C2001/5728, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 3317 (30 November 2001)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114J MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
DX 305 Melbourne Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 1276

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER BLAIR

C2001/5728

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

and

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC,
ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING
AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA -
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re postal services

MELBOURNE

8.35 AM, THURSDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2001

Continued from 12.11.01

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning. No change in appearances?

PN89

MR FURLAN: No, Commissioner.

PN90

MR GATTO: No, Commissioner.

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Furlan, would you like to lead off, please?

PN92

MR FURLAN: Thank you, Commissioner, yes. In terms of the report back, Commissioner, I can indicate that on Monday the union advised staff at MATC of your directions regarding lifting of industrial action. We understand that there is no industrial action in place as a result. The parties had a series of discussions in accordance with your directions. On Monday, the 12th and Tuesday, the 13th, there were a number of issues discussed. Perhaps focusing on the preliminary issue affecting the MPC1 position, Commissioner, I can indicate that Australia Post put a proposal to the union which it believed could resolve the situation.

PN93

That proposal in essence, though, Commissioner, was rejected, but perhaps I might outline the nature of that proposal and indicate that the union did put forward a number of alternative options which were also unacceptable to management. In terms of management's proposed resolution, Commissioner, the process was to be a re-advertising of the MPC1 position for a further period of short-term acting and that was to cater for the interim period pending selection of the process leader 2 positions which have been advertised in the new structure and which management expects will be completed by the end of this month.

PN94

In terms of management's proposal, the position would be advertised with a specific shift time. Pertaining to that position, we were intending to advertise it with a 10.30 am shift time. The position would be advertised locally at MATC and all staff currently working at MATC would be eligible to apply. As I indicated, Commissioner, the union has rejected this proposal on the grounds that in the union's view it would treat the current person who is acting as an MPC1, Ms Peterson, as a local staff member and in their view, they have a fundamental concern with that because they have a belief that the basis on which that person was acting in the role was not legitimate in their view.

PN95

We obviously have a difference of view in relation to that aspect, Commissioner, but to try and facilitate the process, we also indicated we were willing to establish a selection panel comprising representatives from other - Australia Post management representatives, obviously, from other work sites. In other words, that the panel would not comprise management representatives from MATC in order to attempt to avoid any perceptions of prejudgment of the selection process, but as I said, Commissioner, despite a number of discussions on that matter, that proposal was not acceptable to the union.

PN96

As I indicated, the union did propose a number of alternative options for consideration. One option put forward was to advertise the position locally. That is the MPC1 position I am referring to, Commissioner, but that would from the union's perspective mean that the current person acting as an MPC1 would not be eligible to apply. The second proposal put by the union was to advertise the position throughout the mail processing network, in which circumstance all staff who have expressed interest would be considered, but in the intervening period, the position that the union had was that the current individual acting as MPC1 would cease acting and would resume at Melbourne City Mail Centre pending completion of this further selection process.

PN97

The third proposal, Commissioner, put forward by the union was to bring in a nominal MPC2 person, in other words someone who is already classified as an MPC2, for a temporary period, until the issue of the position was resolved in terms of the resolution of the process leader grade 2 selection and that was put forward on the basis that no-one would be advantaged by that process and the fourth proposition put forward - - -

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: Where would that leave the person currently acting?

PN99

MR FURLAN: That person would no longer be acting and would resume at Melbourne City Mail Centre. The fourth proposal, Commissioner, was to leave the current MPC1 position vacant until the selection process for the process leader grade 2 positions was completed. As I indicated, Commissioner, those options, whilst we discussed a number of aspects of those options, none of the options proved acceptable to Australia Post and there has been no agreement either in terms of the option put forward by Australia Post, nor the alternatives put forward by the union.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: I would assume on the fourth option, that would also mean that the person, if the position is left vacant until such time as it is filled permanently, that the current person would go back to Melbourne.

PN101

MR FURLAN: Yes, Commissioner.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Whichever way it goes, it appears there is a pathway back to Melbourne.

PN103

MR FURLAN: Well, in respect to that individual from the union's options, yes, and the basis of that, Commissioner - obviously the union will want to put their point of view - but we had indicated that the position originally had been advertised for short-term acting and in our definition of short-term acting, that would be a period of two months or less. The two-month period, Commissioner, expires on Friday of this week and that is the reason that all parties are agreed that there needs to be an additional process put in place from Friday to re-advertise the position, if you like, pending the finalisation of the new structure, so that really I suppose defines the parameters of why we are discussing re-advertising of the position.

PN104

As I indicated, Commissioner, we have not reached agreement on that matter and we seek the assistance of the Commission in attempting to resolve this particular issue. That is the specific MPC1 issue, Commissioner. There are a number of other issues that were discussed which are either in the process of resolution or not yet resolved. Whilst we do not specifically focus on those in detail, Commissioner, I just highlight that there are a number of other issues that are still being discussed with the parties, one of which relates to clarification of the role of the MPC1 position, another one relating to the classification level of the process leader position, we propose process leader 2 position in future, the union have a different viewpoint, seeking a higher classification level and there are a number of other issues relating to rostering arrangements which the parties are in the process of discussing and hopefully - I believe there is genuine prospect of resolution of a number of those issues, but I just relate those issues, Commissioner, just to advise you that this is not the only matter that was the subject of discussions over the two days.

PN105

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN106

MR FURLAN: In summary, Commissioner, we have genuinely attempted to resolve the issue in dispute. We have been unable to do so and we seek your assistance in progressing this matter to resolution. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Gatto.

PN108

MR GATTO: What Mr Furlan said is basically correct. We had a series of meetings. We put those proposals forward. Our other two proposals still stand from the other day, so there are proposals that would have allowed it to stay. The issue is until today we could never define whether she was there short-term or long-term and the other issue is that there was no selection process for that person being at MATC. The processes used seem to be outside the norm. That is the first concern we had. That is why when we were talking of locals being there for short-term, that is why we did not consider being one of the locals.

PN109

The other thing is that normally when the position was first advertised in April, it went to the complete Melbourne and State Mail Centre. This time they went to a select group within one mail centre. And there is still a dispute whether the position is short-term or long-term. If it is short-term and finishes this Friday, I would have no problem with that, because then there is no commitment from Australia Post to the supervisor beyond that period. The other issue is that since July we are going to - sorry, I will start that again. From July, it was known within three mail centres that we were going to advertise for process leaders within three facilities.

PN110

There are about 20 applicants for that position and it still does not settle the issue, for example, of State Mail Centre where these applicants and gazetted people, people who actually hold that new level, that have applied. We believe that this person in the terms of the other process, from being in the job, gets an advantage over everybody else. Although we have not represented - we have represented that view, there have been complaints from State Mail Centre as to how the person got there and how the other people who have applied feel they have been disadvantaged.

PN111

Now, it is a very complex issue because there is another process going on at the moment interviewing for the permanent filling of that position. And I propose, with the Commission's permission, that we go into conference, because it is too complex.

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Do you have any objections to that, Mr Furlan?

PN113

MR FURLAN: No objection, Commissioner.

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. The Commission will go into conference.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [8.48am]

RESUMED [9.45am]

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: The Commission in this matter had a conference with the parties and each of the parties, that is the CEPU and Australia Post, put their respective positions. Unfortunately the Commission could not get an understanding between the parties as to what should be the outcome of these proceedings. However, the Commission believes that it is in a position to be able to issue a recommendation understanding that the history of both parties, that is the CEPU and Australia Post, have always accepted the recommendations of the Commission.

PN116

The Commission had a perception initially that there may have been an issue with the current person occupying the MPC1 position, and that the issue may have been a personal issue against that person by the employees at MATC. The Commission has been assured that it is not an issue relating to a person currently occupying the MPC1 position. There is a perception by the MATC employees that the process that was followed in order for the current person occupying the MPC1 position was flawed. Australia Post deny that the position is flawed.

PN117

However, as indicated, that is the perception of the MATC employees. Understanding that it has been Australia Post's policy for some considerable time that a temporary period generally relates to a term of two months or less, it is the Commission's view that if that is and has been Australia Post's policy, then it is a policy that should be adhered to unless there are some special circumstances as to why it should not be. The Commission is unable to identify at this point any special circumstances which should not indicate that the two months policy or less for people occupying temporary positions should not be adhered to.

PN118

The Commission takes the view that any process for the selection of positions should be clear and transparent and should be an open process beyond any criticism. The Commission understands that there is currently a process in place to fill on a permanent basis a PL32 position. The Commission also understands that the current occupant of the MPC1 position is an applicant for that PL2 position, and the Commission would expect that that person would be judged along with the others on their merits, and has been provided with no information that says that something else would occur.

PN119

In order to address the current difficulties, and having said what the Commission has already said in terms of Australia Post policy, that a temporary period is for some two months or less, the Commission understands that the two-month period for the current occupant of the MPC1 position expires on Friday 16 November. It is expected that the successful applicant for the PL2 position would be known in approximately two to three weeks. With that knowledge, the Commission would recommend that if management, that is Australia Post management, decide to fill in the interim period, that is the period between 16 November and when the successful applicant for the PL2 position is made known, if they decide to fill the current MPC1 position, it should be done using local higher duties roster which the Commission understands has been in place previously.

PN120

That roster deals with MATC employees only. If no names are put forward by local MATC employees to appear on the higher duties roster and management decide to fill in the interim period the MPC1 position then they are free to fill that position from external people, that is, people other than MATC people, if no higher duties roster is available. And in filling that position on an interim period that may include the current person occupying the MPC1 position, understanding that it would only be filled if management decide to fill it between 16 November and when the successful applicant for the PL2 position is named.

PN121

It goes without saying, therefore, but the Commission will say it anyway, that if there is any concern by the current MATC employees about the filling of the interim period between 16 November and when the PL2 position is permanently filled then it is appropriate that they put their name forward on the higher duties roster. The Commission reaffirms that if no names are put forward for the higher duties roster and management wished to fill the position on an interim period then they are free to do so and one of those who may be eligible to be able to fill it on an interim period is the current person occupying the position. So really the ball is back in the park of the MATC employees.

PN122

That is the Commission's recommendation. If there are any further issues, and the Commission understands that there are, but it would appear that Australia Post in the report from Mr Furlan believes that they may be able to resolve with the CEPU in further discussions. If they are not either party is free to have this matter relisted. Now, are the parties clear? Mr Gatto.

PN123

MR GATTO: Yes.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Furlan.

PN125

MR FURLAN: Yes, Commissioner.

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, right, the Commission in this matter stands adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [9.49am]