C2288/097, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 2555 (2 October 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

COMMISSIONER JONES

C No 22880 of 1997
C No 23710 of 1997
C No 23711 of 1997
C No 23712 of 1997

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND
ENERGY UNION AWARD 1997

Application by the CFMEU to vary various
ordinary awards in regard to ordinary time
earnings and superannuation for settlement
of orders

SYDNEY

2.37 PM, MONDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2001

Continued from 9.4.01

PN516

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, may I have appearances, please?

PN517

MR S. MAXWELL: If the Commission pleases, I appear on behalf of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.

PN518

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Maxwell.

PN519

MR D. MURRAY: If the Commission pleases, from the Master Builders Association of New South Wales. I also appear on behalf of Leichman Associations in Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and the ACT together with the Newcastle Master Builders if the Commission pleases.

PN520

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Murray.

PN521

MR H. VALE: If the Commission pleases, of the Civil Contractors Federation, and also, Commissioner, I would like to mention the matter on behalf of Mr Irving - sorry Mr Irving Warren BISCO

PN522

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thanks so much, Mr Vale.

PN523

MR S. SHERMAN: If the Commission pleases, from the Australian Industry.

PN524

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Sherman.

PN525

MR M. FLETCHER: If the Commission pleases appearing on behalf of Members of Australian Business Industrial, the respondent to the award.

PN526

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Fletcher. Yes, Mr Maxwell?

PN527

MR MAXWELL: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, since your decision was handed down on 30 July, this year, the union wrote to the employers on 2 August in which we attached revised draft orders to reflect your decision. Commissioner, I seek to tender a copy of that covering letter and the draft orders with the respective awards which accompanied that correspondence.

PN528

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Maxwell.

PN529

MR MAXWELL: Commissioner, as can be seen from the draft orders in each one of them, the draft order seeks to delete the paragraph that deals with the definition of ordinary time earnings and insert a new paragraph which, if I can use that exemplar, the National Building and Construction Industry Award 2000, adds the words, "Fares and travel patterns allowance (as contained in 38.1, 38.2, 38.3, 38.6.2, 38.7, 38.12 and 38.13.1)" They were the additional words that the union sought to insert into the definitions clause in that award and similar provisions were inserted into the respective paragraphs of the other awards.

PN530

Now, Commissioner, the union as can be seen from the correspondence from the union, we did indicate that - if the parties could indicate their agreement with the draft orders as soon as possible, so that the union can comply with requirements of paragraph 1 to 34 of the decision. Commissioner, on 24 August, of this year, the union finally got some response from the employer organisations that the first piece of correspondence was from the Master Builders Association of New South Wales, Mr Daniel Murray, in which they indicated that they believe that the draft orders that we produced were wider in that scope than your decision would justify.

PN531

They also attached their version of the draft orders by way of response. Commissioner, I will not seek to tender a copy of that, I will leave that up to the MBA to do, however, I will point out that it appears that the difference between the parties or between those parties and the union represented by the Master Builders Association that appears in the correspondence, was that they sought to include - if we use the example of the National Building and Construction Industry Award 2000, after the numbered clauses were mentioned they also sought to add the words, "Paid for days where ordinary time is worked", and that is - what I can gather is the only difference between the orders - draft orders provided by the union and those sent to the union by the MBA. Commissioner, our decision is that we believe that those additional words proposed by the MBA are unnecessary and superfluous because if you read the beginning of the definition from the union's draft order, and it states:

PN532

That ordinary time earnings means the actual ordinary rate of pay the employee receives for ordinary hours of work.

PN533

So that is already mentioned quite freely up front, that the allowances referred to below are only included where they are paid for ordinary hours of work, and that makes it - it is quite specific at the end of the paragraph. And to add - - -

PN534

THE COMMISSIONER: Is it work or worked? Workers from memory?

PN535

MR MAXWELL: What it says to me is that actual ordinary rates of pay the employee receives for ordinary hours of work.

PN536

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay.

PN537

MR MAXWELL: So they would have to have worked the ordinary hours to receive any payment. So we believe that the addition of the words:

PN538

Paid for days where ordinary time is worked.

PN539

Is just doubling up on the verbiage and is unnecessary. If I can deal with the correspondence from the Housing Industry Association, who I note are here today, we received a piece of correspondence from Mr Parubotchy and in that correspondence, I will just quote - it is fairly brief and short:

PN540

On behalf of the HIA and respondent members to the abovementioned awards we maintain that the orders as drafted do not reflect the conclusions reached. As drafted may change the current notional earnings base and are new uncertainty. The result and effect of the wording does not create the correct notional earnings base. In all other respects we rely on previously made submissions.

PN541

And that was the extent of their correspondence. There was no draft orders attached or reference to say that they agreed with the draft orders provided by the MBA.

PN542

THE COMMISSIONER: But when they are talking about previous correspondence, they came back to a pre-decision?

PN543

MR MAXWELL: Well, I would believe so, Commissioner. I am not sure where Mr Parubotchy was coming to when he wrote that letter, or coming from, when he wrote that letter, and it is not clear at all what he actually means, and as stated he provided no alternative wording for the draft orders and we definitely do not agree with his assumptions that the draft orders that we produced give effect to your conclusions reached, and in doing so, Commissioner, I just refer briefly to your decision. In paragraph 15 on page 5 of the decision where it dealt with a claim, it said that,

PN544

The union's claim is for the variation of definition of orders on earnings as contained ...(reads)... and in paragraphs 1(1)(a) and in 38.13.2.

PN545

However, then on paragraph 20 on page 6, where you deal with the final responses from the union, it points out that the union's submissions were that it was incorrect to say that the union's objective is flawed. The union is not seeking greater quantum - sorry - Commissioner, I will take that back. You go on at the last dot point on page 6:

PN546

For determination ease the union only seeks an inclusion of a standard day's payment.

PN547
That is reference to PN129 of the transcript:

PN548

In most cases transfers during working hours will be treated as part of OTE. Revised union draft orders are provided to this effect.

PN549

Then on paragraph 133 of your decision at the end of the line, it says:

PN550

I am there - I therefore am prepared to grant the union's claim.

PN551

And in paragraph 134 you impress that the union prepare draft orders to effect the conclusions you have reached. Now, Commissioner, we believe that the draft orders we prepared did reflect the conclusions you reached. That we have limited the application of what is to be included as part of ordinary time earnings, especially in regard to the National Building and Construction Industry Award by including specific reference to those subclauses of the fares and travel patterns allowance clause which should be included as part of ordinary time earnings.

PN552

The paragraph that we seek to insert relies heavily on the existing paragraph already contained in those award and I know that there has not been a problem with the existing paragraph in the awards in terms of the reference to ordinary hours of work for the last four or five years, since this definition has been in the award. So, therefore, Commissioner, we believe that the Commission should issue the orders as submitted by the union here today, as a true reflection of your decision. If the Commission pleases.

PN553

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Go on.

PN554

MR MURRAY: Yes, Commissioner. Mr Maxwell has outlined to you the correspondence sent by the union to the employer, of dissidence, and also has given you an outline of correspondence prepared by myself on behalf of the various Master Builders Associations for whom I appear today, together with the Civil Contractors Federation and those parties represented by BISCO. I might tender a copy of that correspondence.

PN555

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thanks. I do not know where we up to in concern to the exhibits. I have lost track. I do not think I have - I have got difficulty in finding the exhibit - I think there is one marked M. No, there is no M, so I think it is M1.

PN556

MR MURRAY: And, Commissioner, if I may, the letter handed up by Mr Maxwell, I do not know that that was given an exhibit identity, either.

PN557

THE COMMISSIONER: No?

PN558

MR MURRAY: Might I suggest that it could be done, so that we have something to refer to?

PN559

THE COMMISSIONER: You do not know - okay, we will mark that - I cannot make it M, can I? I will mark it C1.

PN560

MR MURRAY: Now, if I could take you to the second page perhaps. Mr Maxwell was talking about the proposed clause for the National Building and Construction Industry Award. The second page of exhibit M1, the document I have just handed to you, is the - - -

PN561

THE COMMISSIONER: I will have to start doing what I have said. There is a M1 exhibit which is a copy of a press release. Make it M2. Sorry. I can mark your exhibit, Mr Maxwell, B14. Right, now we are right.

EXHIBIT #M1 CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN UNION, CIVIL CONTRACTORS FEDERATION AND OTHERS

EXHIBIT #B14 CFMEU DRAFT ORDER HANDED UP BY MR MAXWELL

PN562

MR MURRAY: Now, Commissioner, the second page of exhibit M2 is the draft order prepared on behalf of the various employers named on the first page. And the principal difference between that draft order and the draft order prepared by the union in respect of the National Building and Construction Industry Award is that the employer draft order makes clear a distinction between ordinary rate of pay and various allowances and the fares and travel allowance, and also makes it very clear that the fares and travel allowance to be included for the purposes of superannuation, is that to be paid for days where ordinary time is worked, and the wording is as follows, if I may read. The additional wording is:

PN563

Together with those fares and allowances as contained in clause 38.1, 38.2, 38.3, 38.6.2, 38.7, 38.12 and 38.13.1, paid for days where ordinary time is worked, where applicable.

PN564

Now, the reasoning for that is two-fold, Commissioner. One is if we go to your decision, it is very clear as we proceed through the decision, that the decision is based upon, in large part, a consideration of the information provided by the Australian Tax Office. If I could point for example to paragraph 34, the final sentence:

PN565

The ATO explanation goes to the nub of the issue before the Commission.

PN566

And if I could go to page 13, paragraph 65, at the bottom of the page there is a quote from the ATO:

PN567

For example, an allowance paid to compensate an employee for having to report to a different site each day, paid every day of the week, but only for the OTE, only where paid in respect of, say, five days ordinary hours.

PN568

Further, at paragraph 118 of your decision, the third bullet point at paragraph - approximately half-way down:

PN569

If the day worked contains ordinary hours, the whole allowance forms part of OTE.

PN570

And it is that that the wording we propose is intended to identify, to make that very very clear because, of course, clauses 38.1 etcetera provide for for an allowance paid on any day when work is performed, whereas your decision makes it clear, if I may, your decision makes it clear that what you had in mind, Commissioner, was that part of the allowance, or those allowances paid on days when ordinary hours are worked.

PN571

Now, Mr Maxwell has said that perhaps the words are superfluous in light of the opening part of his draft order, or the CFMEU new draft order, contained in exhibit B14. But I would submit that there is a distinction between ordinary rate of pay and various allowances paid on a per hour basis, such as the industry allowance, tool allowance, those sorts of things, and the daily fares allowance, and it is that distinction, together with the need for clarity as to which part is the foundation for the words proposed, or the additional words proposed, by the employers on whose behalf I appear and on whose behalf I wrote the letter and draft order in exhibit M2.

PN572

It does not change, apart from that, any of the sense of your decision and, in my submission, gives clearer expression to your decision, if the Commission pleases. For that reason, we request that these words are not superfluous. They are required and our position is that the order ought to contain them. If the Commission pleases.

PN573

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, in the unions - and indeed, yours, at the beginning of it - the first line - the second line, say "proceeds for any hours of work", could we put "worked time" in there, would that make a difference? I am just doing this myself, because this is the first time I have heard from the parties they have got difficulties.

PN574

MR MURRAY: Well, Commissioner, the reason why I have identified it in the way I have is that there are certain things which are paid on a per hour basis and hourly rate of pay, and then also the hourly increment, the tool allowance, industry allowance, etcetera. But the fares allowance set out in clause 38 and various parts that are identified there, that is a different thing. That is paid on a per day. It is not always paid, but it is paid on a per day basis rather than a per hour basis. It is a different type of entitlement and ought therefore to be identified differently, because of its different nature.

PN575

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN576

MR MURRAY: I have also sought in the same time to make it clear that it is only that allowance paid on days when ordinary time is worked, following the wording of your decision, that should be included - not, for example, a fares allowance paid on a Saturday where no ordinary hours of work are performed. And that is the reason for separating it and identifying very clearly that it is those fares and travel allowances paid for days when ordinary time is worked. Does that answer you?

PN577

THE COMMISSIONER: What about a person who may have Saturday, because of an enterprise agreement or anything like that, may have a Saturday or a Sunday as his ordinary time because he is only working certain days of the week. I do not know of any off hand but I am just looking at that side of it.

PN578

MR MURRAY: Well, Commissioner, I would suggest that the answer to that is perhaps twofold. One, that enterprise agreements, of course, are not really part of what we are here to do.

PN579

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I realise that.

PN580

MR MURRAY: But of course if an enterprise agreement defines Saturday to be an ordinary day of work well, then that would be a day on which ordinary hours were performed and then therefore presumably the fares allowance paid on that day would be payable if that was the provision of that enterprise agreement.

PN581

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Okay, I think I understand where you are coming from.

PN582

MR MURRAY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN583

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Vale.

PN584

MR VALE: We support the submission of the Master Builders Association, Commissioner.

PN585

THE COMMISSIONER: And BISCO?

PN586

MR VALE: And on behalf of BISCO.

PN587

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. AIG?

PN588

MR SHERMAN: Commissioner, we also support the view put forward by the Master Builders.

PN589

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Fletcher?

PN590

MR FLETCHER: Yes, Commissioner, we also support the view put forward by the Master Builders Association.

PN591

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, we have got a unanimous view from the other table except for HIA who is still in limbo from what that letter - I cannot make head nor tail of it. Okay, I have not got the letter in front of me but on what you have put to me I cannot make head nor tail of which way they are coming from. They seem to be coming at a different angle to the other members at the table, the other parties at the table. Do you know where they are coming from, anyone?

PN592

MR MURRAY: Commissioner, Mr Maxwell has the advantage of all of us. I have not seen the letter he has referred to.

PN593

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, well, I am just asking if you have seen it.

PN594

MR MURRAY: We did have the HIA attend meetings to discuss what I have put to you today and they reserve their position. I can say no more than that.

PN595

THE COMMISSIONER: They do not seem to be saying what I think you are saying though, do they?

PN596

MR MURRAY: Well, they did not instruct me to appear for them nor did they instruct me to write on their behalf.

PN597

THE COMMISSIONER: I would like to know why they are not here then.

PN598

MR MURRAY: I cannot answer that, Commissioner.

PN599

THE COMMISSIONER: I am making a bald statement but I would like to know why they are not here. You know, we have been right through it. They are trying to appeal against me at one stage which I do not deprive - because it is everybody's entitlement. I try again and they do not appear here when they have got some objection. This is where I get peeved. I do not mind parties coming before me and raising objections as long as they are prepared to do it themselves. They knew this matter was on today.

PN600

I am not casting aspersions on anybody at the bar table, I just get upset when parties puddle through with things and all of a sudden at the death knell, when they try to put a position they do not turn up. I am not the only Commissioner that is getting upset either, quite frankly, to the parties at the table. It is becoming a topic of discussions amongst the Commission members right now. But be that as it may, Mr Maxwell, do you think you could clarify from HIH what they are trying to get at and, if need be, they can come down here and tell me.

PN601

MR MAXWELL: Well, Commissioner, in my dealings with Mr Parubotchy I must admit that I have had problems understanding what he has been on about ninety per cent of the time and so I do not find his correspondence unusual to that extent. I also have made a comment previously in this Commissioner that I think Mr Parubotchy's knowledge and understanding of the ways in which this Commission operates are not as I believe they should be for someone who appears before the Commission or who seeks to appear before the Commission on a regular basis.

PN602

He may have had dealings with the State Commission but, given his lack of knowledge between the rights of the respondent and registered employer organisation compared to those that are not registered is an indication of what some may see and what I believe to be a lack of expertise in this area. Commissioner, I can seek to contact Mr Parubotchy and ask him what his views are and then ask that he relay them directly to the Commission.

PN603

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think that if he has got a view that is different certainly from the one that is being put to me at the other end of the bar table, and it seems to be leaning that way, then he should be prepared to appear with you and argue the matter openly in front of me, if he has got a different view.

PN604

MR MAXWELL: I agree wholeheartedly, Commissioner.

PN605

THE COMMISSIONER: I have got a rather limited timetable between now and October in which I can fit the parties in if, indeed, you wanted a decision before October. I am prepared to give a decision before 3 October on the basis of what has been put to me but if I get a different argument from HIA I will have to consider that as well.

PN606

MR MAXWELL: Well, Commissioner, my understanding is on the basis of Mr Parubotchy's correspondence although he has sent it to the union. Sorry, it also states that he sent it to yourself.

PN607

THE COMMISSIONER: I have not got it.

PN608

MR MAXWELL: And to Mr Irving Warren, Hollis Vale, Scott Sherman, Mark Fletcher and Barry Harridge. Whether those parties have received it or not, I suppose, is another matter.

PN609

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I would be careful. From what Mr Murray has said about it, from the other parties, he have not received it either.

PN610

MR MURRAY: I do not think I am one of those named.

PN611

MR MAXWELL: No. The MBA is not named actually, Commissioner.

PN612

MR VALE: Commissioner, I would like to place on record that we have not received a copy.

PN613

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, we have not received it either.

PN614

MR MAXWELL: Well, Commissioner, the fax number here that is mentioned is 02-93806990 but I will leave it there, Commissioner. I mean, if they have not ensured that it has been sent to the Commission and they have not bothered to turn up in the proceedings here today, it would be my submission that given the importance of the issue and the time delay in these whole proceedings we believe that Mr Parubotchy must have been aware of these proceedings.

PN615

They have had some discussions with the other employer parties in regard to other matters regarding this and, in particular, I suppose, their discussion on whether or not they will appeal your decision. That is obviously a matter for them to decide. Because of the delay and there is an expectation out there in the industry that this matter is somewhat now resolved subject to any appeal proceedings, it is our belief that it will be in the interests of all parties if an order was issued as soon as possible and we would suggest that the Commission should act on the submissions made here today rather than waiting for any other submissions from the Housing Industry Association given that they have decided not to appear here today.

PN616

They have not informed any of the parties nor the Commission of their inability to attend the proceedings here today. Commissioner, I would like to very briefly respond to the submissions of Mr Murray in that he put up this straw argument that fares and travel allowance was different from allowances such as the Industry and Tool Allowance and that it was paid on a daily basis and I think he was intending to say that the Industry Allowance and Tool Allowance are part of the ordinary hourly rate of pay. However, we point out that it could also be said that the qualification allowances that are already contained in the award are paid either on a daily or hourly basis so they can be paid during the week Monday to Friday or they could be paid on overtime at the weekends.

PN617

The same can be said for the multi-storey allowance. Again, that allowance is paid for hours worked so it would apply when ordinary hours are worked and it would apply when overtime hours are worked. The same is in regard to award site allowances. So there is nothing different in regard to the 1000 travel allowance from other allowances that are already contained in the definition of ordinary time earnings. I would point out that the definition does talk about ordinary time earnings and I think that the majority of people in our industry would recognise the ordinary time earnings normally means that amount of money that you receive when ordinary hours of work are worked.

PN618

It is the money that relates that you receive for those ordinary hours of work and we believe that the opening of the paragraph makes it quite clear that ordinary time earnings means the actual ordinary rates of pay the employee receives. So, it is not something that they may be entitled to but which they do not receive because let us say they are provided with a vehicle, it is something that they actually receive in their pay packet and which is identified in their pay packet but by way that the pay details required under the award and it is for ordinary hours of work so it is quite specific at the front.

PN619

It is only talking about those earnings received for ordinary hours of work. So, to include the words later on paid for days where ordinary time is worked it is a duplication. It is quite clearly duplication. It is a duplication that is unnecessary and I would have thought that after having gone through the torturous path of award simplification that the parties - well, some of the parties that are in this room - some of the others, I understand Mr Murray didn't play a major role in the award simplification. He escaped that luxury, I suppose.

PN620

But after going through that process and still going through that process with a number of the awards that are included in these proceedings before you, such as the Roof, Slaters and Tilers (Victoria) Award, the Building and Construction Industry (ACT) Award, and the National Joinery Award, they are still to be finalised in the award simplification process which is trying to make awards clear and concise, in plain English, and to remove unnecessary verbiage. We believe that what the employers are seeking to do, with the addition of the words that they have included, go as against the whole intention of award simplification to some extent.

PN621

So, Commissioner, we would stress that we believe that the Commission should disregard the submissions or the additional wording sought by the employers as being unnecessary verbiage and that the Commission should decide on the draft order submitted by the union and that given the expectations in the industry that this matter is now virtually resolved, subject to appeal, that the Commission should make the orders forthwith and disregard the correspondence received from the HIA given their lack of attendance at the hearing here today. If the Commission pleases.

PN622

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, thank you. Well, do you want to say anything further on this, bearing in mind I have given Mr Maxwell a chance to come back?

PN623

MR MURRAY: It would seem that Mr Maxwell's pressing of this matter be resolved in respect of the HIA's absence, I really have nothing to say on my instructions at that point.

PN624

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I do not - just on the actual wording itself, that is all I am asking for. Is there anything further?

PN625

MR MURRAY: Yes, in terms of the actual wording. We do press but we have two different sorts of figures. We have the ordinary rate of pay and various allowances paid on an hourly rate, 38 hours of which makes up ordinary rates of pay. We then have quite separately to that an amount which is paid in respect of day's work under certain conditions and with certain limitations, that being the compensation for travel patterns or however it is named under the various awards; the fares allowance as most people know it. Quite a separate thing and for that reason the wording that we have proposed identifies it as a separate thing and also makes it clear that it is only that part of fares which is paid for the five days. It is exactly as set out in your decision as I have referred to, based upon the ATO's definition.

PN626

It is the fares allowance which is paid in respect of the days on which ordinary hours work are performed. We press that the words are important and might I suggest that if Mr Maxwell's position is that they add nothing, well, then he could hardly object except on the basis that they add approximately eight extra words to an award of some 150 pages in the case of NBCIA. I think that that particular argument against excess verbiage is perhaps stretching things a little and we would say that the words are more than worth their weight in terms of the clarity that they bring to this rather complex clause. If the Commission pleases.

PN627

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Maxwell, do you want to add anything?

PN628

MR MAXWELL: Commissioner, there is one other side of why we object to the wording proposed by the employers, because we do not believe it would adequately address the situation of seven day shift workers because seven day shift workers could work ordinary hours.

PN629

THE COMMISSIONER: That is perhaps where I was coming from a little bit, I think.

PN630

MR MAXWELL: And to put in the words about pay for the days where ordinary time is worked, could lead to some confusion about where it is to be paid for seven day shift workers.

PN631

THE COMMISSIONER: That was the point that I was raising on my question, Mr Murray, that you know, seven day workers might not be cared for in that. Something I think you can consider or should consider.

PN632

MR MURRAY: Do you wish me to address that point?

PN633

THE COMMISSIONER: No. What I am going to do is, with HIA, Mr Maxwell, I am going to ask you to get in touch with Mr Parubotchy, express my concerns that he was not able to attend today, that on Friday - on Friday, the 14th, are you available, Mr Maxwell?

PN634

MR MAXWELL: Unfortunately, Commissioner, I am in Melbourne before Senior Deputy President Lacey on a simplification matter.

PN635

THE COMMISSIONER: And I have got a Full Bench on, I was going to move it round a bit, but on Monday, are you available at 9 o'clock?

PN636

MR MAXWELL: Yes, Commissioner.

PN637

THE COMMISSIONER: Monday at 9 o'clock, you and Mr Parubotchy will appear before me and Mr Parubotchy will first explain why he was not here today and then we will - unless during the intervening period you have been able to ascertain what his reasons are for that letter, conducting that letter - and if you are still unable to reach agreement then he will explain to me what his position is on Monday. Now, for the other employer groups, all I require is you to consider what that means - that wording of yours means in terms of the shift workers and that only needs to be done in writing. I do not require the parties to be here on Monday, only HIA and Mr Maxwell on Monday and following that, I will hand down my decision as quickly as possible. It will be, I assure you, before 3 October.

PN638

MR MURRAY: Commissioner, if I could just ask a question? You have asked for us to express our views to you in writing. Is that by Monday or is that by when?

PN639

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, by Monday. Yes, yes.

PN640

MR MURRAY: By Monday, thank you, Commissioner.

PN641

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. We are clear on that? We have got to this stage again but that is the way things fall unfortunately, so I will adjourn these proceedings until Monday but there is no need for the other employer parties to attend unless they have some concerns about what HIA might be saying. Okay. This case stands adjourned.

ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2001 [3.14pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #M1 CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN UNION, CIVIL CONTRACTORS FEDERATION AND OTHERS PN562
EXHIBIT #B14 CFMEU DRAFT ORDER HANDED UP BY MR MAXWELL PN562