extra demands over and above the Hobart agreement.
PN1441
And you were aware, clearly, there was a meeting between - for the vote on 13 October. Was there any meetings prior to that vote on 13 October between your employees and the TWU?---Yes, there was.
PN1442
Do you know how many meetings there were about those issues - I am sorry, excuse me. I withdraw that. Do you know how many meetings there were with the TWU and your employees?---Don't know precisely. There would be probably three, maybe four.
PN1443
Nothing further, thank you, your Honour.
PN1444
PN1445
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Who is next?
PN1446
MS DOYLE: Perhaps the best use of time would be to revert to the re-examination of Ms White. So I would ask that Ms White go back into the witness box.
[11.45am]
PN1447
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You remain under oath, Ms White.
PN1448
MS DOYLE: Thank you.
PN1449
Ms White, there are a number of matters I wish to clarify arising out of the evidence you gave yesterday. You were asked a number of questions about the rates under the Australian Services Union award and its comparison with the agreements at Launceston and Rockhampton. Now, in answering those questions, you were looking at a document attached to your affidavit, LAW13. Do you still have that with you?---Yes.
PN1450
In that, under column base start rate you have $574.90?---Yes.
PN1451
When was that base rate last affected by a safety net increase, when was that award last varied to bring in such an increase?---When it was simplified in 1999.
PN1452
Have there been any variations to that award in relation to safety net increases since 1999?---There have been. There was an application lodged for the 2000 safety net in 2000 and there was a variation that was issued on 13 March, back dated to 1 September to that
PN1453
All right. First of all what I might do for completeness is hand to you a copy of that decision that contains that variation and get you to explain how it has affected the award.
PN1454
MR FARR: Your Honour, if I just may just raise the issue that this wasn't a matter that came up in examination-in-chief in relation to this and I will seek leave to cross-examine Ms White in relation to these particular issues being raised.
PN1455
MS DOYLE: It is a matter that flows from the cross-examination yesterday about the correct rates for comparison, but of course I would not stop my friend if after this he feels that there is fresh issues. So what is making its way to Ms White is a copy of a decision, a copy for the Commission, is this the decision you refer to, 13 March 2001?---Yes, it is. Yes. It is.
PN1456
Now, how does it work, this decision is not really able to be comprehended on its own, can you just explain, does it affect the whole award or how is it operated?---The award has two sets of classifications and there is a classification level that we've been - levels that we have been discussion and there is also a separate set of classifications in schedule A. It has, however, common allowances, that is the only uncommon set of clauses, it has common allowances and this variation only affects the schedule A rates. When we made the application we made it for all of the rates but a decision was made that we could not come back and vary the rates in relation to the substantive part of the award until I think about, it is relisted for about 3 January next year.
PN1457
So can I summarise, and correct me if I am wrong, this order varies the award, but it varies the base rates in relation to people who are not Ansett employees by reflecting a safety net increase?---Yes, that's correct.
PN1458
But what it also does is varies a list of allowances that set out under clause 4, foreign language allowance, transport, etcetera, etcetera. It varies then, does that variation take effect across the whole award or only these non Ansett people?---I think the way it reads it will only affect the people, the non Ansett people.
PN1459
Now, the matter you said of the Ansett people, is listed for January next year. What is the nature of that application, is that to reflect the safety net increase or how would that be increased?---Yes, it is. It is to reflect safety net increase into those rates, so it will add the 2000 safety net to the rate. So on 574 that would add $15 to 589.90.
PN1460
And will that safety net increase affect the allowances in the Ansett part of the award?---Yes, it will. Because they replicate these it will increase them to these rates exactly.
PN1461
Right. So you anticipate that from January next year the base rate will be 589 for people on the classification we are concerned with?---Yes.
PN1462
And the allowances will be as set out in this variation?---Yes. In fact I should probably correct it. A couple of these allowances are in fact not wage related allowances, they are allowances that are to do with the CPI movements and so it is possible that the meal allowance, and possibly transport allowance would be slightly higher. It will depend on the CPI movements, but I would expect them to be no less than - - -
PN1463
Than what is embodied in this document?---Than what's - in relation to those two allowances anyway. The others will be identical.
PN1464
One allowance you were asked about yesterday by Mr Farr, I think was, the multiple staff, multiple shift allowance?---Yes.
PN1465
You, at that stage when asked about it, indicated that you thought that the requirement to pay - it is about $2.50 or in some instances $2.70 something, that that requirement to pay attracted to each shift that a person did they would have a commencement time that differed over the week. Have you looked into how that clause actually operates?---Yes. It has been the subject of some conjecture, but the way in which it has been agreed to operate now is that if you work three shifts then you get a one off allowance of 2.57. Then for every subsequent shift the 2.78 would come into play. So if you worked the first three, you get 2.57, and then for the fourth shift it would be 2.78, for the fifth shift it would be an additional 2.78. So you would get 2.57, 278 and 2.78.
PN1466
All right. Now, the other matter I wanted to clarify, this goes back to LAW13. You accepted when Mr Farr asked you questions that this comparison, if you like, is frozen in time when it was prepared and it relates to what were paid under each of these instruments in November 2000. I have asked you about what might affect the ASU Award in the future. Mr Farr asked you about what might affect the TWU agreement, and you accepted that that agreement, if certified, has a requirement for these three per cent increases. Do you recall those questions?---I do recall those questions.
PN1467
Now, the other matters you set out in this chart flow on from what you can say about the base start. You will see under the heading, morning shift allowance, is it your understanding that the ASU Award applies a 12.5 per cent loading that attaches to an entire shift, if the shift starts between 5 and 8am?---Yes, that is my - that is how it operates.
PN1468
So can I ask you this, Mr Snare has told us that his people at Launceston if they do an early shift start at 5.15, if those people were working under the ASU Award that entire shift, 5.15 to I think it was 2.30, would attract a 12.5 per cent loading, is that correct?---That's correct.
PN1469
Whereas under the agreement, if you move over a column, while there is a 100 per cent loading that would only operate between 5.15 and 7, have I understood that - - -?---That's correct, yes. And so then from 7am it would be at ordinary time rates. As I understand the TWU - - -
PN1470
I should have asked you about the column above, day shift, in short does that indicate that the spread of hours is broader on the TWU agreement?---Yes, it does.
PN1471
Now, I can jump down to transport allowance. Is that one of the allowances that you anticipate will be affected by an increase in January?---Yes, it is one of the allowances. On current calculations in the schedule A that allowance would go to $6.25 at least.
PN1472
All right. And the social disability allowance, will that be - - -?---That should be adjusted to $8, from $8.30 to $8.52.
[11.55am]
PN1473
And the multiple shift allowance isn't on this table, but from what I can see in that variation decision, it is going to move as well, depending on the factors you have drawn to our attention?---Yes, that is correct.
PN1474
The same for the meal breaks, meal money?---That is correct, too. That is CPI related and was adjusted I think last year, but that might move again this year, but it was adjusted up until the time that the application was lodged.
PN1475
Just a matter I wanted to clarify about your award, the ASU award. It has a provision in clause 27 in relation to meal breaks and meal money. Can I just ask you to have a look at the ASU award?---I think I mightn't have brought that up with me.
PN1476
Could I ask that the witness be given a copy of the award, clause 27?---Yes.
PN1477
Again I will just attempt to summarise it. Clause 27.1 deals with employees on day work. They are supposed to get an unpaid meal break of between 30 minutes and an hour and it is also provided that if you work for more than five hours without a meal break, you get overtime rates for the rest of the work until you are released for a break. Is that a fair summary of that clause?---That is correct.
PN1478
Then for shift workers, that is covered by 27.2. It is similar, the first part is similar. It allows a meal break of between 30 minutes and an hour?---That is correct.
PN1479
And the second part of it dictates that that break should kick in after five hours of work?---Yes, and the difference obviously between day workers and shift workers is there is no ability to agree operationally something different.
PN1480
All right, and then how does meal breaks, meal money under 27.3 work?---That occurs when overtime occurs, a meal allowance is payable. It also is payable when you come in for a recall or day off. That is provided in 27.3.3 in overtime situations, how that would be paid to the shift workers.
PN1481
There was one other allowance I asked you about yesterday, the tropical zone allowance. Have your investigations shed any light on the application of that?---I am still - it is a matter that I am still trying to investigate in relation to exactly where it is paid and that is governed by the Department of Workplace Relations by reference to the clause.
PN1482
Just for completeness, if the Commission pleases, can that variation be marked, variation decision, I should say?
PN1483
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I will mark the variation to the Airline Operations Clerical and Administrative Award 1999 in respect of the safety net review May 2000 decision and the variation is dated 13 March 2001 as D18.
EXHIBIT #D18 AIRLINE OPERATIONS CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AWARD 1999 VARIATION DECISION
PN1484
MS DOYLE: I have no further questions by way of re-examination, but if Mr Farr has fresh matters that he feels weren't traversed, he may wish to ask further questions.
PN1485
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Farr.
PN1486
PN1487
MR FARR: The way the case has been put by the intervener, ASU, in relation to this is that the award has transmitted from Ansett through Kendell through to the ground handling agent. That is correct?---That is correct.
PN1488
So on that basis, these rates that apply to the respondent to that award which have had the safety net increase for them would not apply to the ground handling agent on the basis of that transmission?---The rates in this variation order, certainly, and that is what I think I said, but my understanding of the reasoning for why it didn't get varied in the first place was that there was a no extra claims clause in the Ansett agreement, but as I said, there is a listing I think about 3 January which will I expect vary it.
PN1489
Okay, and you have mentioned about the changes to all the allowances. It is similar, you would agree with me, that the Airline Operations Transport Workers Award also goes through a similar process in terms of safety net increases and in terms of increases to allowances?---I am not sure what they do. I am not an astute follower of the movements of the Transport Workers Union Award.
PN1490
Okay, so any allowances that are referable by virtue of the agreement back into the Transport Workers Award, you would agree with me if they were varied in accordance with any safety net decision, those rates would then apply to the employees in the route handling agents, the subject of those agreements?---I don't know. I don't believe that - I don't know whether that would be the case or not.
PN1491
No further questions, thank you, your Honour.
PN1492
MS DOYLE: I ask that Ms White be excused.
PN1493
PN1494
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Who is next?
PN1495
MR DUFFIN: Your Honour, Mr Allan would actually be next, I understand, unless the intervener's other witness is likely to attend today, but Mr Allan won't be here until two pm, so in the absence of any other witnesses, it might be an appropriate time for lunch.
PN1496
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will adjourn this matter until two o'clock.
LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.04pm]
RESUMED [2.05pm]
PN1497
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Duffin.
PN1498
PN1499
MR DUFFIN: Yes, Mr Allan, would you mind just repeating your name for the record?---Robert John Allan.
PN1500
And are you employed by the Transport Workers' Union?---Yes.
PN1501
What position do you hold with the Transport Workers' Union?---I am the Federal Secretary.
PN1502
Have you made a statement in this proceeding?---Yes, I have.
PN1503
Do you have a copy of that statement with you?---No, I do not.
PN1504
Perhaps if I could hand up mine. Have you read that statement?---Yes, I have.
PN1505
And is it true and correct?---Yes.
PN1506
PN1507
MR DUFFIN: Now, on average, how many days per week do you work in the federal office?---Probably two, sometimes three, but mostly two.
PN1508
And the rest of the time you are outside of the office?---Yes, interstate.
PN1509
Now, in October last year, Jeremy Smith was the federal legal officer for the TWU?---That is correct.
PN1510
And was he also the office manager at the time, in the federal office?---Jeremy managed the day to day business in the office as well as our legal agenda.
PN1511
And when you were not in the office or more generally he would look after all legal issues associated with the TWU?---That is correct. He would keep me informed over the phone or by our weekly organisers' meeting, if I was there.
PN1512
Okay. Now, the issues of Ansett and Kendell in Tasmania in 2000, were they dealt with initially by Mr Smith as a legal matter?---Yes.
PN1513
Was that because the matter was examined in terms of a transmission of business issue?---Yes.
PN1514
All right. And was he solely responsible for that?---On the legal side, yes.
PN1515
Okay. And what was his advice about the transmission case to you?---Would not get up.
PN1516
All right. Now, following that advice to you, we have sort of got into the situation where a number of agreements have been developed, both in Hobart and in Launceston. We are only dealing with the Launceston agreement here today. Now, prior to your attendance at the site on 5 October 2000, were you personally involved with the preparation of the Launceston agreement?---No.
PN1517
Okay. And from your statement, I understand that Mr Smith had the overall carriage of the Launceston agreement?---That is correct.
PN1518
And, what, he reported to you in the same way that he reported on legal matters generally?---Correct.
PN1519
Now, from your statement I understand that there were some difficulties with how the agreement was processed or progressing in Launceston, and that was the reason for you to get personally involved. Is that right?---That is correct. The former organiser we had servicing the area had a different agenda than what he was instructed to carry out, and with that I had to go down there and clarify the situation at the request of Jeremy.
PN1520
Was that organiser Mr Wilkes?---Yes.
PN1521
So you attended the site on 5 October to discuss the agreement. There was a meeting that day between employees and yourself?---Yes, that is correct.
PN1522
Do you recall how many employees were at that meeting, roughly?---I believe there were about 12 employees approximately attended the meeting. It was a report meeting from myself as to the enterprise agreement.
PN1523
Okay. So was the nature of the agreement explained to employees at that time?---It was. They were quite clearly told this was the offer from the company and that is what they had to determine to accept and there was not a chance to vary that, as far as the company was concerned.
PN1524
All right. And were employees at that meeting given the opportunity to ask questions about the agreement?---Yes, we discussed the agreement at length and then they discussed some local issues that they believed were sort of in conjunction with the agreement but not part of it.
PN1525
Were those the issue that - I do not know whether you have got a copy of Mr Cook's affidavit there. If the witness could be shown TWU5. Are those the issues that are on the - in paragraph 5 of that affidavit, the local issues.
PN1526
Now, were those issues raised with management on the day?---Yes. I had brief discussions with the company on the day. I advised them there was a need to resolve them. I had reached agreement with the employees who were at the meeting, that I would come back the following week which gave them more time to consider the position and it gave myself an opportunity to get a resolve to their local issues.
PN1527
Were the employees on 5 October asked whether they had had access to the agreement for 14 days?---My understanding was that they had access to the agreement.
PN1528
Did any employees raise the issue of whether they had had 14 days to consider it?---I can't recall.
PN1529
Now, you went back to the site a week later?---That's correct.
PN1530
That was on 13 October?---Yes.
PN1531
Was the vote held on that day?---Yes, I did a report back as to the local issues of what had been agreed to and the vote was conducted.
PN1532
And what had been agreed to, do you recall?---The agreement with the local management had the warning letters would be removed; the permanent part-time hours would be rostered and that would be four hour lots over a 20 hours week; there would be a back date of the 3 per cent in the agreement, back to October 2000. Prior to that there would be an adjustment, I think it was from August through to October of the $15 safety net increase. And we would have the right during the life of the agreement to negotiate an allowance for wide bodied aircraft which would be paid on a as required basis.
PN1533
Was it made clear to the employees at that report back that the response of management in relation to those local issues did not in any way affect the agreement?---That's right. They were there to vote on the enterprise agreement. The only tie in respect to the local agreement reached was the necessity to get that - get the agreement clarified when we certified the EBA so we wouldn't be stymied with a no extra claims down the track to enable us to pursue the wide bodied allowance.
PN1534
In relation to the vote, do you recall whether there were any absentee ballots?---Yes. If memory serves me correct there were about six absentee ballots.
PN1535
Do you recall the nature of the split between yeses and nos amongst those?---Yes, it was five for, and one against. The total vote was 12-3.
PN1536
So the other ones would have been 7 to 2 for people actually there?---Yes.
PN1537
Now, the nature of that agreement that was reached between the TWU and the employer regarding those local issues, how was that to be effected?---It was to be presented to the Commission on certification and requested to be part of the file should there be any misunderstanding of it later down the track.
PN1538
Right. So everyone could come back knowing that the wide bodied aircraft allowance could still be negotiated and it wasn't stymied by that no extra claims clause in the agreement?---Correct.
PN1539
Now, in relation to the Launceston agreement, did anyone in your office form calculations in relation to the no disadvantage test?---They would have been done by Jeremy.
PN1540
Do you recall what those calculations would have shown?---His advice to me was that no one would be disadvantaged.
PN1541
Now, in relation to Rockhampton, were you involved in any voting processes there at all?---No.
PN1542
And were you involved in the preparation of that agreement at all?---No.
PN1543
As far as the no disadvantage test goes, is it the case that that agreement replicates the terms of the Launceston agreement by and large?---Yes, that's my understanding of the principal we had with - the principal agreement we had with Kendell.
PN1544
And Mr Smith would have probably done the no disadvantage in relation to the Rockhampton agreement as well?---I would assume so, yes.
PN1545
I have no further questions, your Honour.
PN1546
MR FARR: No, questions, thank you, your Honour.
PN1547
PN1548
MS DOYLE: Now, Mr Allan, I might start with the last question you were just dealing with there. You say in your statement and you just reiterated then that you had no involvement in the preparation, voting or application to certify the Rockhampton agreement, is that right?---That's correct.
PN1549
But you signed the stat dec from the union that forms of the application on the Commission's file?---I'm the only authorised officer in the union to do that.
PN1550
All right, and on the basis of whose information or what information did you satisfy yourself of all the requirements in that stat dec?---On advice received from our legal officer.
PN1551
Gerry Smith?---Yes.
PN1552
Right. When did he finish working for the union?---Must be about four, five months ago. I'm sorry, I can't recall the specific date.
PN1553
All right. I am going to hand to you a copy of the stat dec that is on the Commissioner's file forming part of the application to certify this agreement.
PN1554
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is the Launceston agreement, is it?
PN1555
MS DOYLE: Yes, this is - no, sorry, this is the Rockhampton agreement.
PN1556
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN1557
MS DOYLE: So obviously on that file there will be stat decs, as you know, Mr Allan, as well as the draft agreement. But all I have handed to you is the stat dec submitted on behalf of the Transport Workers' Union. You can see the final page is dated 20 November, your signature witnessed by Mr Smith. I want to just clarify the basis of your understanding of the information that you used to - or the information that is contained in this stat dec Now the first page sets out the obvious material. It is an agreement between Airport Ground Service Partnership and the other party will be the Transport Workers' Union. I just wanted to clarify this bit, part 2, about the business, can you see that heading?---Yes.
PN1558
Can you see that? Point 2.2 says, name of business or place of work that is the single business covered by this agreement. Beth Bell and - now, there seems to be some misprint there. Do you know the other member of this partnership's name is Lyle Vicke?---No, I don't.
PN1559
All right. Trading as Airport Ground Service. Had you at the time of signing this stat dec, had you have any dealings with either Bell or Vicke?---No.
PN1560
Had you had any dealings with the partnership, the Entity Airport Ground Service by letter or other correspondence?---There probably would have been other correspondence served under my signature, yes.
PN1561
Can I take you over to the next page of that stat dec Part 5, about the employees, there is a question there, was the agreement genuinely approved by a valid majority of persons employed at the time. The next page tells us that the total number of employees covered by the agreement was two. Is that something Mr Smith made you aware of?---Yes.
PN1562
And did you know the identity of the two employees proposed to be covered by the agreement?---No.
PN1563
Mr Vicke gave evidence yesterday and he explained to the Commission that he runs this partnership with Beth Bell, Airport Ground Services, and when I asked him who the two employees were subject of the agreement he said they were an Adam Vicke, his son, and a Mr Bean, Anthony Bean, an employee of Ansett. Are those matters you were aware of at the time of signing the stat dec?---No, I didn't know the individuals.
PN1564
All right. The other evidence that Mr Vicke gave yesterday included this information: he told us that while Adam Vicke, his son, still works for his partnership, Mr Bean ceased being employed by the partnership before Airport Ground Services commence operations at Rockhampton; were you aware of that information when you signed this stat dec on 20 November?---No.
PN1565
Have you since become aware of that information?---No.
PN1566
The next question asks what steps have been taken by the employer to make the employees aware of the content of the agreement and there is typed the answer, the employees were provided a copy of the draft agreement to examine their input, both directly and through the TWU was requested. What input are you referring to there, directly or indirectly sought by the TWU?---Well, the advice I would have received from Jeremy was that the processing of any of the local agreements will be conducted by the branch, the appropriate branch official and he would have satisfied himself in his own mind of the correctness of that and that would have been the instructions he gave me.
PN1567
Who was the organiser responsible for the Rockhampton site at that time?---Um, I would - I can't recall, sorry.
PN1568
Well, it's not that long ago. Let us go back to September last year. Who was the Rockhampton organiser?---Sorry, I can't recall the name.
PN1569
Is there a Rockhampton organiser?---There's an organiser in that area, yes.
PN1570
And there was one as at September and November last year?---I'm sorry, I just can't recall.
PN1571
Well, there isn't really anyone else I can direct that question to. You are the national secretary?---Yes, correct.
PN1572
Does the Rockhampton branch, did it have someone responsible for this airport - - -?---There's no Rockhampton branch. There's a Queensland branch who have a number of organisers.
PN1573
Sorry, a Queensland branch. Did they have someone responsible for Rockhampton airport - - -?---They would have had an organiser responsible for it, yes.
PN1574
How many organisers are employed by the Queensland branch, or were employed as at this time last year?---Generally there's three country organisers and there would be seven in the Brisbane area.
PN1575
And can you remember the names of the three country organisers as at November last year?---No, because there has been changes recently. I can't remember every organiser's name in Australia.
PN1576
So let me get this straight. When you signed this stat dec, the source of the information is an organiser whose name you can't recall who in turn relayed that information to Mr Smith who in turn related it to you?---Yes, Jeremy would have been breached by the branch and in turn he briefed me.
PN1577
You say would have been?---I should have said - - -
PN1578
But what I am asking you is what did Mr Smith tell you, did he sit you down and talk you through look, yes, it's okay, there were two employees, I've talked to the organiser, I know they got a draft, is that the level of information you were provided with?---Yes, that was the normal process we had with Jeremy, yes.
PN1579
Can you remember your conversation with Mr Smith about this stat dec pertaining to Rockhampton?---No, I can't.
PN1580
Does the Transport Workers' Union have any records of the input sought or response received from the two employees about the draft agreement?---Generally speaking that would be by the organiser's diary notes.
PN1581
Have you asked the organiser whether you can look at those notes and see any correspondence the organiser has?---No, I haven't.
PN1582
Can I take you over to the answer to question 6.2. Again there is a typed response below the yes there, it says the Transport Workers' Union has advised that it considers that Mackay Aviation Services - now, we can only assume that is a typographical error, as this document relates to the Rockhampton agreement. Can you explain that answer there? Is that answer we should read as applying to Airport Ground Services?---Yes.
PN1583
When did - were you responsible for giving that advice, did you advise Airport Ground Services that they should be a respondent to the TWU award?---No, it would have been advice. It no doubt would have been correspondence served upon the company and - - -
PN1584
By whom?---Probably from Jeremy Smith and it would have been under my signature.
PN1585
I see, and what steps has the union taken to rope in AGS to the award as suggested there?---I'm not aware.
PN1586
You are not aware. Are you aware of whether they have or haven't been roped in, or you just have not followed the progress?---It's not a task that I keep up with on a day to day basis.
PN1587
Right. If I understood your answers correctly, Mr Allan, it seems that Mr Smith was running the whole show. You say he drew up the Launceston agreement, did he?---Mr Smith's role was to manage the office and handle the day to day technical and legal issues and that's how we operated.
PN1588
Well, he did not spend time out at Rockhampton and Mackay convincing people to vote for agreements, did he?---No, he wouldn't have because - no. We have the branches. The branches act as a service facility for the union and the Federal officer's job is to coordinate the task.
PN1589
Did Mr Smith draft the Launceston agreement or the Rockhampton agreement?---I would assume he would have had a hand in it, yes.
PN1590
What about the Hobart agreement, not the subject of these proceedings, but there's a Hobart agreement in similar terms. You negotiated that, didn't you?
PN1591
MR DUFFIN: Your Honour, I do object to that question. This matter is relating to the certification of the Launceston agreement. There are separate Federal Court proceedings that the intervener in this matter has brought in relation to the Hobart certification. Those Federal Court proceedings are clearly matters of quite substantial import and it really isn't the matter here today that has any relevance whatsoever to the Hobart agreement. The Hobart agreement is in a different place and has already been certified. What we are dealing with here today is whether the Launceston agreement is capable of being certified pursuant to the tests in the Act. Whether the Hobart agreement was done correctly or was not done correctly, it was drafted in some way, has nothing to do with this hearing here today.
[2.27pm]
PN1592
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: ..... question.
PN1593
MS DOYLE: It is not the import of the question. There is a Hobart agreement in very similar form to the content of the Launceston and the Rockhampton agreements, are you aware of that?---Yes.
PN1594
Now, that Hobart agreement, I am not concerned with the process of its certification, but the content of that document. Were you involved in negotiating the content of the Hobart agreement?---I was involved in the settlement of the dispute we had with Ansett regarding their intentions to put regional airline services into Tasmania.
PN1595
But did you have a hands on role in terms of the content of what became of the Hobart agreement?---I had discussions in regards to the Hobart agreement.
PN1596
And you are aware that the Launceston agreement is in substantially the same terms as is the Rockhampton agreement?---Yes, similar terms.
PN1597
So can I ask you what role Kendell played in either the Launceston or Rockhampton agreements, did you have dealings with them about trying to get the Hobart agreement to apply regionally in those other ports like Launceston and Rockhampton?---No, we had a principle position with Kendell as a result of our dispute we had with Ansett. And that was clearly set out and it established terms and our Federal office and the organisers on the ground followed the outcome of that dispute.
PN1598
Well, can I clarify that, the outcome was, I take it, that you would, your union, attempted to have put in place in Launceston, Rockhampton, and I assume Mackay, an agreement in substantially the same form as what I am calling the Hobart agreement, was that the all up agreement with Kendell?---We had an agreement with the company that Kendell would have direct employees in Hobart under an enterprise agreement and their agent arrangements in other ports would have similar type of agreements.
PN1599
So when you said a moment ago when you were answering questions from Mr Duffin, when you said that the reason that you went down to Launceston was you found out the former organiser had a different agenda and wasn't doing what he was instructed?---That's correct.
PN1600
You are talking about Mr Wilkes?---That's correct.
PN1601
He was departing from the in-principle agreement with Kendell was he?---No, he was not, he was in - he was endeavouring to pursue some issues that weren't pertinent to an outcome of the enterprise agreement and he was advised that accordingly and there was a need to set the record straight.
PN1602
You have told us that you had an in-principle agreement that the Hobart terms and conditions applicable to Kendell would be replicated in these regional ports we are talking about?---No, I said that - - -
PN1603
I have asked you how did Mr Wilkes divert from that, what instruction did he not follow?---There was issues there relating to retrospectivity of payment. There were a number of other local issues that really could have been resolved without the need of being involved in the agreement and we had to have clarity of the issue, hence my trip to Launceston to provide that clarity.
PN1604
Mr Wilkes was trying to improve on the Hobart terms in Launceston wasn't he, he was trying to get a whole lot of other local things built into the agreement, is that a fair summary?---He was trying to deal with the local issues as part of the enterprise agreement and my advice to him was local issues are local issues, fix them, and enterprise agreements are enterprise agreements.
PN1605
But this enterprise agreement was a local one, it was going to apply to Launceston?---Yes, that's correct, but there was issues that you put into an enterprise agreement, or there is issues that an organiser gets off his backside and fixes locally.
PN1606
Can I take it then that Mr Smith indicated to you, look, we've got a bit of a problem at Launceston, the agreement may not get up because people set their sights on this other list, a shopping list that isn't in the Kendell agreement, is that a fair summary?---Yes. Mr Smith asked me to go down there and provide clarity because there had been some confusion from Mr Wilkes, who at that stage was a former organiser of the Transport Workers Union.
PN1607
So we get to 5 October and you go down with Mr Cook, and you say there are about 12 employees there?---Roughly.
PN1608
Now, you explained to the employees that the written agreement was the company's last offer?---That's correct.
PN1609
And I take it that is because that is what Mr Snare was telling you, he was saying we can't improve on that?---That's correct.
PN1610
Is that a fair summary, all right. But then I also take it that the employees said, well what about this other shopping list of five things that we have been talking about with Mr Wilkes, is that how it arose?---Those issues were raised and I told them they can be fixed locally and I would meet with the company over the ensuing week and I would get those local issues fixed as the former organiser should have fixed them in the first place.
PN1611
The employees were expressing an interest in having those five things form part of the certified agreement weren't they, they wanted it in black and white?---They got it in black and white.
PN1612
I asked you what they wanted?---They got it in black and white.
PN1613
Did they say we want it in black and white?---They wanted the issues resolved and I suggested to them that there is ways and means to resolve them, and the suggestion I put forward was accepted and we got them resolved, in black and white, in letter form.
PN1614
What you put forward on the 5th was, and or it could have been, you said I will pursue it with the employer right?---And endeavour to get them fixed and I will report back to you next week.
PN1615
Now, you returned to the site on the - I should ask you another question about the 5th. When you turned up on the 5th, did you hope that you might be able to actually hold the vote on that day?---At that stage I wasn't fully aware as to what the local view was. I'd only received information sort of through Jeremy, and I would make my judgment once I get a feel of the local situation. I made my judgment that we should wait a week, and get the local issues fixed.
PN1616
Was there another reason you should wait a week; the employees wouldn't have access to the agreement for 14 days if you got the vote - - -?---Well, my understanding was that they had had that, but I won't question that. The desire was that - you know, I had to come back, I had to get the local issues fixed and the only day in my diary was the following week in that sense it was set up.
PN1617
Mr Snare has given evidence that he is aware of the agreement being put in the employee's lunch room on 29 September. Do you have any information that differs from that or any basis on which you can disagree with that?---No, I don't.
PN1618
All right. I also want to ask you to have a look at a letter that is actually attached to Mr Cook's affidavit, I think you were given that, were you?---Yes.
PN1619
The first attachment to Mr Cook's affidavit is a letter dated 19 September?---That's correct.
PN1620
Have you seen that before, it's from the Federal Industrial Officer in your office?---That's correct.
PN1621
To Mr Wilkes, 19 September. It says:
PN1622
Please find attached final draft for the Snares agreement provided by the Snares lawyers. I understand you spoke with John yesterday regarding whereto from here. Please advise if this agreement is suitable. It would be good if we could get it out Friday -
PN1623
so whatever th first Friday was after the 19th -
PN1624
for a vote to be taken in two weeks, allowing us to find a dispute and certify the agreement.
PN1625
Were you aware of this correspondence between your Federal Industrial Officer and Mr Wilkes?---Yes.
PN1626
It says, I assume it is referring to you, that you have spoken to Mr Wilkes the day before. Was there some urgency operating as at September was there to get this agreement finalised?---No, there was some urgency between myself and Mr Wilkes as to performance.
PN1627
Well, it says:
PN1628
It would be good if we could get it out on Friday for a vote in two weeks, find a dispute and certify the agreement.
PN1629
Did you already have a listing for a dispute finding at that stage did you?---They're Vanessa's terms, not mine.
PN1630
But is that the case, did the TWU already have a listing for a dispute finding in the wings?---I'm not aware.
PN1631
You were keen though to get the matter resolved, as you said you may have even held a vote on the 5th if things had gone to plan?---I was keen to get the issue resolved because it had dragged on too long.
PN1632
At the meeting on the 5th, you have explained that you told the employees, all right, I'll come back in a week and you say the day you had free was the 13th. Now, when you came back on the 13th you told the employees, I assume, good news, I've got these five things for you, is that right?---I went through, gave them a report as to the resolve of the five matters outstanding and then we again addressed the agreement and the agreement was put to the vote and accepted by 12 votes to 3.
PN1633
But you didn't actually hand an agreement to those five points from Mr Snare at the time of the 13 October meeting did you?---We had a verbal agreement, yes.
PN1634
Can I ask you to have a look at the third attachment to Mr Wilkes affidavit, and that is a letter dated 24 October, addressed to you, see that?---That's correct.
PN1635
It is a letter from Mr Snare, he says that he is replying to the five items brought to the partnership's attention after your meeting with our employees on the 13th?---That's correct.
PN1636
The first time y ou raised these five points with Mr Snare was after your meeting with the employees on Friday the 13th, wasn't it?---No, there was early discussions, that's my understanding.
PN1637
Mr Snare has given evidence that although this - see point 1, the warning letters, he says that had been discussed between and the Transport Workers Union previously, but that the first time he was asked to agree with these five points in their formal form, was on 13 October, do you agree with that?---In writing, yes.
PN1638
[2.37pm]
PN1639
And did you get the letter on or about - I think actually the stamp on the top would indicate when it was received, would it, received on the 26th?---That's correct, yes.
PN1640
Okay. When you spoke to the employees on 13 October you did not have this undertaking in writing from Mr Sanford, did you?---That's correct.
PN1641
But you told the employees, I've got it for you in black and white?---I told the employees that the matter was - been resolved. It was an outcome. There was a need to have it in writing and we would hand it up before the Commission as a matter of filing when the agreement was certified and hence Mr Snare was told at the conclusion of that meeting we'd need it in writing.
PN1642
No. At the conclusion of the meeting you told Mr Snare he'd have to agree to it, didn't you?---No, there'd been earlier discussions around those issues. Those issues were local issues that had been on-going between the organiser of the day and Snare for some time.
PN1643
When was the last time prior to 5 October that you had been to Launceston?---I'd have to refer to my diary, sorry.
PN1644
Can I suggest to you that you had never raised these matters with Mr Snare at Launceston until 13 October?---Those issues were left between Jeremy Smith and the organiser of the day in Launceston.
PN1645
So you agree you did not raise them with Mr Snare prior to the letter?---No, my - I would come in on 5 October and the resolution of those were achieved to the membership on 13 October.
PN1646
As for your dealings with Mr Snare, you did not tell him that this letter would form part of the Commission's file and be handed up at the certification application, did you?---I told him I wanted it in writing and that's what we'd be doing with it, I'm sure I did.
PN1647
Mr Snare has given evidence that he was asked to agree to these points on 13 October after the vote, that he duly prepared this letter but that he was not aware it was going to be placed on the Commission's file or form part of the application, what do you say about that?---I made my intentions quite clear to the membership and I would have - and I'm sure I would have made it quite clear to Mr Snare of what - what the processes was and particularly around the area of point number 5, because we didn't want to be stymied further down the track with a no extra claims issue.
PN1648
At the meeting on 13 October you told the employees that their concerns had been resolved, that they could vote for the agreement because you had settled what you are calling the local issues; is that right?---Yes, the local issues were addressed and agreed to and they had to have a vote on the EBA, whether they voted it up or whether they voted it down.
PN1649
What I am suggesting to you, Mr Allan, is that you talked up the level of agreement you had with Mr Snare at that stage; you hoped, maybe even expected, he would put it in writing for you, but you did not have an agreement when you told the employees that, did you?---When I'm dealing with the members I tell them the facts.
PN1650
Did you give the members a copy of this letter?---A copy of the letter followed and it was duly processed through to the branch and through to the membership afterwards.
PN1651
Are you saying each TWU member has been given a copy of this 24 October letter?---Well, the organiser of the day should have distributed, yes.
PN1652
Any arrangements made for non-TWU members affected by this agreement?---Well, it's a matter for the local organiser.
PN1653
I see, who is who now?---Now it's changed again, it's now Michael Neeler.
PN1654
Michael who?---Neeler.
PN1655
You talked about not being stymied in terms of no extra claims allowance. Can I just clarify that with you. I assume you're talking about the fact that the last clause of the Launceston agreement, I will just read it to you, it is clause 17, "The TWU will not pursue any extra claims against the Snares for the life of this agreement. The TWU agrees that this includes any additional claims arising out of safety net wage increase decisions." Now, if I have understood you correctly, because of the presence of that clause you wanted to be sure that that wouldn't exclude you from dealing with the Snares with respect to this other particular allowance?---Correct.
PN1656
Other than exception in clause 5, your letter with Mr Snare, the effect of the Launceston agreement is that, as it says, you cannot make any claims, you have got to ride it out for the life of that agreement?---That's the normal process, yes.
PN1657
All right. On 13 October meeting with the employees, you did not explain to them, did you, that these five points, while they might represent an agreement between the union and Snare you did not explain - well, they are not enforceable in the way that a certified agreement is enforceable, did you?---The four points of agreement reached between myself and Snare and my view is verbally or in writing, they are enforceable, they are agreement reached. I didn't expect the Snare to breach the agreement and I didn't expect our membership to breach the agreement. So - - -
PN1658
Did you tell the people at the meeting on 13 October that this agreement was enforceable, that it represented, if you like, additions to the certified agreement, that they could rely on?---No, the issues - purely - the issue purely round the letter and the need to have it in file was that when we had wide body aircraft there and we wanted to go in and negotiate, we didn't want some technocrat to come out and say you can't do that because of the no extra claims, and my reason of thinking there was, let's put what was agreed locally on file in the Commission so everyone's got an understanding of it and when we negotiate it we'll negotiate it under the understanding of the day of October 2000.
PN1659
Well, one of the points there, point 3, is backdating the three per cent increase from 1 November to 1 October. Now, that was something that the employees were keen to have resolved, weren't they?---They were keen to get retrospectivity, yes.
PN1660
Sure, and at the 13 October meeting I assumed you told them, we've also got for you this retrospectivity, well, two items, retrospectivity of the three per cent and of this $15 increase; right?---Yes, that was the matter the employer could deal with directly, yes.
PN1661
Right, but as the employees I assume would have seen in the agreement, the agreement says the three per cent will come in on 1 November 2000. Did you explain to them that the retrospectivity aspect of your agreement was off the record, in other words, not in the certified agreement but in the separate agreement?---The retrospectivity was by agreement with the employer which happens on numerous occasions in the transport industry.
PN1662
Did you explain to the people assembled to vote on 13 October that they wouldn't be able to enforce that retrospectivity element in the ordinary way that you can sue for breach of certified agreement?---I didn't get into the technical aspects. The arrangements were that it was an agreement reached between the employer and the TWU and the TWU would have a high expectation of the employer honouring it.
PN1663
I see. In the lead up to the formation of the terms of this Launceston agreement, there was a suggestion at some stage, wasn't there, that your members might actually take industrial action; is that right?---I understand that the local organiser had threatened industrial action, yes.
PN1664
Were you aware of that when you went down to the meetings of 5 October and 13 October?---Yes, it was said by - in discussions with Chris and myself that there was the threat of industrial action.
PN1665
But you were - I assume you were keen to get a result?---Well, I'm not too sure whether the threat was from the membership to the employer or the threat was from our organiser of the day to the employer. I just wanted to go down there and tell them the facts as they stood, and that I did.
[2.45pm]
PN1666
You were asked some questions about postal votes, people who weren't actually at the meeting on 13 October. Did you handle the delivery or collection of those postal votes for people who weren't on shift that day?---No, I didn't. The people that were unable to attend the meeting made arrangements with the local delegate to submit absentee votes. Those were accepted by the delegates and they were accepted by the membership at the meeting and, hence, they were included in our count.
PN1667
And did you have any understanding of how much earlier those votes had been collected, for example how many days or shifts earlier had people put pen to paper?---No, I did not.
PN1668
Did you make any inquiries about that with your delegate or with the organiser at the time?---No, I didn't. The issue I raised was that the people who were in attendance at the meeting, were they acceptable with that process. They were, hence they were opened by the delegate and counted.
PN1669
I see. I want to go back to Rockhampton for a moment. Are you aware of there having been a fresh vote or at least ballot papers delivered to employees quite recently, last week?---Rockhampton is serviced by our Queensland branch. I am not aware of the day to day issues there.
PN1670
You may not be aware of day to day issues, but has it been brought to your attention in the lead up to these proceedings that another vote was conducted at that site as recently as last week?---No, there wouldn't be a need to bring it to my attention.
PN1671
I see. During the lead up to the Rockhampton agreement being formulated, you have said hands off approach essentially from your end? You just relied on information from an unnamed organiser to submit to yourself?---The structure of our union is that the services is provided by the branches. That is why our union works so well.
PN1672
What I am trying to get a handle on, Mr Allan, is the source of your information. I understand what you have said, that you weren't involved face to face, as you say, with Bell or Vicke negotiating this agreement, but in your dealings with Kendell, did you deal with people at Kendell who brought to your attention the progress of negotiations at Rockhampton?---No. The North Queensland issues really hasn't been an issue I have been involved in. Sorry, apart from processing, if there was a claim served, it would be under my signature. If it was a processed enterprise agreement, that would be under my signature because I am the only authorised officer to do that.
PN1673
All right. I have told you about some of the evidence that Mr Vicke has given. I will explain to you that Mr Vicke has said that at the time this vote was conducted, his partnership had two employees and as I have already explained to you, one was his son, one was a Mr Bean. Mr Bean was employed by Ansett at the relevant date, in September last year and his son was employed by the partnership as well. Mr Vicke has also given evidence that neither of those two people were paid during the period between the vote and AGS actually taking over operations at Rockhampton airport.
PN1674
MR FARR: Your Honour, that is not the evidence as my recollection. My recollection was that he was unsure as to whether or not they were paid and that he was seeking upon your Honour's direction to find some documentation in relation to that.
PN1675
MS DOYLE: I actually understood the witness to have said they weren't paid, but there may be pay slips, but perhaps I have understood his distinction incorrectly there. Perhaps I can put it to the witness in another way. Mr Vicke is investigating whether or not he has any pay slips or pay records for those two people?---I have no knowledge.
PN1676
He also explained that one of the people I have mentioned, Mr Bean, ceased working for AGS the day before AGS actually started performing any operations at the airport. Again not something you are aware of?---No.
PN1677
Did Mr Smith indicate to you that this was a somewhat unorthodox agreement, that there were two employees proposed to be covered by it, but neither of them were actually doing anything relating to airport operations at the time of the vote?---In regards to the North Queensland issues, they are issues that Jeremy would have dealt with himself on a day to day basis and gave me a report at the end of it.
PN1678
What I am asking you is the content of the report. Did Mr Smith bring to your attention that this was unusual? I mean, it is unusual, Mr Allan. Two employees, none of whom are performing any work at an airport, let alone the one going to be covered by the agreement. Did he bring that to your attention?---No, that wasn't raised.
PN1679
Did he talk to you about how he had assured himself that these two employees had seen the document?---No, his briefing to me in regards to processing and processing the stat dec was this had been done, this had been followed and I followed what he said.
PN1680
But, Mr Allan, this is part of - if I can put it this way, this is part of a whole regional strategy on the part of Ansett and Kendell, right, and you have talked about what your union's in principle agreement was with Kendell. We will try and get up the same agreements in these airports as at Hobart, right? That was your overall approach, even though there might be local issues that differ from port to port. Is that a fair summary?---That is correct.
PN1681
When Mr Smith turns up with the stat dec and his briefing to you, telling you look let's sign, we'll take that up to the Commission, you weren't concerned to ask him about how this regional in-principle agreement is operating; you didn't say to him, well who are the two employees or what is this partnership like?---No, I had the utmost faith in Jeremy Smith, he was a damn fine legal officer.
PN1682
Have you looked at his files or records in relation to this agreement in preparation for coming here today to see what information he had?---Since Jeremy's resignation; no, there's never been a need to go back for me to look at his files.
PN1683
Not even to remind yourself of the name of the responsible organiser?---No.
PN1684
Are you able to make some inquiries this evening as to who was the organiser at Rockhampton at the time - well, I had better give you two dates, as at September and November last year?---Yes, I just left the Branch Secretary, he is on a plane to Brisbane, I will be able to get that information for you.
PN1685
And you haven't made any inquiries of the Queensland branch in the lead up to these proceedings, saying, look, what was the process, do you have any records as to how this progressed?---No, it hasn't been discussed between myself and the Queensland Branch Secretary.
PN1686
You were asked some questions about the transmission of business proceedings that the TWU originally commenced in the Federal Court. No need to go to them, but those initiating documents, the application and the statement of claim are attached to Ms White's affidavit. Now, they are dated 2 March 2000, so that is when that transmission of business proceeding was commenced?---Yes.
PN1687
Against Kendell and the Snares. Now, did you give, I assume you gave authority to Mr Smith to file that application and statement of claim in the Federal Court?---Yes, I would have.
PN1688
All right. Now, what has been the result of that application, has it been formally discontinued or have you just elected to play dead on it, if you like?---I would not know.
PN1689
You don't know?---No.
PN1690
Well, you've told Mr Duffin today that Mr Smith advised you it wouldn't get up in the Court, when did he give you that advice?---He gave me the advice. See the issue was, if I can clear it up, there is two different agendas. The TWU had an industrial agenda to rectify the situation which worked; and the ASU had another agenda of following through with transmission of business. And the advice that Jeremy gave m was it wouldn't get up, so we continued with our industrial agenda and got the matter resolved.
PN1691
You have just said the ASU had an agenda to follow through transmission of business, but it is an agenda that your union at least adopted for a period, and you filed your own Federal Court proceedings - - -?---Yes, we - - -
PN1692
- - - and you have just told us you ..... to do so?--- - - - we participated in it and when the advice was given that it wouldn't get up, we got out.
PN1693
Okay. So how long after Mr Smith filed the application and statement of claim did he reverse his advice to you, how long after it did he say we'd better pull out of this because it is not going to work?---I - I couldn't recall. I recall distinctly that Jeremy said it wouldn't get up so away we went and we went on with our own plan and resolved the issue.
PN1694
That advice was given to you after the Launceston agreement got up, right?---I do not recall the specific - I remember the specific advice that it wasn't worth - wasn't worth pursuing, it wouldn't get up.
PN1695
Did you discuss it with Mr Snare, when you were talking to Mr Snare about the agreement and your five local issues, did you discuss with him the transmission of business proceedings?---No. I - it was - the question was asked by Mr Snare as to what is happening with the transmission of business if I recall.
PN1696
Yes?---I told him the best thing he could do was to resolve the local issues, get them out of the way and let the members vote on the EBA which they did.
PN1697
Did you give Mr Snare an undertaking, did you tell him if we can resolve this, if I can get these five points I won't pursue the transmission of business proceedings?---I told him that the settlement of the issue would be a certification of the enterprise agreement, full stop.
PN1698
And when you say settlement of the issue, I take it that included this Federal Court litigation that ultimately has not been pursued?---No, I went clearly to Launceston on the 5th and the 13th to get a resolve to the enterprise agreement, that was the issue. I went there and that is the issue I got resolved.
PN1699
I asked you what was the content of your deal with Mr Snare and I am suggesting to you that it included a quid pro quo; he gives you these five things, what did the union give him, an undertaking not to pursue the transmission of business proceedings. Is that right?---No. The issue of transmission of business was discussed with Snare. I think at one stage his wife entered into the conversation, or his partner. And as I said I'd come there for a single purpose was to conclude the enterprise bargaining negotiations. As far as the transmission of business it wasn't an item on my agenda on the day.
[2.56pm]
PN1700
But you have agreed it was obvious to Snare's agenda and I am suggesting to you that you gave him some comfort. I mean, he gives you five things; what did you give him in return? I am suggesting it was an agreement not to pursue that litigation?---No. No, that wasn't the case. He raised the question of the transmission of business. I can't recall the exact conversation, but quite clearly I was there specifically to get a result to the enterprise agreement and I suggested his energies would be best in getting the local issues out of the way, reaching agreement with us on that and that was done, and hence the agreement got up by 12 votes to three.
PN1701
And hence the letter follows from Mr Snare?---That's correct. We'd asked him to - - -
PN1702
And hence you elect not to pursue your Federal Court proceedings?---The direction not to pursue the Federal Court proceeding was left to my legal officer who told me it wouldn't get up. So once he told me it wouldn't get up, I assumed that we were either discontinuing it or watching it go by. That's a matter that the legal officer handled. Not myself.
PN1703
Mr Allan, there is a question I have arising out of your union's award, Transport Workers' Union award, clause 20 of these classifications. I do not know if you have a copy of it, but I just want to clarify the content of one of the classifications. I might be able to hand a copy up to you. I just want you to jump ahead to clause 20, which deals with classifications and in particular have a look at 20.2.5. Can you see that classification there, it says, "Level 4, Airline Services Operator"?---That's correct.
PN1704
I am looking at the second bullet point, it says, ground handling involved and it defines ground handling equipment there?---Yes.
PN1705
Under that it says operate communication and computer aids. Can I just get your clarification on this. As far as your ground staff go the communication and computer aids they use, I assume, are things like walkie-talkies, but also entering information in relation to luggage on reports and things like that, is that right?---My airline industry delegates are much more computer literate than what I am. So I assume that they use all the facilities.
PN1706
Do they use radios when they're working out on the ramp?---I would assume so. I'm not really familiar with the day to day tasks.
PN1707
All right. Those ramp staff though, they do not do reservations or checking in of luggage or dealing with client queries at the counter?---With - at level 4, no.
PN1708
Just finally, the final dot point there says service ability and maintenance checks of vehicles, can I just clarify that. That would relate to all the vehicles that are used for getting the luggage out to the plane, tugs, all of that kind of thing?---Yes, all the - all the ramp equipment, yes.
PN1709
One final matter, Mr Allan, relating to the structure of the union. You have said a number of times that the delegates or the organisers in Queensland dealing with the agreement; you have talked about Mr Smith's role with the agreements. Just in terms of airlines themselves, who has the ultimate responsibility for organising airlines, nationally?---Me.
PN1710
And as part of that responsibility I assume that the organiser responsible for Rockhampton, the organiser responsible for Launceston, the organiser responsible for Hobart and airlines report to you about their dealings in those airports?---They certainly don't.
PN1711
Are they required to report to you?---No, they go through their branch secretary and the branch secretary reports to me.
PN1712
Those reports with the branch secretaries, how often do you receive those?---Sometimes quite often, sometimes not at all. In some occasions the branch secretary authorises the organiser to deal with me directly but generally speaking our structure is a tiered structure through the branch secretary.
PN1713
All right. But even occasion arises like that which arose with Mr Wilkes, if you get the work or a feel that a regional organiser is not doing or is not following a national strategy, you can of course bypass all of that and simply talk to them, can you not?---I don't. I talk to the branch secretary in the first instance on each and every occasion.
PN1714
All right, but in relation to Mr Wilkes, you did have occasion to speak to him personally, did you not?---There was an issue there in regards to Mr Wilkes and I suppose that was a sort of, you could say, an issue that lingered from the time that our Federal office administered the Tasmanian operation.
PN1715
I understand from what you say, you cannot be at every regional port and you cannot be responsible for everything that happens every day, but ultimately the region's report to the branches who report to you - - -?---Correct.
PN1716
- - - as far as organising airlines goes?---That's correct.
PN1717
I have no further questions for Mr Allan.
PN1718
PN1719
MR DUFFIN: I have only got a few little things. Just in relation to the last questions Ms Doyle was asking you in relation to Tasmania, there is something of a different relationship between Tasmania and the Federal office as compared to other branches, is that not correct?---That's correct.
PN1720
Now, just in relation to the matter that Ms Doyle asked you in relation to the classification structure in the award, you go back to that clause 20.2.5. I think Ms Doyle made it very clear that she was talking about ramp employees when she was talking about radios and tugs and the like. But that second dot point there at the level 4 talks about employees being capable - or that classification dealing with general transport operations, that would be a much wider classification than just ramp duties, wouldn't it?---I'm sorry, the question again?
PN1721
Sorry. Ms Doyle was referring to the ramp employees but you will notice in that second dot point at 20.2.5 that in actual fact it refers to ramp as one category. The other category as being freight, cargo, catering, aircraft servicing and general transport?---That's correct. That level 4 position goes right across all those areas, as per the classification structure.
PN1722
That is right and so the different areas would actually have different requirements as far as communication and computer aids all compiling reports and documents, would it not?---That's correct, through catering, cargo, freight.
PN1723
Okay. Now, just in relation to the transmission matters that Ms Doyle is raising in relation to your conversation with the Snares, did the Snares at any stage indicate whether they were referring to TWU transmission proceedings or the ASU transmission proceedings?---No, it was a general question as to the transmission of business. My normal response to that is that I'm not the technocrat of our organisation and the issue I come down to resolve was a direct industrial issue and we should get on the job and resolve.
PN1724
I have got no further questions, your Honour.
PN1725
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Allan, the Launceston agreement, the application for certification was filed by the TWU. The agreement was approved by the employees on 13 October 2000 but the application for certification was not filed until 29 November 2000 and therefore was out of time. Do you know why it was filed late?---I recall that we insisted from Snare at the time that he had to provide the written confirmation of the local arrangements, so we could present it up. That did cause a - probably a week or two delay before we received the correspondence, but no, I'm not aware of any reason for any other delay past that.
PN1726
And similarly the Rockhampton agreement was the application for certification in that regard was again filed by the TWU. That agreement was approved by the employees on 21 September 2000 but the application was not filed in the Commission for certification until 21 November 2000. Do you know why that was late?---Yes, without being critical of my Queensland branch secretary there is sometimes a log jam of paperwork coming from our Queensland branch to our federal office and that could be very well the delay.
[3.05pm]
PN1727
Which paperwork is that?---In regards to processing the agreement, signature, branch secretary sign off and so forth.
PN1728
But the agreement is signed by you, isn't it?---Yes, the agreement is signed by me but the policy with the Transport Workers Union is that the State branches negotiate the outcome of the agreement and it only comes across my desk when the branch secretary has approved it.
PN1729
Thank you. Anything arising out of that? You are excused, Mr Allan.
PN1730
MS DOYLE: Sorry, there was one question arising out of that.
PN1731
PN1732
MS DOYLE: When did the - who was the Queensland State Branch Manager at the time?---The Queensland State Branch Secretary, Hughie Williams.
PN1733
And when did you become aware that the secretary had approved the agreement?---That I can't help you with.
PN1734
Okay. And is that approval - how does the paperwork operate in the union, is that approval done on some sort of pro forma created by the TWU, yes, the Branch Secretary agrees or waiting for a phone call?---No, the process is that it goes to the Branch Secretary, he signs off on it. In - a number of our agreements are signed off by the Branch Secretary and countersigned by myself, or correspondence comes from the Branch, this agreement has been approved and will you please sign off and process it. And as I said, without being disrespectful to our Queensland branch, at times there is log jam in regards to the processing of paperwork and that could have been very much the delay that her Honour asked.
PN1735
So although it is not on the file you say there would exist somewhere a countersigned version of the agreement with the Branch Secretary's name on a piece of paper saying tick - - -?---No, no, I did not say that. I said in some cases our enterprise agreements have branch secretaries sign off and then countersigned by myself.
PN1736
But that didn't happen here?---No, if that didn't occur I would have either received correspondence from the branch secretary or the legal officer of the day would have been advised by the branch secretary to proceed with the document. We don't certify any agreement centrally without the authorisation of the Branch Secretary.
PN1737
That authorisation, are you able to overnight to check it with your Queensland Branch secretary as to whether or not they have a copy of the State Secretary's authorisation back last year?---Yes, I check with him as to whether that was verbal authorisation to Jeremy or whether it was written authorisation, but they have the say at the end of the day.
PN1738
All right. Well I would ask then that a search be made for that indication, thank you.
PN1739
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Anything, Mr Duffin.
PN1740
MR DUFFIN: No, your Honour.
PN1741
PN1742
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That completes the witnesses for the employers and the TWU?
PN1743
MR DUFFIN: That is correct, your Honour.
PN1744
MR FARR: That is correct, your Honour.
PN1745
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The only one left is Mr Dale?
PN1746
MS DOYLE: Mr Dale, we are going to be making enquiries with him after Court as to whether or not he anticipates he will be well enough to attend tomorrow. We want - we will tell Mr Farr and Mr Duffin as soon as we can the outcome of that. Regardless, if Mr Dale says he is not well enough to attend here tomorrow I know that puts us in a position where we may not be able to rely on his evidence. We will then be prepared to go straight into submissions if we need to, and we will let our friends know that as soon as possible so they are not left wondering about that.
PN1747
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well.
PN1748
MS DOYLE: Could I just raise the matter of searches that are being made by various witnesses for documents. I wonder whether or not Mr Vicke has yet indicated to Mr Farr the results of his searches on payslips, group certificates and Workcover documents, and if not we can expect to see those documents tomorrow.
PN1749
MR FARR: Your Honour, Mr Vicke - I spoke to Mr Vicke before coming to Court at lunchtime, he is still not back in Rockhampton. He is not flying back actually until tomorrow. He has rung his partner to undertake that search. Because there is only one partner there working rather than both they are a little stretched at the moment and they are trying to get it done today, if not he will endeavour to get it done tomorrow afternoon when he gets back to Rockhampton. His instructions to me was that he believed that there were some documents within their files that they would be able to locate for the Commission.
PN1750
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Doyle.
PN1751
MS DOYLE: Well obviously I would just ask that if those documents come to light if they are faxed to the offices overnight that perhaps they could be provided to my instructor, but otherwise I will make the same enquiry tomorrow. And we will obviously also liaise with the Commission, if necessary, if there is some matter arising about Mr Dale, but I would think that even if he is not here all the parties would expect to go into submissions tomorrow morning.
PN1752
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. I will adjourn this matter until 10.30 tomorrow morning.
ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 26 JULY 2001 [3.11pm]
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
DAVID WILLIAM SNARE, SWORN PN1142
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR FARR PN1142
EXHIBIT #C7 STATEMENT OF D.W. SNARE PN1222
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOYLE PN1225
EXHIBIT #D16 LETTER DATED 14 SEPTEMBER TO ALL EMPLOYEES SIGNED BY DAVID AND CAROLINE SNARE PN1330
EXHIBIT #D17 LETTER DATED 22 SEPTEMBER 2000 TO ALL STAFF SIGNED BY DAVID SNARE FOR D.W. AND C.L. SNARE PN1330
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR FARR PN1433
WITNESS WITHDREW PN1445
EXHIBIT #D18 AIRLINE OPERATIONS CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AWARD 1999 VARIATION DECISION PN1484
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FARR PN1487
WITNESS WITHDREW PN1494
ROBERT JOHN ALLAN, AFFIRMED PN1499
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DUFFIN PN1499
EXHIBIT #TWU6 STATEMENT OF R.J. ALLAN PN1507
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOYLE PN1548
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DUFFIN PN1719
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOYLE PN1732
WITNESS WITHDREW PN1742
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2001/1908.html