C2001/3337, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 2052 (23 August 2001)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LEARY

C2001/3337

FEDERAL MEAT (PROCESSING) AWARD 2000

Application pursuant to section 113 of the
Act by National Meat Association of Australia
to vary re safety net review

C2001/3338

FEDERAL MEAT (RETAIL AND WHOLESALE) AWARD 2000

Application pursuant to section 113 of the Act
by National Meat Association of Australia to vary
re safety net review

C2001/3339

FEDERAL MEAT (SMALLGOODS) AWARD 2000

Application pursuant to section 113 of the Act
by National Meat Association of Australia to vary
re safety net review

SYDNEY

9.45 AM, FRIDAY, 3 AUGUST 2001

Adjourned sine die

PN1

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Could I take appearances in these matters, please.

PN2

MR J. COONEY: If the Commission pleases, I appear for the AMIEU.

PN3

MR G.P. JOHNSTON: Deputy President, I appear in all three matters for the National Meat Association, the NMA.

PN4

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Cooney, do you have an order?

PN5

MR COONEY: I do, your Honour. I've just had the opportunity to discuss it with Mr Johnston prior and I think on the draft orders that have been forwarded to the Commission deals with both termed correction orders relating to the section 89A reviews and to the safety nets. In talking with Mr Johnston we've decided just to deal purely with the safety net matters initially.

PN6

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: To these three files.

PN7

MR COONEY: Yes, and then to follow on with the correction orders later.

PN8

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, that's fine.

PN9

MR COONEY: Your Honour, dealing first with the Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 1996, applications were forwarded to the Commission on about 29 May 2001 and they were faxed to the National Meat Association on 1 June 2001. The union is seeking the relevant pay increases according to the safety net decision PR002001 with an operative date from today's date being consistent with 12 month from the - - -

PN10

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That was well timed, wasn't it?

PN11

MR COONEY: Yes, your Honour, from the previous safety net increase of 2000. At clause 13.7 the union's made the relevant commitments to no further claims and your Honour we ask that as far as the processing goes that that be made from today's date. Your Honour, in regard to the Federal Meat Industry (Retail and Wholesale) Award and the Federal Meat Industry (Smallgoods) Award the union makes similar commitments which is contained in there as part of the applications required by the Full Bench and what the union would seek is an operative date of 21 June 2001 being 12 months from the 2000 safety net increases and the basis of that is that the applications starting this file on about 29 May 2001 and that the length of time in having the matter heard would cause some disadvantage to those employees working under the awards.

PN12

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are there people who will get actual increases from this or are most of them covered by them.

PN13

MR COONEY: There are a number of smallgood firms, there is one by the name of Primo here in Sydney. The union organisers of New South Wales branch has informed me that there is about $50,000 on his calculations and I think they employ round 550 to 600 people. There are a number of sites in Melbourne, Castle Bacon being one, and in regard to the retail award your Honour might recall from the section 89A reviews that the federal secretary of the union forwarded a statement to the Commission to the effect that there weren't many members of the union and that the majority of employment was in a incorporated company so the net effect being that those people would not have the advantage of making a certified agreement, they may have been able to make AWUs that was sort of problematic.

PN14

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We don't know do we what the issue is really.

PN15

MR COONEY: We don't know as has been stated previously the union doesn't have many members.

PN16

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The reason I ask is that I think my hands are tied by the safety net decision and I just didn't know whether there were people, except the fact that they were filed in June and it has taken some while to get them listed and there's some responsibility I suppose on the Commission's part for that but I'll hear what Mr Johnson has to say and we can deal with that. You don't need to say anything else about those do you.

PN17

MR COONEY: No, your Honour.

PN18

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, thank you. Mr Johnson, perhaps we could deal with the processing one first, is there no problem with that?

PN19

MR JOHNSON: There's no problem with that. I'm looking at the draft order which has been - - -

PN20

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The one that's attached to the application?

PN21

MR JOHNSON: Yes, that's the one I'm going off, that's the one here where it has got classifications 14.1 weekly wage rates and then underneath that employee classification level and next to that award rate per week that will say, in our submission, first pay period on or after 3.8.2001. There are no problems with the rates that appear there. In paragraph 2, I think the paragraph reference should be 14.5 and not 15.6.

PN22

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's under the new award.

PN23

MR JOHNSON: The Safety Net Review - May 2001. I don't say anything else about that

PN24

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That will come up when the order goes through anyway it will show what should be the correct clause number.

PN25

MR JOHNSON: In relation to the smallgoods and the retail applications we did some time ago inform the union and we informed them again on 25 July by way of a facsimile which was also sent to the Commission in relation to the retail and the smallgoods award it had to be from the date of the variation to the award. So if that is so, if we go to the smallgoods draft order, there is no need for columns 1, 2 and 3 in the draft order because they are in the past, because the first column, the second column, the second column says 13 2001, and third column is 1.6.2001, it is only the last column that is relevant it should say, in our submission, first pay period on or after today's date and the rates appearing in those six levels are correct.

PN26

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you aware whether there would be any or many employees who would pick up the actual increase.

PN27

MR JOHNSON: I hear what my friend says in relation to Primo, I don't know. I hear what my friend says in relation to Castlemaine Bacon in Victoria and from my knowledge of that company because I deal with them specifically when matters arise they're on over award payments.

PN28

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So it may be that any increase is absorbed into the over award payments.

PN29

MR JOHNSTON: Yes, in relation to that company. So that's in relation to small goods in our submission. In relation to retail it's much the same, in our submission, in the draft order that's been provided to date, in other words there's three columns that are there in that draft order, the second column is not relevant because it's the first of the third, 2001, and it's only the third column that's relevant and it should state as well "first pay period on or after today's date" because of the safety net principle.

PN30

Now I should say in relation to retail, I was going to raise this anyway, and the comments I make are relevant to small goods as well. You've had a situation where over the last eight months the relevant rate for a tradesman in these particular awards has gone up $70 because of the minimum rate's adjustment. In the retail award 12 months ago, the rate was $430. It's now $507. We're talking in the retail sector about employers whose margin because of the prices that are being paid for wholesale meat, the margin is very thin and yet you're talking about wage increases that are $70 a week for one employee.

PN31

Our members just cannot afford to have any rate set prior to today's rate. We haven't advised our members to set aside rates from June or the start of July. We have advised them that the hearing is on today. We will advise them this afternoon of whatever the operative date is, but they just can't afford it. Now I understand from the principals that there could be applications made to the President for a staggered increase of the safety net. We're not making that application. We're simply stating in relation to the principals that all three awards, that when they are varied, should be first pay period on or after today.

PN32

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: My view is that under principle 8 that it's the date that the award is varied and I don't have much leeway.

PN33

MR JOHNSTON: No, but I just wanted to make the points as to why the - - -

PN34

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, my only concern is that there may be employees who are disadvantaged and I guess it depends on the interpretation of disadvantage. If they've received a $70 increase recently, which I'm familiar with, they've argued that they're not disadvantaged but then again if the applications had have been listed within a couple of weeks of being lodged, I suppose there would have been no opposition from the employers to pay the increase.

PN35

MR JOHNSTON: Well, we couldn't but - - -

PN36

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, that's right.

PN37

MR JOHNSTON: But I didn't see, and this is said with the greatest of respect, I didn't see any document from the applicant that said we want these matters dealt with as soon as possible or we want these matters dealt with wherever.

PN38

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but the difficulty with any subsequent variations is the Commission gets swamped after the decision is handed down and it's impossible obviously to deal with all of them, but that's another issue. I guess all I would be asking is that provided no-one is seriously disadvantaged and by that I mean that they haven't had an increase over the period of the 12 months.

PN39

MR COONEY: Can I just say in regard to the increases after the last year and a half, those increases, and I would have to say this, your Honour, to the extent the fault of the union being available ten years previously - - -

PN40

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, you had better be careful what you say.

PN41

MR COONEY: Also, just in regard to the principles, the Full Bench had envisaged this year that albeit by agreement between the parties that the 12 month waiting period would have been weighed.

PN42

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And at no cost.

PN43

MR COONEY: So there was some, we would submit, concept that - - -

PN44

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That was to catch up on all of those awards where parties, I won't blame one or the other, had not filed for the increases and, because of the 12 month requirement, some people were not getting their 1999 increase until about 2007. It was ridiculous.

PN45

MR COONEY: I think is about the sixth in the run of safety net adjustments, and I suppose for one reason or another the time lags do tend to drag out.

PN46

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's right.

PN47

MR COONEY: But again, the submission of the union is that if the Full Bench had foreseen that, then, we would argue well, to an extent, that falls into that bracket because of the proviso that it was by agreement between the parties.

PN48

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, and that there's no additional cost. All I would ask is, and I don't know whether it's possible, but any employee who hasn't had an increase over the last 12 months who will miss out between June and August on the safety net increase, but if they have received other increases it's not relevant and Mr Johnston can make some inquiries. I don't know how it's going to be discovered, but I would hate to think that some employees are disadvantaged, but I have no authority or power to order that it be done, it would just be a recommendation.

PN49

On that basis the Federal Meat Industry Processing Award will be varied by consent in accord with the draft order attached to the application. The rates have been checked and are agreed and the award will be varied to take effect from the first pay period on or after today's date. Likewise, the Federal Meat Industry Small Goods Award and the Federal Meat Industry Retail and Wholesale Award will be varied in accord with the draft orders other than there will only be the one column necessary and the operative date will be 3 August 2001. In each case those rates have also been checked and agreed and orders will issue in due course in respect to those matters.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.00am]