AG2001/1978, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 2462 (24 September 2001)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 10, MLC Court 15 Adelaide St BRISBANE Qld 4000
(PO Box 38 Roma St Brisbane Qld 4003) Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER HODDER

C2001/1978

L. WATERHOUSE AND M. EDWARDS

and

ANSETT AUSTRALIA

Application under section 170LW of the Act
for settlement of dispute re back pay of superannuation

BRISBANE

11.30 AM, TUESDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2001

Continued from 7.8.01

PN1144

THE COMMISSIONER: Are there any changes to the appearances?

PN1145

MS J. BIGNELL: Commissioner, I'd like to make an appearance, and I have with me MR D. BROWN.

PN1146

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Waterhouse and Ms Edwards, you are both here today; and Ms Moore, you are accompanied by MR RENNIE.

PN1147

MS MOORE: Yes, Commissioner.

PN1148

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. As the parties are aware, the purpose of today's proceedings was to endeavour to clarify the issue that has been raised insofar as allegations as to the appropriate and proper election of operational staff onto what has been described as a Monitoring Committee in accordance with clause 3.4(a) of Schedule 1 of an agreement which is in place at this particular workplace. Ms Bignell, you were asked to come here today because my understanding from what I have been told is that you might be able to shed some light on this. Essentially, that was the purpose of asking you to be here today.

PN1149

MS BIGNELL: Yes, I hope I can, Commissioner. I'm not quite sure how you would like to proceed. What I would - - -

PN1150

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you across this enough to be able to make any response at this stage, do you think?

PN1151

MS BIGNELL: I can certainly take you through a chronology.

PN1152

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that would be helpful if we start that way.

PN1153

MS BIGNELL: Sure.

PN1154

THE COMMISSIONER: You may or may not have seen - there's a copy of correspondence of 4 September which is a written submission under the hand of Leonie Waterhouse and Marj Edwards. I don't know if you've seen that or not, have you?

PN1155

MS BIGNELL: I have it in front of me.

PN1156

THE COMMISSIONER: Have you had an opportunity to read that?

PN1157

MS BIGNELL: I have not had an opportunity to read that.

PN1158

THE COMMISSIONER: Would you just like to read that before you start, and I'll read it as well because I've not read it yet either.

PN1159

What I would like to say, Ms Bignell, is that the Commission is not interested in getting into the internal politics of the ASU at the airport. It's not in the least interested in that. But the issues that came to this Commission regarded rosters, and that's been attended to. This seems to be the only outstanding matter and my only concern is that, if it was necessary for an election to be held, that it was held in an appropriate manner. That is proven. As far as I understand it, Ms Waterhouse and Ms Edwards say, "Well, that's the end of the penny section, so to speak, regarding the election of those people." And that's the case, Ms Waterhouse, isn't it?

PN1160

MS WATERHOUSE: Yes, Commissioner.

PN1161

THE COMMISSIONER: So all I want to do today is try and clarify that nominations were called, persons nominated and if sufficient or more than were sufficient for the purpose of the positions that were called for - the nominations were called for, that an election was held, and that election is capable of withstanding scrutiny. And if that can be achieved, well then, that will end this saga. So I just hope that assists you.

PN1162

MS BIGNELL: Thank you, Commissioner. Are you happy for me to take you through the chronology?

PN1163

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN1164

MS BIGNELL: Just before I do, just in relation to the submission that I've just read, if I could just record a couple of points for the record. The submission here at paragraph 5 states that the desired outcome for the staff is that the Monitoring Committee be formed in compliance with the agreement. I'm not actually sure on whose behalf the submission is made, but we would certainly have a view that if the Commission at the end of the hearing today is not satisfied in relation to what we've done with the part-time Monitoring Committee, then the process for forming the make-up of a Monitoring Committee that would replace it should certainly be endorsed by the staff in the first place and that that is a question that should be taken back to the staff as a whole, because I think that there is some question as to who is being represented.

PN1165

THE COMMISSIONER: That is sort of putting the cart before the horse a bit. At the end of the day, my only interest is whether the election was properly held in the first place.

PN1166

MS BIGNELL: Certainly.

PN1167

THE COMMISSIONER: And you can't overcome that. If it was, fine. If it wasn't, well, you're going to have to do something about recalling nominations.

PN1168

MS BIGNELL: Certainly. I'm just trying to establish a couple of points in relation to the submission. I know that it's a little bit back to front.

PN1169

THE COMMISSIONER: And your members will have a say, if it comes to that, by casting ballots, not by overriding a discrepancy in the balloting process. So I just want to disabuse you of that view.

PN1170

MS BIGNELL: The other point that I would make is that I think there is some confusion in the submission in relation to the delegate selection, and the monitoring committee, and I know what the Commission has said in relation to your views about that. But I would just like to, for the record, say that delegates who are currently on the part-time monitoring committee are there by virtue of being employees, not by virtue of being appointed by the union in their position as delegates. And the delegate selection that is now occurring at the airport would have nothing to do with the make-up of the committee, in our view. I guess, Commissioner, it might be easier - I know that you probably have quite a number of exhibits there. Given that I haven't been involved in the previous hearings, I wonder if I could seek your indulgence in just handing up the relevant pieces of correspondence - - -

PN1171

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. No, that's fine.

PN1172

MS BIGNELL: - - - in chronological order.

PN1173

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't believe there are any former exhibits tendered by the ASU. Okay. You will be starting with ASU exhibit 1, Ms Bignell, if you want to offer some documents.

PN1174

MS BIGNELL: The first exhibit that I have, Commissioner, is dated 14 June - - -

PN1175

THE COMMISSIONER: Of which year? 01? This year or last year?

PN1176

MS BIGNELL: Sorry, 14 June 2000. And they are the nominations for the monitoring committee for Ms Waterhouse and Ms Edwards.

PN1177

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be ASU exhibit 1.

EXHIBIT #ASU1 NOMINATIONS FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR MS WATERHOUSE AND MS EDWARDS DATED 14/06/2000

PN1178

MS BIGNELL: Well, I guess I might tend to drown people in the correspondence, Commissioner, but I think it's important that - - -

PN1179

THE COMMISSIONER: No, that's fine.

PN1180

MS BIGNELL: - - - the documentation be provided that I could find. So I note that at that point the applicants advised the union that they wished to nominate for the committee and engaged in some discussion about the process. The next exhibit that I have, if I may, note as ASU2, is dated 5 September 2000 and it's a copy of a letter to Ms Waterhouse - - -

PN1181

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have a bundle of documents there you could give my associate?

PN1182

MS BIGNELL: I do.

PN1183

THE COMMISSIONER: Save her getting up and down.

PN1184

MS BIGNELL: There's a few.

PN1185

THE COMMISSIONER: That will become ASU exhibit 2.

EXHIBIT #ASU2 LETTER TO MS WATERHOUSE FROM MARY ANN O'NEILL, ASSISTANT BRANCH SECRETARY, DATED 05/09/2000

PN1186

THE COMMISSIONER: And I'll mark the submission of Ms Waterhouse and Edwards as Waterhouse/Edwards exhibit 9.

EXHIBIT #WATERHOUSE/EDWARDS 9 SUBMISSION OF MS WATERHOUSE AND MS EDWARDS

PN1187

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that's exhibit 2. That's the correspondence of 5 September directed to Ms Waterhouse by the hand of Mary Ann O'Neill, Assistant Branch Secretary.

PN1188

MS BIGNELL: Commissioner, this is an invitation to Ms Waterhouse to join the group of nominees who have expressed an interest in the group to be on the part-time monitoring committee. At that time it's my understanding that the union was to conduct the election. We referred the matter back to the delegates' committee and the delegates' committee had a view that the part-time monitoring committee would best function as a group that was made up of two distinct groups which was a negotiating group and an expert advisory group.

PN1189

THE COMMISSIONER: Who empowered them to do that?

PN1190

MS BIGNELL: Commissioner, can I get to that because it's actually something that was subject to endorsement further on?

PN1191

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN1192

MS BIGNELL: So they were meeting to determine what they believed was the best way to set up the part-time monitoring committee at this stage but they did not have the authority to appoint people on to the committee. They were merely making a proposal is my understanding as to the formation of a committee and how it would best be structured.

PN1193

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you had two potential nominations on 14 June yet there was only one - am I correct in assuming that only Ms Waterhouse was invited to participate in the role of expert adviser?

PN1194

MS BIGNELL: I'm not sure about that, Commissioner. I haven't been able to find any correspondence to Ms Edwards about that at that time, but as I go through the chronology I think it will become clearer what happened.

PN1195

MRS EDWARDS: I can respond to that, Commissioner.

PN1196

THE COMMISSIONER: Just stand up thanks.

PN1197

MRS EDWARDS: Sorry. Ms Justo actually spoke to me. Early last year there were a number of stop-work meetings. At the second stop-work meeting a lot of the staff didn't want to participate. They approached me and I took it to a delegate who then spoke to management. We went up to the stop-work meeting and had our discussion. Anyway, at one point I was paid for that meeting but I was unaware of that and right after that Ms Justo did a time and wages inspection and discovered I'd been paid for that stop work meeting. And then she approached me and said that they'd taken my name out as a nominee to save me further embarrassment but that was since rectified and the money was deducted and I wasn't paid in the end but they took my name out as a nomination for that reason.

PN1198

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN1199

MS BIGNELL: So that's the letter of 5 September, Commissioner. I then have a letter dated 6 September 2000 to Ms Waterhouse - - -

PN1200

THE COMMISSIONER: That will become ASU exhibit - - -

PN1201

MS BIGNELL: I beg your pardon, it was from Ms Waterhouse to me.

PN1202

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. That's ASU exhibit 3.

EXHIBIT #ASU3 LETTER DATED 06/09/2000 FROM MRS WATERHOUSE TO MS BIGNELL

PN1203

MS BIGNELL: Around this time, Commissioner, I recall a number of phone discussions with Ms Waterhouse between myself and her in relation to a number of issues, one of the issues being a dispute regarding payment of fees to the union and the other being in relation to the set up of the committee and some difficulties that seem to be occurring amongst the part-timers and the full-timers at the airport and some issues in relation to superannuation and the other matters which I think have been dealt with in previous hearings here. This is a record of Ms Waterhouse expressing to me some concern about the process.

PN1204

THE COMMISSIONER: I have three copies of that letter. Was that intended?

PN1205

MS BIGNELL: I beg your pardon. One of those was for the employer and one is for the applicant and I've done the same thing with the other ones.

PN1206

THE COMMISSIONER: It might be the same with the others, is it?

PN1207

MS BIGNELL: Yes, it will be, Commissioner. The correspondence of 13 September from Ms Bignell to Ms Waterhouse will become ASU exhibit 4.

EXHIBIT #ASU4 CORRESPONDENCE DATED 13/09/2000 FROM MS BIGNELL TO MRS WATERHOUSE

PN1208

MS BIGNELL: And this correspondence, Commissioner, is a result of some further discussions that I had with Ms Waterhouse about the committee and states that an election would take place.

PN1209

THE COMMISSIONER: The next one?

PN1210

MS BIGNELL: The next letter is dated 19 September 2000.

PN1211

THE COMMISSIONER: That's ASU exhibit 5.

EXHIBIT #ASU5 LETTER DATED 19/09/2000 FROM MRS WATERHOUSE TO MS BIGNELL

PN1212

MS BIGNELL: That is a letter from Ms Waterhouse to myself in relation to the election which had been programmed to occur and it's my understanding that - well, much as what generally happens in election processes with people who want to be on committees is my understanding that there occurred some discussions amongst employees at the airport about who they should vote for and I think Ms Waterhouse was upset with some of that normal hurly burly of the election process.

PN1213

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1214

MS BIGNELL: And from recollection, Commissioner, there was a phone call that occurred between myself and Ms Waterhouse about that. The next exhibit is dated 20 September 2000. That is a letter from Ms Waterhouse to me.

PN1215

THE COMMISSIONER: That will become ASU exhibit 6.

EXHIBIT #ASU6 LETTER DATED 20/09/2000 FROM MRS WATERHOUSE TO MS BIGNELL

PN1216

MS BIGNELL: Most of that letter is about the national issues which were being dealt with by our national office. I've included it in the documentation because of the second last paragraph which confirms Ms Waterhouse's understanding that election is to occur and that the matter would be put to bed.

PN1217

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. That's ASU6.

PN1218

MS BIGNELL: Now, I'm aware of the meeting that took place on 25 September 2000.

PN1219

THE COMMISSIONER: A meeting?

PN1220

MS BIGNELL: A meeting of the delegates at the airport in relation to the make up and structure of the committee at which Ms Waterhouse and Ms Edwards attended and at that meeting it's my understanding that Ms Waterhouse and Ms Edwards agreed that they would be placed on the committee and that the committee would be made up of all of those who had expressed an interest in being on the committee and that therefore there was no need for an election. We therefore wrote on 26 September 2000 to Ansett and that's the next document.

PN1221

THE COMMISSIONER: That will become ASU exhibit 7.

EXHIBIT #ASU7 LETTER DATED 26/09/2000 FROM MS BIGNELL TO ANSETT

PN1222

MS BIGNELL: And in that letter we advised Ansett of the finalisation of the monitoring committee and advised that the structure would be made up of a negotiating group and an advisory group and that both Ms Edwards and Ms Waterhouse were on the advisory group, and it's my understanding that those two groups therefore constituted the total number of employees who had expressed an interest in being on the monitoring committee.

PN1223

THE COMMISSIONER: So that at least answers one question. There never was a ballot.

PN1224

MS BIGNELL: I'm getting to that, Commissioner.

PN1225

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN1226

MS BIGNELL: And the next letter that I have in documentation is from 27 September 2000.

PN1227

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be exhibit 8.

PN1228

MS BIGNELL: And that is a letter from Ms Waterhouse who stated that - - -

PN1229

THE COMMISSIONER: To yourself, was it?

PN1230

MS BIGNELL: I beg your pardon?

PN1231

THE COMMISSIONER: To yourself?

PN1232

MS BIGNELL: It's a letter to myself and to Ms Justo of the union.

EXHIBIT #ASU8 LETTER DATED 27/09/2000 FROM MRS WATERHOUSE TO MS BIGNELL AND MS JUSTO

PN1233

MS BIGNELL: And she there states that she has problems with an additional person who she believed had been invited on to the committee and raised questions about that.

PN1234

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1235

MS BIGNELL: The next letter I have is a letter in reply to Ms Waterhouse from myself dated 29 September 2000.

PN1236

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be ASU exhibit 9.

EXHIBIT #ASU9 LETTER FROM MS BIGNELL TO MS WATERHOUSE DATED 29/09/2000

PN1237

MS BIGNELL: And in that letter I stated to Ms Waterhouse that I had investigated her claims in relation to the additional employee, and assured her that I believed that she had been misinformed. I think at this stage, too, Commissioner - I'm not sure, but I don't think that there had been any discussions with management about the numbers of people on the committee.

PN1238

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1239

MS BIGNELL: I'll just mention that to you. The next document that I have is dated 3 October 2000 and it's a letter from Ms Waterhouse and Miss Edwards to me and Ms Justo at the union whereby they then withdrew their nominations on the monitoring committee.

PN1240

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. That will be ASU exhibit 10.

EXHIBIT #ASU10 LETTER FROM MS WATERHOUSE AND MISS EDWARDS TO MS BIGNELL AND MS JUSTO DATED 03/10/2000

PN1241

MS BIGNELL: The next letter that I have, Commissioner, is dated 4 October and it's a form letter from myself to ASU delegates at the airport.

PN1242

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be ASU exhibit 11.

EXHIBIT #ASU11 LETTER FROM MS BIGNELL TO ASU DELEGATES DATED 4 OCTOBER

PN1243

MS BIGNELL: And I note the correspondence from the applicants and I state that employees should be asked to endorse this structure and the make up of the committee. And it was my belief at the time, Commissioner, that if the employees met and determined that this is the way that they wanted the committee to operate then the requirements of the EBA would be met, but only if the make up and the structure was endorsed by the employees.

PN1244

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what did they agreement say, though, the structure had to be and how that was to be selected?

PN1245

MS BIGNELL: The structure - yes, I believe the structure could be determined by us.

PN1246

THE COMMISSIONER: Which clause was that at?

PN1247

MS BIGNELL: 3.4, Commissioner.

PN1248

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that agreement in evidence?

PN1249

MRS WATERHOUSE: Yes, Commissioner. For some reason - - -

PN1250

THE COMMISSIONER: It's probably attached to something, is it?

PN1251

MS JUSTO: If I may, Commissioner, it was attached to a letter from Leonie Waterhouse to Kevin Rennie dated 9 April. That was Ansett 3, and the agreement was Ansett 2.

PN1252

THE COMMISSIONER: Ansett 3, was it?

PN1253

MS JUSTO: Yes, Commissioner, and the agreement - - -

PN1254

THE COMMISSIONER: Ansett Australia Collected Bargaining Agreement. Is that the document we're talking about?

PN1255

MS JUSTO: Yes, Commissioner.

PN1256

MS BIGNELL: Yes, Commissioner.

PN1257

THE COMMISSIONER: And you say that the clause that - is 3.4.

PN1258

MS JUSTO: It's a part time heads of agreement.

PN1259

THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, that's the attachment, isn't it?

PN1260

MS BIGNELL: Yes.

PN1261

THE COMMISSIONER: The dysfunctional appendix? It's headed that, is it?

PN1262

MS BIGNELL: Yes, Commissioner. It's headed Ansett Australia, Australian Services Unions (Functional Appendix Agreement 2000).

PN1263

THE COMMISSIONER: Heads of Agreement. That's the Transport Workers Union.

PN1264

MS BIGNELL: It's actually Schedule 1.

PN1265

MS JUSTO: If I may, Commissioner, if you have a document with TWU on it, that is the - - -

PN1266

THE COMMISSIONER: I've got the collective agreement.

PN1267

MS JUSTO: Yes, you need the functional appendix, Commissioner.

PN1268

THE COMMISSIONER: I assume it's here somewhere. I'll just take that for now, thanks. Okay. So this document is the ASU functional appendix final draft 3 May 2000, so the final draft. So the draft then became the reality, did it? This has got without prejudice on it.

PN1269

MS BIGNELL: I'm not sure what that is that you've been given, Commissioner. I presume that that's the one, yes.

PN1270

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, can you show me what you've got. It might help. All right. This is the certified agreement, and I'm looking at page 2 of schedule 1. Ansett Australia, Australian Services Union of Australia, Part Time and Job Share Heads of Agreement. I don't know that.

PN1271

MS MOORE: That's the document you're looking at, Commissioner.

PN1272

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1273

MS MOORE: That's the one you need.

PN1274

THE COMMISSIONER: That's the one I have now. And you say it's at Clause 3.4.

PN1275

Structure. Committee will consist of equal numbers of elective operational staff including representation of both full time and part time staff groups and management. The union may conduct elections for the operational staff members of the committee.

PN1276

MS BIGNELL: That's the clause that I'm referring to, Commissioner.

PN1277

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't know that that says that you've got the right to determine the structure.

PN1278

MS BIGNELL: Well, it was our understanding, Commissioner, that the union may conduct an election if necessary. But the structure - it was my understanding that the structure needed to be organised at the local level between management and the union on behalf of the employees. I don't think that there was ever any rigid - sorry, I'm just getting some advice.

PN1279

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Okay.

PN1280

MS BIGNELL: Clause 3, that the beginning of that clause it says that the structure is to be determined locally. It's my understanding at that stage we had not actually had any discussions with management about the structure but we had determined to go away and find out - - -

PN1281

THE COMMISSIONER: Where do you find that, about the structure? Local monitoring committees - Clause 3.1:

PN1282

To effect this heads of agreement local monitoring committees will be established within each port or division.

PN1283

3.2 says:

PN1284

Each local monitoring committee's operation may vary by division. However, the purpose and structure of each committee shall remain consistent as follows: The purpose and function, overseeing -

PN1285

and so forth. Monitoring, review of sick leave trends, monitoring. It really doesn't - other than where it says:

PN1286

The committee will consist of equal numbers of elected operational staff including representation of both full time and part time staff groups and management.

PN1287

I would have thought that that meant that there needed to be a conscious decision made by both the union and the employees and Ansett about how many people are going to make up the structure.

PN1288

MS BIGNELL: Locally, yes, Commissioner.

PN1289

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, was that ever done?

PN1290

MS BIGNELL: I believe it was.

PN1291

THE COMMISSIONER: Well - - -

PN1292

MS BIGNELL: I'm going through the chronology. I can show you where I believe it was.

PN1293

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I want to see something that says the structure is going to be X.

PN1294

MS BIGNELL: Yes.

PN1295

THE COMMISSIONER: Otherwise we'll never get this resolved.

PN1296

MS BIGNELL: Almost at the end, Commissioner.

PN1297

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN1298

MS BIGNELL: So that was the letter of 4 October whereby I stated that I believed that the employees needed to endorse that. I also have a letter dated 4 October to both Ms Edwards and Ms Waterhouse. The first letter to Ms Edwards - - -

PN1299

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be ASU exhibit 12.

EXHIBIT #ASU12 LETTER TO MS EDWARDS AND MS WATERHOUSE DATED 4 OCTOBER

PN1300

MS BIGNELL: - - - whereby I wrote to Ms Edwards and noted that I had received a resignation of - I beg your pardon, a withdrawal of her nomination on her behalf by Ms Waterhouse and I had wanted to write the letter to confirm that in fact that was the case even though I didn't have her signature or anything from her specifically in relation to that. I also state that employees will be asked to endorse the structure and the make up of the committee and that if an election is necessary it would be conducted. I stated that given the withdraws it would be unlikely that that would be necessary because it was my understanding that people generally by word of mouth were happy that everyone who nominated be accommodated in the committee and we hadn't yet had discussions with management about the structure of the joint committee. The letter on 4 October 2000 to Ms Waterhouse - - -

PN1301

THE COMMISSIONER: That will become ASU exhibit 13.

EXHIBIT #ASU13 LETTER TO MS WATERHOUSE DATED 04/10/2000

PN1302

MS BIGNELL: - - - is similar although I have noted that I believed that at that stage Ms Waterhouse may have been under the impression that she needed to be a financial member of the union in order to nominate, and I refunded her some moneys that she had recently paid to us to become financial on the basis that I didn't want there to be any confusion arising about the relationship between union membership and membership of the committee. However, I noted her withdrawal from the committee. The next letter is dated 10 October.

PN1303

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be ASU exhibit 14.

EXHIBIT #ASU14 LETTER TO ANSETT DATED 10 OCTOBER

PN1304

MS BIGNELL: This is a letter to Ansett which sought that employees be released for meetings about the part-time monitoring committee and that we would be seeking their endorsement for the committee, and we noted that we would tell Ansett if we believed that there needed to be any further meetings of employees on the matter, if employees had rejected the proposal for the make-up and structure of the committee. Commissioner, the employees' meetings occurred on 11 October.

PN1305

THE COMMISSIONER: When you say employees' meetings, what do you mean?

PN1306

MS BIGNELL: I mean that management released employees, regardless of membership of the union, to attend a series of meetings that were structured over a period of time to allow the participation of people who were on different shifts, other wise it would not have been possible to have a meeting of everybody at the same time.

PN1307

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1308

MS BIGNELL: And I have with me Mr Brown, who conducted some of those meetings on behalf of the union if you need to ask him anything about that. From my recollection, Commissioner - - -

PN1309

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, no, I'm not really interested in that. I mean, my main concern is about whether an election was held.

PN1310

MS BIGNELL: From my recollection, Commissioner, I think that I attended the first meeting, and what was put to the employees was that the delegates had a proposal for the structure and make-up of the committee; that these individuals had all nominated and expressed an interest in the committee; and we sought the endorsement of those employees there for those people to be placed onto the committee. And that's what occurred. It's my understanding that there were no objections from any employees about the structure of the committee, and we therefore considered those employees to be endorsed by the employees as the representatives on the part-time monitoring committee.

PN1311

And the reason why we did that, Commissioner, was that we wanted to maximise the participation of those people who had expressed an interest. There was plenty of work to be done and we thought that was the best way to do it. I had never received any complaints from any employees in relation to the structure of the committee until much later, in relation to these proceedings. We then had some discussions with management about who their nominees would be. Management chose to only nominate, I think, three people at the time.

PN1312

We expressed a view that employees shouldn't be barred from participating on the committee just because management didn't want to nominate the same amount of employees, and we basically arrived at an understanding with management that the people that we had nominated would form our nominees on the committee and management would only have those people that they wanted to put on it, but that they didn't have a problem with the expanded nature of the committee. I'm afraid that's all I can give you, Commissioner.

PN1313

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Now, Ms Waterhouse, did you want to say anything before - I think we need to go into conference.

PN1314

MS WATERHOUSE: Yes, Commissioner, private conference would be good, thank you, if that's possible.

PN1315

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, all right. I'll adjourn into private conference.

OFF THE RECORD [12.12pm]

RESUMED [1.00pm]

PN1316

THE COMMISSIONER: The parties have met in private conference under the chairmanship of the Commission and the position reached now is the Commission intends to consider its position as propositions have arisen to the extent that the Commission may need to assess the views of the workforce about whom issues have been raised in relation to these proceedings. The parties are invited to put suggestions to the Commission as to the ways the Commission may communicate to the staff as to the current structure of the monitoring committee, and as to whether or not they are satisfied with the make-up of the committee to the extent that they would like to see such committee maintained in its current form, until such time as a new certified agreement is negotiated and certified; or whether they wish to see some changes made by way of potentially an election.

PN1317

Now, I don't know that I can say anything other than that, unless the parties wish to place something on the record. The Commission would, on receiving the advices from the parties, consider the format of a communique to the workforce which the Commission would ensure the parties saw before it was finalised, and the Commission would not issue anything to the workforce unless the Commission was satisfied that it was the appropriate time and circumstances to do so. So on that basis I'll adjourn these proceedings, and I'll give the parties leave to have this matter re-listed if that becomes further necessary. And I thank you for coming along today, Ms Bignell - - -

PN1318

MS BIGNELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1319

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - at the request of the Commission. On that basis I shall adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [1.02pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #ASU1 NOMINATIONS FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR MS WATERHOUSE AND MS EDWARDS DATED 14/06/2000 PN1178
EXHIBIT #ASU2 LETTER TO MS WATERHOUSE FROM MARY ANN O'NEILL, ASSISTANT BRANCH SECRETARY, DATED 05/09/2000 PN1186
EXHIBIT #WATERHOUSE/EDWARDS 9 SUBMISSION OF MS WATERHOUSE AND MS EDWARDS PN1187
EXHIBIT #ASU3 LETTER DATED 06/09/2000 FROM MRS WATERHOUSE TO MS BIGNELL PN1203
EXHIBIT #ASU4 CORRESPONDENCE DATED 13/09/2000 FROM MS BIGNELL TO MRS WATERHOUSE PN1208
EXHIBIT #ASU5 LETTER DATED 19/09/2000 FROM MRS WATERHOUSE TO MS BIGNELL PN1212
EXHIBIT #ASU6 LETTER DATED 20/09/2000 FROM MRS WATERHOUSE TO MS BIGNELL PN1216
EXHIBIT #ASU7 LETTER DATED 26/09/2000 FROM MS BIGNELL TO ANSETT PN1222
EXHIBIT #ASU8 LETTER DATED 27/09/2000 FROM MRS WATERHOUSE TO MS BIGNELL AND MS JUSTO PN1233
EXHIBIT #ASU9 LETTER FROM MS BIGNELL TO MS WATERHOUSE DATED 29/09/2000 PN1237
EXHIBIT #ASU10 LETTER FROM MS WATERHOUSE AND MISS EDWARDS TO MS BIGNELL AND MS JUSTO DATED 03/10/2000 PN1241
EXHIBIT #ASU11 LETTER FROM MS BIGNELL TO ASU DELEGATES DATED 4 OCTOBER PN1243
EXHIBIT #ASU12 LETTER TO MS EDWARDS AND MS WATERHOUSE DATED 4 OCTOBER PN1300
EXHIBIT #ASU13 LETTER TO MS WATERHOUSE DATED 04/10/2000 PN1302
EXHIBIT #ASU14 LETTER TO ANSETT DATED 10 OCTOBER PN1304