C0093/998, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 3409 (5 December 2001)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 1358
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSIONER

COMMISSIONER HOLMES

C No 00939 of 1998

AMBULANCE EMPLOYEES - VICTORIAN INTERIM
AWARD (1994)

Review under section 51, item, 51,
schedule 5, Transitional WROLA Act
1996 re conditions of employment

MELBOURNE

9.47 AM, WEDNESDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2001

Continued from 14.9.01

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it is good to see you again.

PN25

MR FORBATH: Are you sure?

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you want a truthful answer?

PN27

MR FORBATH: You got out of enterprise bargaining so - - -

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I did and I have made the President a lot of money for that. Well, award simplification, I have a quick read of your draft and there is still bit to do, isn't there?

PN29

MR FORBATH: Well, given that we have attempted virtually a total rewrite of the whole thing, a whole reorganisation of what was a very ancient document, it is just that we have not properly have not done any work on it since about March/April of this year while we have been in throws of an enterprise bargaining - - -

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Other more important things to do.

PN31

MR FORBATH: Yes, and then we got the dreaded phone call.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, I have been getting dreaded minutes from various people saying what are you up to.

PN33

MR FORBATH: We knew it was coming and we know our number would come up sooner or later

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Technically we are independent from our own work but there are various ways that people get to talk to you. Yes.

PN35

MR FORBATH: I was just going to say we have had since you listed it, we have had two meetings - three - - -

PN36

MS McKENZIE: Two.

PN37

MR FORBATH: Two.

PN38

MS McKENZIE: Two.

PN39

MR FORBATH: Two meetings, I am sorry, and we have taken up a few more issues and resolve a few more issues. John Brown has been representing the private sector employers at those meetings and Peter Moran is now working as a consultant to VPT.

PN40

MR MORAN: Correct.

PN41

MR FORBATH: Wilson's patient - - -

PN42

MR MORAN: Wilson's Group Services with VPT trading as.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps I should have taken appearances.

PN44

MR MORAN: Beg your pardon?

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps I should have taken appearances at the outset.

PN46

MR MORAN: Well, now we have got to this point, yes. My involvement has come about simply because of the work we do for Wilson's and a s a consequence of their involvement with Victorian transport patient we have been asked to get involved in this exercise and so my input today had been very limited. I have had conversations with Brenda and some assistance from Amanda yesterday with the provision of an earlier document. I have been given the latest one this morning so at this point in time and today my contribution will be probably very little but I would hope somewhere along the way when John Brown comes back from leave I can tic-tack with him and work with the group, hopefully and put some constructive input to the exercise. One can only hope.

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I am sure you will.

PN48

MR MORAN: I have done quite a bit of work with Brenda on an enterprise agreement which brought me across the award and the ambulance services industry I suppose, for want of a better description. So whilst I have only got the document today I have done quite a bit of work with the LHMU, albeit on a different exercise but it has brought me across a lot of the things that no doubt will get an airing in this exercise.

PN49

MS K. MINOGUE: From the Royal Ambulance Victoria. So I have just been meeting with Brenda and Amanda just working on the process. I do not know sort of the intention of time or whatever the report back would go to today. There is in the document a number of boxed items obviously that still remain outstanding so I think in the main it is probably achievable over the next couple of months so to speak. Obviously we will have probably some issues that will need to go to arbitration, but in the main probably sort of regular discussions I suppose and commitment to try and knock them over will make it a lot easier exercise and sooner finished.

PN50

MS McKENZIE: Commissioner, we have actually had three meetings since your notification so all we have done is to go back to the award which was where we got to in March of this year. There is a couple of items that we know will be arbitrated. There are a couple that from an employer point of view we are still thinking about and that may come down to just finalising some words and therefore we will not necessarily have to go through an arbitrated matter.

PN51

I think that if we can be diligent in terms of spending the time in the next couple of months I think we should be in a position to be able finalise a document to say this is the agreed substance and this is the areas where we need arbitration and then set some dates and there will be join consent applications from both the union and the employers and I think some separate applications in terms of matters to be arbitrated as well.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So being realistic, I mean January is likely to be a dead month, is it not, with people on leave? I take it you agreed with that?

PN53

MR FORBATH: Yes, I think - I mean obviously we have got Christmas in between but I am having a little break over that Christmas, early January period but I will be back - I have got a hearing on 7 January so I am back on deck for January and you know, like to put a bit of time into it - - -

PN54

MS McKENZIE: The only thing, Commissioner, if I can just add, as you know the reasonable hours test case matter is currently before the Commission so subject to the time lines of that matter and what is a consequence of any decision we might need to spend some time dealing with that matter seeing our award is part of that matter.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN56

MS McKENZIE: So I was just thinking about that. That might put a dint in some of the time that is there.

PN57

MS MINOGUE: At least in January.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: What was going through my mind given that you have made considerable progress and I have particularly gone through the document to see what is not, how I do put it, in blocks which I understand are the disputed parts and certainly I can understand why some you want to have arbitrated. But I am, how to put it, I think it is preferable that you agree as much as you can.

PN59

Some of my colleagues take the view, okay, you have got 14 days to reach agreement otherwise I make the award, but I am not so minded particularly given the complexity of this industry, both MAS and RAV I know better than the private sector but I have got some understanding of the complexities of the rostering arrangements, etcetera, which place it in a quite different box to a lot of other awards where the means of operating and demands are quite different.

PN60

I am just thinking about whether you might - well, do you want to go through issues with me today? I mean I am - if you think it would be helpful I am happy to sit with you. Alternatively I can get a conference room available and you can sort of continue to discuss those issues that you want to discuss, if that is useful. What I have got in mind is to set a date late in December or early February in which we will come back together again at that time and in light of where you have got to my intention would be to set down and program for arbitration for the matters that remain outstanding, which would involve directions for written submissions and then brief oral submissions as far as is possible in relation to the key aspects of the written submissions.

PN61

Any questions I have got about what I do not - I mean some things I will need to benefit from an oral explanation, I am sure of that, and hopefully that will mean that by end of February everything that needs to be put to the Commission has been put and then I will have to a conclusion in relation to the matter. But as for the rest of the day, well, the rest of this morning, I do not whether you are in a position to have another meeting now or not to be quite frank.

PN62

MR FORBATH: Would it be helpful to maybe go to some of the points that are in contentions between us to see if we could get some benefit of your view?

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: What I think?

PN64

MR FORBATH: Is that - - -

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, we can do that.

PN66

MR FORBATH: Can we do that?

PN67

MS McKENZIE: Yes. I know we have done that before which was very helpful where we have set out what was allowable, not allowable and then what issues that arbitrated and things like that.

PN68

MR FORBATH: Maybe if we just start from the beginning.

PN69

MS McKENZIE: Are you going to page 5, the definitions?

PN70

MR FORBATH: Yes. We have pretty much got an agreed position on all of those definitions except for - and given that we have not had definitions in the award before. Now, one of the things I would just - before I go to the piece in the box, will we need to make a section 113 application to insert those definitions?

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: If they are not in the award already, yes.

PN72

MR MORAN: They are not in there.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: They are not in the award?

PN74

MR FORBATH: No. Bits and pieces are. You will find references here and there to some of what is there but not in that format.

PN75

MR MORAN: It is just bringing it up to date, isn't it, bringing it up to speed, because it is coming from an old award?

PN76

MR FORBATH: Yes.

PN77

MR MORAN: And there are new definitions of classifications that have developed over that time.

PN78

MS McKENZIE: Yes. For example, the regional reliever that was something that came out of an allowance clause.

PN79

MR MORAN: Which one?

PN80

MS McKENZIE: The regional reliever officer.

PN81

MS MINOGUE: The regional reliever.

PN82

MR MORAN: Yes.

PN83

MS McKENZIE: So that came out of a separate clause which was dealing with an allowance.

PN84

MR FORBATH: Yes.

PN85

MS McKENZIE: And the issue about that is that is contention is the words and the question of whether it is, I suppose, an issue of interpretation versus classification in terms of - - -

PN86

MR FORBATH: I mean what we have tried to do as we have gone through is where there were questions of interpretation if we could reach a consensus position on what it mean then we rewrote it to make that clear. Where we could not agree as to the interpretation we have either left it as it is and then if any party at some stage down the track wants to make an application for either to Federal Court for an interpretation or to apply to the Commission we can do that under - to clarify an anomaly. I am not quite sure what section of the Act that is under these days but you can do that, can you not?

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you can have a dispute about what - how to put the application into the award and in terms - in relation - on the path to determining that the Commission has to come to a view as to what the award means so it clarifies it. But it does to give an interpretation as an end in itself.

PN88

MR FORBATH: No.

PN89

MR MORAN: This is probably a good illustration. I mean if the first part, regional relieving officer is just a dead take of the words of a what regional relieving officer is in the award itself, I wouldn't see that that is a problem for inclusion in definitions. It is just relocating it to a different part of the award. But what is in the box is how it is to be applied and what you are seeking, Brenda, is to say, well, there is a variation to the award to make it mandatory that it is supplied in a particular manner and that is probably a separate application outside of just straight simplification. Would you agree, Commissioner?

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Pardon?

PN91

MR MORAN: Would you agree with that, you know, if it is an addition to the award or something to be inserted into the award that says this is the way it is to be applied and it is not there now, then that would have to be a 113 application?

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN93

MR FORBATH: But for example, we do not have a definition in the award at the moment of a patient transport officer. We do not have a definition of a clinical support officer or a duty team manager or a lot of these are not defined in the award. They are classifications that have come via the award but there has never been - - -

PN94

MR MORAN: Never been spelt out.

PN95

MR FORBATH: Yes.

PN96

MR MORAN: But they are agreed.

PN97

MR FORBATH: We have agreed on these. So the two questions I was asking was will we need to make an application in regard to this whole section on definitions given that we have had many of these definitions in the award before? That was my first question, let alone an application about what is in the box.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, yes. As I would see it if it has not been in the award you would but you could make it a consent application on all those that you agree and the application would be to include definitions for - and list each of the classifications that you went definitions for. The application itself would not need set out the full definitions but you would produce a document which says this is - and effectively if you have got an agreed version of the draft award it would be just dealt with as part of the document which is tendered in evidence. In other words, that the order would include and you would just take me to the pages that are in the draft proposed award.

PN99

MR FORBATH: So you would not actually be listing a separate hearing?

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I just join them altogether. I mean let us say you make - there is agreed, how I put it.

PN101

MR MORAN: Additions.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Additions, thank you. Then we just put all - that would be listed. You would have some applications where you want certain things inserted and the employer would presumably have things which they want inserted which you disagree about and I just list the whole lot together and just join them as one matter and list the original dispute finding which founded the award and if there is more than one dispute finding and so you just cover everything so that we can deal with the whole lot in the process rather than have separate hearings for this, that and the other.

PN103

I mean we can deal with, when we get close to the end, whether in fact there is sort of an interim order issued which picks up all that is agreed and then subsequently there is another order which picks up all that is agreed plus all that is arbitrated rather than sort of go, how do I put it, addendums so to speak to the original decision or the original order. Okay. Well, you wanted to go to RRO.

PN104

MR FORBATH: Yes. I think the other - well, in looking at the regional relieving officer we also need to look at the fact that it is referred to in the operational classifications on page 7.

PN105

THE COMMISSIONER: Page?

PN106

MS FORBATH: Seven.

PN107

MS MINOGUE: Seven and eight from my version. I don't have a back to back.

PN108

MS FORBATH: Right, okay. Well, perhaps I will do it by clause number if the pages have come out a bit differently in the printing.

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN110

MS FORBATH: 5.1.1(a), so there is a reference there to regional relieving officer/assistant station officer which sets the rate and that has always been in the award. So the regional relieving officer is paid as an assistant station officer. There is a further - at 5.5.3, which is page 16 on my copy, 5.5.3, and all this stuff about regional relieving officer is, if you go back to the old State Award, is in clause 26 and in a fairly kind of winding clause that a lot of which is sort of now outdated. So the words there in 5.5.3 have kind have been lifted pretty directly from clause 26(b) in the old State Award and that is not in contention as I understand. Do you have a view on that matter, 5.5.3, that is not in contention.

PN111

MS McKENZIE: Yes, I think we went back to the original words that was in the agreement. There might have been some massage of that, but, yes, those words in that clause are not opposed.

PN112

MS FORBATH: Now, the issue for us is that this is not an issue that affects the private sector because they don't have these people. Rural Ambulance Victoria do still employ these people and MAS don't employ them any more. Our dispute over these words is perhaps more with MAS than they are with RAV. I do not wish to pre-empt any position that RAV might take on this, but in Royal Ambulance Victoria people are still often appointed as regional relieving officers and that is what they do all the time.

PN113

They get posted to here, there and everywhere and they go and live away from home, ..... town and they assume the roster and the on call duties of the person that they are replacing and relieving and they get paid at this station officer's rate for all purposes, annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, etcetera. However, a lot of the places do not have these regional relieving officers and sometimes it is hard to find people to do that kind of work and that sometimes an employer will decide that they will not employ such a person but they will at a large centre say like Wangaratta or Bendigo or Ballarat, big regional towns, they will offer to the larger group of employees at that workplace an opportunity to stick your hand up if you would go relieving every so often and those people who want to do that will volunteer.

PN114

If they have got enough people to do that then it is just rotated through the group of people who want to do it and when they go away to do that work and they have to live away from home they get paid at the higher classification and they get the living away from home allowances and all that and the special meal allowances and so.

PN115

MS MINOGUE: Yes, I will say though that the only time that you don't go about appointing specifically regional relievers is where you have advertised and you have not had success in getting anyone interested. It is not a case of to avoid appointing and we will if there is a large body of people who are prepared to do it in lieu.

PN116

MS FORBATH: Yes.

PN117

MS MINOGUE: The thing is our first attempt would be to obtain a regional reliever. If we cannot secure anyone interested in being the appointed position then and only then would you use a group of staff who are prepared to do so.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: So what is the issue between you?

PN119

MS FORBATH: There is not an issue in practice on the ground between RAV and ourselves. The issue that really lies between ourselves and MAS, MAS have a very small number of what is called on call branches out in the outer rim, we have nine of them, and about nine or 10 years ago they had regional relievers appointed in much the same way as RAV who if there was a vacancy at one of these on call branches they would go off and relieve, either limit the branch for the eight days or seven days that they were on duty and then they would go home and they would be paid and dealt with in exactly the same way as RAV does it now.

PN120

MAS decided not to continue to appoint regional relievers and they were phased out over a period of time and so now what they do is they roster people to those branches and who still require to live away from home they pay them living away from home allowances and reliever's meal allowances but they don't pay them at the higher classification. Now, there has been an ongoing dispute about that between ourselves and MAS and it may well be that we will take the case elsewhere for under payment of wages.

PN121

What really is argued however is that the words in the old State award are such that they do not feel obliged to pay at that higher classification level. So it is a question of the interpretation as to what the current words mean and quite apart from - I mean how it has actually been practiced on the ground. How it has been practiced in the past at MAS and currently in RAV we have no argument with. It is how MAS put into it practice that we disagree with and so then the parties fall back on, well, what do the words mean in the award and, you know, there is disagreement about that.

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: So what is in the box is what is that issue, is it, in the definition or - - -

PN123

MS FORBATH: What is in the box, that sentence there, is what I would like to see included or what the union would like to see included as a way of clarifying the situation and MAS do not agree with that and say that it goes beyond what is already in the State award. So a case about that would involve looking at what is already there, what does it mean, how should that be applied and do the words that the union have put in consistent with what is already there or are we trying to introduce a new concept.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN125

MS FORBATH: I suppose it is, you know, the question that we would be asking the Commissioner to arbitrate on it. And we would put in an application in regard to this whole question so that we could clarify it. We would want to call witness evidence about how it is practiced on the ground, how it has been interpreted over many years, what we think the words mean, etcetera, and why we think the words we would be putting up would help to clarify the situation. So that, you know - and Amanda will present you of no doubt the case as to the words themselves mean that will be different.

PN126

MS McKENZIE: The issue is not only the practice. I mean we did employ regional relievers some time and we do not employ them any more. It is the issue about the words that were in the existing clause and so there is already arguments there that we say that if there is no regional reliever appointed and there is somebody who goes and fill a vacancy then what do they get paid and that is the issue in contention.

PN127

Now, I know RAV have a practice and that is fine, but our practice is certainly different in terms of how we currently in peripheral branches where there is not enough people to self relieve and some is either sick or on long service leave and we bring somebody in, you know, they are paid a living away from home allowance. But the issue is we say that they retain their existing classification rate of pay, that they do not get paid the higher rate of pay. I think by reading - and the contention as far as the definition as it stands is does the words that Brenda wants, does that change the intent that we say was the original wording of the original clause.

PN128

THE COMMISSIONER: What the .....

PN129

MS MINOGUE: May be appointed.

PN130

MS McKENZIE: May be appointed as such or performs from time to time at the request of the employer. So the question is that I suppose both virtue of those words does that mean that if anybody is appointed then they get paid the high rate of pay and looking at it that may not necessarily be the case. I mean I do not know, Commissioner, whether if we spend some time going through those, the words and whether we are able to come to some sort of resolution without having to present a case as such.

PN131

MR MORAN: Commissioner, have you got a copy of the existing award they are talking about? It doesn't matter if you haven't because it may help just to read it out. The current wording says:

PN132

Routine relieving duties which require an employee to live away from home will be performed only be employees appointed at a rank than regional relieving officer.

PN133

So the existing award reads that it will be performed by employees at a rank.

PN134

MS McKENZIE: No, but you need to read on, Peter.

PN135

MR MORAN: And it goes on and it says:

PN136

Provided that in the event that no relieving officer is not available an ambulance officer or student...

PN137

etcetera, etcetera, can perform the duties. And if I have understood what you have said correctly, at the moment instead of appointing anybody you just utilise whoever is available and they keep their pay rate and they get their living away from home. And what you are saying, Brenda, is if they are appointed then they have got to go up to this higher rate and they would get - - -

PN138

MS MINOGUE: Even if they are not appointed.

PN139

MS FORBATH: We say that a rate was established for that kind of work and somebody who does it all the time gets paid for all purposes so when that person is not there and you want somebody to do that work who does not normally do it they go up to that higher classification, get paid for it while they are doing it and then they go back to their normal classification when they have finished.

PN140

MR MORAN: So therein lies the differences.

PN141

MS FORBATH: That is the difference between us essentially and I mean - - -

PN142

MS McKENZIE: The words are routine. There is issue of appointed and then there is the issue of routine and then the other issue where it says that you do not have a regional reliever to fill the position then you can appoint a level, you know, anybody or else.

PN143

MS MINOGUE: Level 2 or 3, yes.

PN144

MS McKENZIE: But it does not then say, well, that person is then required to be paid as a regional reliever and that is the issue in the contention.

PN145

MS FORBATH: Yes, and I mean that becomes a debateable point. What is there in that clause that would indicate that the person should be paid a higher rate?

PN146

MS McKENZIE: Omitted those words and paid as such.

PN147

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN148

MS FORBATH: So that is an issue I think that - - -

PN149

MR McGHIE: But the history behind this even in practice has been that people have been paid the higher rate on the basis that that has been the incentive to get people to go. It makes it very difficult for an employer to fill a vacancy at a peripheral branch if there is no incentive for people to move away from their normal residence and that has been the history behind it.

PN150

MS McKENZIE: Well, it is not an incentive now and the fact is the current practice - - -

PN151

MR McGHIE: Why is - - -

PN152

MS McKENZIE: We do not pay people who are rostered to cover in a regional - not a regional, a peripheral, we do not pay the higher rate. We pay them the living away from home allowance and the other allowances.

PN153

MR McGHIE: Yes, and how many people do you have access to - technically under the clause it is supposed to be equitably distributed. But you could do a survey through all of MAS and how many people would go and work at a peripheral branch if you are not going to pay them the higher rate?

PN154

MS McKENZIE: Those who put their hands up it is equitably distributed.

PN155

MR McGHIE: Equitably distributed between all staff at a headquarters. That is the original clause.

PN156

MS MINOGUE: Equitably distributed between what?

PN157

MR McGHIE: All staff at a headquarters branch. That is the issue. That was the original clause.

PN158

MS McKENZIE: You would be in breach of that.

PN159

MS MINOGUE: Yes, we would be in breach of that because we do not distribute it amongst our head office either.

PN160

MR McGHIE: I know, because we are trying to work out where your headquarters branch is.

PN161

THE COMMISSIONER: You have got seven of them.

PN162

MS MINOGUE: Apparently.

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN164

MS MINOGUE: Is that a doozey or is that a doozey?

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't know that the clause as worded by the union achieves what it believes it does.

PN166

MR McGHIE: I say that too.

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't believe that - - -

PN168

MR McGHIE: It still doesn't say that it is going to be paid for - - -

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - that you have got there has achieved what you want.

PN170

MS McKENZIE: No, and I have looked at and when I was reading that - - -

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: It seems to me all that does is it is a facilitative clause.

PN172

MS McKENZIE: Yes.

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: And if the employer does not do it, well, they do not do it. I mean they don't have to appoint someone and after the "or" it seems to me just to relate to someone who is an RRO. Now, if they are not appointed as an RRO, well, how to put it - - -

PN174

MS McKENZIE: Yes. Actually I don't disagree with that. When I look at it - - -

PN175

MS FORBATH: See, the words have been, over time, those words have been watered down in an event to try and reach agreement. I mean if we were going to go into an arbitrated case I will put up that - yes, I will go back to the versions that we have got further back.

PN176

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I would suggest ..... well, it seems to me it needs to say an officer may be appointed as an RRO as such or an officer required to perform the duties - or may be required to perform the duties from time to time at the request of the employer or whatever. In other words, I don't think that is what is there is clear. I don't think it achieves what you want, but anyway - - -

PN177

MS McKENZIE: It might be a matter that we could have a consent variation.

PN178

MS FORBATH: When somebody agrees about it.

PN179

THE COMMISSIONER: You are now saying yes, we totally agree, are you? Well, just as I read it I think it needs some extra words in there to achieve what the union wants and - yes, what that means in the end is another question because it then turns on what routinely means.

PN180

MR MORAN: Because really what you are saying, Brenda, is that the only rate of pay applicable for people that go out and routinely relieve away from home is an RRO level pay rate. You are saying that is the minimum rate that should be applicable. If I am asked to go out, well, if I am at a rate less than RRO I go out and get that pay rate. What about if I am not appointed and I go out there for six weeks and I come back, are you saying I get RRO for six weeks and I went come back I fall back to my normal job?

PN181

MS MINOGUE: That is your substantive positive?

PN182

MS FORBATH: Yes.

PN183

MS MINOGUE: So your regional relieving officer is an ambulance officer who is appointed as such who is routinely required to live away, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then when an employee is required to perform the duties of relieving from time to time they will be paid at the higher rate of regional relieving officer for the duration of that work required?

PN184

MR MORAN: Yes, okay.

PN185

THE COMMISSIONER: That is what the union wants, yes.

PN186

MR MORAN: Yes, okay.

PN187

THE COMMISSIONER: But what is there does not say that.

PN188

MS FORBATH: Yes. If you go back and have a look at it several versions it did say something like that.

PN189

MS MINOGUE: Or paid for all purposes or whatever.

PN190

THE COMMISSIONER: I think you need to rethink what that says because as it is worded I would have difficulty, how to put it - yes. It would seem to me it is largely a facilitative clause because the first part of what is the box really doesn't do any more than indicate that if someone is already appointed under the first paragraph RRO it really turns on people who are not appointed as such performing the duties. So that seems to me to be the focus ..... with that. Is the next one fleet maintenance officer?

PN191

MS MINOGUE: Commissioner, we would argue that actually the fleet maintenance officer as a classification does not belong in the operational group of classifications as a fleet maintenance officer, fleet mechanic is not an operational position in that sense of the meaning of the words in terms of on road operational employees, ambulance paramedics, patient or clinic transport officers, senior station officers by nature of their seniority, etcetera, clinical support officers, team managers or communications must require obviously a paramedic background in order to be able to perform the work.

PN192

Also communications call taker which is a non operational position per se whilst they are located in the operations centre or control room so to speak, because they are actually - their rate of pay is struck at an emergency switchboard operator rate and their six payments as well. So their rate of pay is struck on a clerical or administrative rate of pay. They are however paid six payments to take them to the call taker rate, so we would argue that as a classification they actually more appropriately belong in clerical and administrative classifications rather than operational classifications.

PN193

You have the issue of certain provisions of the award or the certified agreement applying to operational employees where clearly the intention is that they actually apply to paramedic or support paramedic type of roles and so our concern is that it needs to be clarified clearly in terms of where these group of employees clearly belong on the basis of the nature of the work that they perform.

PN194

THE COMMISSIONER: So currently they are in the operations classification?

PN195

MS MINOGUE: That is correct.

PN196

THE COMMISSIONER: And you want them to shifted to clerical admin.

PN197

MS MINOGUE: Yes.

PN198

THE COMMISSIONER: It takes me back to 1999 and the EBA negotiations.

PN199

MS FORBATH: Well, the history of this classification - or the history of the fleet maintenance classification, until we had the federal award there was no classification in the old State award for fleet maintenance officer but historically what happened was they got paid a base rate based on a metals pay rate and they received what was called operational service increment payments and they were considered to be in that operational category because those were the service increment payments that they received.

PN200

The service increment payments are higher for operational classifications than they are for the clerical part of the award and because they always received those operational increments when Commissioner O'Shea made an order some years back he actually placed them in an operational category.

PN201

MS McKENZIE: Can I just clarify that?

PN202

MS FORBATH: You think that was a mistake?

PN203

MS McKENZIE: Yes. What happened was, Commissioner, it is part of the 97 - we made a variation in 1997 to include the section CPs and paramedic skills as part of the base rate, so we aggregated those allowances into the base rate. What we did, it was an oversight, is we actually placed this classification of fleet maintenance officer under the banner of operational. So even prior to that time there was no classification as part of a minimum rates award and it has been stuck there ever since. I suppose it is getting - - -

PN204

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry?

PN205

MS McKENZIE: I think it gets down to I suppose the intent of whether it should have been operational or non operational classification. But we say it was a mistake.

PN206

MS FORBATH: Well, part of the difficulty I think is that that classification because it has always been - it always received the higher service increments that it was logical to locate them in that part of the award because that is what they were entitled to and there is no question about them being entitled to those increments. That is not the issue. The issue was where you locate them in terms of the two categories of employees. Anyway, there is that issue.

PN207

The call takers were never a separate classification either under the old State award but what happened in recent times, and this is more an RAV issue, is that in the country control room centres they have introduced call takers who receive calls, whether they are emergency or not emergency calls, for ambulance services and they are not necessarily qualified ambulance paramedics and those people have had, as they were introduced into the system, they then gradually introduced into the enterprise agreement and now the question is placing them into the award.

PN208

There will have to be an application for both of those classifications to go into the classification structure anyway because they were not there under the minimum rates award. So they too get operational service increments so it became logical to treat them as if they were an operational classification and place them in that part of the award. So it is really a question of placing them under one heading or another. I think the issue for the employers what lies behind it much more is does this mean that these categories of employees are entitled to the defined benefits superannuation scheme.

PN209

I mean I would have thought which is a public sector ..... that is in the award that would affect private sector operators. But the fact is that what the Government does is they gazette those classifications to whom the defined benefit scheme applies and they have not so gazetted fleet maintenance people or communication call takers, although some communications call takers and some fleet maintenance people are in the defined benefits scheme and it is one of those that is more of a historical thing and another story in a sense and at the end of the day too if an employee nominates a particular employee for the defined benefits scheme it is simply accepted by the superannuation scheme whether they are gazetted or not. It seems. That is right, isn't it, Steve?

PN210

MR MORAN: Yes.

PN211

MS FORBATH: But I think that that is behind - - -

PN212

MS MINOGUE: That is one of the aspects, yes.

PN213

MS FORBATH: Because what is on paper where they sit in terms of being on paper is neither here nor there. It is not as if it is going to cost you more.

PN214

MS MINOGUE: No, no, but it is from a roll in rate point of view that the argument of these classifications of employees who would argue because they clearly sit in operational section of the award are entitled to full range of operational sort of calculations of rates of pay, that sort of thing. It is a matter of appropriate housekeeping in order to avoid arguments about where they should sit. It is not about reliant on your previous history or my limited history. It is about where they should sit on the basis of the technicality of their work.

PN215

MS FORBATH: But if the technicality of their work is important the communications call takers are in the rolled in rate. They are part of the roll in rate.

PN216

MS MINOGUE: Whereas the FMOs are not.

PN217

MS FORBATH: The FMOs are not and you have a decision of the Commission.

PN218

MR McGHIE: You have a decision on whether they would be or not and it is only rosters that are submitted to the data base can be included in the calculation of the roll in rate. It has never been agreed that FMOs rosters would be included in the roll in rate. The other thing that I would like to pick up on is that, Kelly, you raised before that you believed that classifications that should be included in the operational part of the award is more to do with the paramedic classifications and the support paramedic type roles.

PN219

MS MINOGUE: Or related.

PN220

MR McGHIE: I would think that we would put a very strong argument that call takers are a support to the paramedics in all of your communication centres and the FMOs are definitely a support because they keep the ambulance paramedics in the vehicles on the road and they have a very close working relationship with the paramedics in regard to maintaining a vehicle and keeping them out in their workplace.

PN221

MS MINOGUE: Yes, well, I guess that is your line of argument and that in fact is the line of argument put by the FMOs. We say that albeit that they have an integral and an important role in maintaining the fleet they are not in any way in the direct care and treatment of pre hospital services to the community.

PN222

MR McGHIE: Of course they are. If you do not have the mode of transport you do not have the transport of the patients.

PN223

MS MINOGUE: No, no, no. I mean of course anyone can argue that and if you do not have the payroll officer the paramedics don't get their wage, ergo they cannot continue to work. Anyone can make that logical extension.

PN224

MS FORBATH: Well, I don't think it is so much to do with the work that people to do, it is more to do with the history of those classifications and whether or not they receive the operational increments.

PN225

MS MINOGUE: But that is not the sole reason why you would determine that they are operational employees. Being in receipt of the operational increments payments is not the sole reason why you have an operational grouping of employees.

PN226

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it seems to me we are going to have to arbitrate.

PN227

MS FORBATH: Yes, that is right.

PN228

THE COMMISSIONER: It is agreed they go in the award where they are not in the award.

PN229

MS MINOGUE: Yes, it is a matter of where.

PN230

THE COMMISSIONER: But it is where they go. Well, I cannot solve that today. I must tell you I need to finish by half past 11. What is the next one? The next one is - - -

PN231

MS FORBATH: Just at the bottom of page 8, just there is a typo. Clerical and administrative support classifications, at the bottom of that box it says rates include the year 2000 so to the adjustments it should be 2001, because I did - my colleagues need to check that, which I am sure they did - - -

PN232

MS MINOGUE: Religiously.

PN233

MS McKENZIE: We spent about two days going through those calculations ..... other safety nets.

PN234

MS FORBATH: If I could take you to my page 11 but it is 5.2.4.

PN235

THE COMMISSIONER: Skills allowance.

PN236

MS FORBATH: Yes, the paramedics skills allowance. There was a work value decision by Senior Deputy President MacBean some years ago on the paramedics skills allowance. It applied to the Metropolitan Ambulance Service and Rural Ambulance Victoria. I would have to go back to the decision but I think the decision did refer to it only applying to those two employers although quite how specific that is I will need to check. So effectively what we have got is a situation where all other employers pay a lower paramedics skills allowance.

PN237

Now, what we say is that that is an anomaly because if you are an intensive care paramedic working for one employer or another employer if that is the value of the work we say that should just apply all round. It is not going to affect in practice the private operators because they don't need to employ intensive care paramedics because they don't ..... work. So I guess I would be making an application simply to say that this has been an allowance that has been struck through a work value case because of the value of the work, the nature of the work performed and it shouldn't be limited to apply to two employers and not applying to anyone else.

PN238

THE COMMISSIONER: In the current award does it apply to all other employers at that rate?

PN239

MS FORBATH: Yes. Yes, it does. It is not limited. I will have to have a look at SDP MacBean's decision to see what it actually says about ..... I am not 100 per cent clear on that. I will have to fish it out and check. It is just that the application was made by ourselves but it grew out of enterprise bargaining in 1995 that we tried to reach agreement on an increase of the paramedic skills allowance through that process and we weren't able to agree but what we said in that enterprise agreement was if we couldn't agree there would be an application made to the Commission for a work value case to be conducted for the award rate to change. But I think ..... for some reason.

PN240

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry?

PN241

MS FORBATH: I think he did confine the increase to the two public sector employers.

PN242

THE COMMISSIONER: My inclination in relation to that application would be to say that that is part of the award simplification process.

PN243

MS FORBATH: Yes.

PN244

THE COMMISSIONER: And I could go to the panel which has got responsibility, unless you put it in with all the other applications .....

PN245

MS FORBATH: What you are saying it will be an application that would be outside of this whole process?

PN246

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, as I would see it. Yes. I mean it - - -

PN247

MS FORBATH: I think there is possibly a number of things that we will come to that - I mean we also question whether it could really be seen as part of the exercise or not and it would be helpful to us even if you gave us an indication of that because then we can just put them to one side and not let them take up our time.

PN248

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I can certainly see that as one which if you are going to run a work value case in relation to that allowance for all other employers it would be one that would be deal outside this process. What is the next one?

[10.44am]

PN249

MS FORBATH: My page 13. It is 5.2.8, subclause (d).

PN250

THE COMMISSIONER: (d), incidental expenses allowance, is that it?

PN251

MS FORBATH: Yes, incidental expenses allowance. This really will be an application by RAV ..... would you like to speak to that?

PN252

MS MINOGUE: I couldn't really speak to it at this point in time because it is not a clause that since I have come on board I have had any discussion with Jackie so I would have to hold that one over.

PN253

MS FORBATH: That is an allowance, can I say this, currently in the award which RAV argue should no longer apply. It is only an allowance that applies to RAV when their students kind of leave those country centres and come down to the school and they have an argument to say that it should no longer apply. Would that be something that would be dealt with like the - - -

PN254

MS MINOGUE: Under this process or separately?

PN255

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it seems that it involves removing an entitlement therefore it would have to be dealt with separately.

PN256

MS MINOGUE: Okay.

PN257

THE COMMISSIONER: Although the process is ..... determined an award stripping exercise it is not meant to take away existing benefits .....

PN258

MS FORBATH: Now, what we have done, Commissioner, I think this has been following earlier discussions at conclusion hearings that we have had with you is where we have got - I mean there is lots of clauses in this award where the employer provides something like clothing. They actually provide uniforms. We have converted those to allowances that the employer will pay an allowance but where they provide the item they don't have to pay the allowance and so we have re-worded clauses in that way to meet the allowability test.

PN259

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I had a quick look at 5.2.10 and 5.1.10 and they - - -

PN260

MS FORBATH: I just realised there is a number problem there.

PN261

THE COMMISSIONER: You will sort that out I am sure.

PN262

MS FORBATH: That will be fixed some time.

PN263

THE COMMISSIONER: But that seemed to me to meet the test.

PN264

MS FORBATH: That would meet the allowability test?

PN265

THE COMMISSIONER: It seemed to me it does. I mean it clearly indicates that get the allowance except where the employer provides it.

PN266

MS FORBATH: Now, over the page at what is the real 5.2.10 I think. Now, this provision, explanatory provision, there at the top of that page is something that RAV wanted to include.

PN267

MS McKENZIE: Which one are we looking at now?

PN268

MS FORBATH: Well, it comes straight after the uniform protective clothing. Sorry, the numbering is a bit out. The uniform protective clothing should be 5.2.9 and then the next - - -

PN269

THE COMMISSIONER: 5.1.10 should be 5.2.10, is that right?

PN270

MS FORBATH: Yes, and that just explains what I have just been saying, but I don't think it is necessary for that to be in the award as such.

PN271

MR McGHIE: No.

PN272

MS FORBATH: I don't think it is appropriate that should be in there, is it?

PN273

MS MINOGUE: No, if we are agreeing on the 5.2.9 in terms of how it is going to apply for the purposes of - - -

PN274

MR McGHIE: It is superfluous.

PN275

MS MINOGUE: Yes, totally.

PN276

MR McGHIE: Progress.

PN277

THE COMMISSIONER: I was going to tell you that but you have decided so that is fine.

PN278

MS FORBATH: Now. 5.5.1, my page 15, higher duties. Now, in the box there is a question as to whether these words which were in the original old State award, whether they offend re AEU and whether the State Government through, you know ..... RAV are going to put up that argument in regard to AEU.

PN279

MS McKENZIE: Sorry, did you ask the question?

PN280

MS FORBATH: What I am just asking is whether that is still - whether you will pursue that argument?

PN281

MS McKENZIE: At this stage, yes.

PN282

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I will have to hear it.

PN283

MS FORBATH: You will have to agree?

PN284

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I will have to hear it.

PN285

MS McKENZIE: I like the other part, agree.

PN286

THE COMMISSIONER: I was involved in one of the re AEU decisions.

PN287

MS McKENZIE: That is right, yes.

PN288

MS FORBATH: So that is one of the ones for - will most likely be one of the ones for argument for arbitration.

PN289

THE COMMISSIONER: I will look forward to that ..... secondment. Right.

PN290

MS FORBATH: That is 5.5.2(b), new words that the employer wishes to introduce. I don't know whether - we haven't discuss this in some time but that is probably something we have got to revisit and if some of these are things that we might be able just to - they are not kind of really ground breaking or serious kind of - - -

PN291

MS McKENZIE: I think it is just creating some further flexibility in terms of that second clause.

PN292

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the first one it is the employee in a sense who has got the initiative and ..... the employer to have the initiative as well, as I read it. Well, I will let you discuss it then. Training.

PN293

MS FORBATH: Training is something we have just discussed recently and these were some words that John Brown came up with and some of them which he came up with too replaced what is already there. But I don't know that the employers really had an opportunity to - - -

PN294

MS MINOGUE: Really look at it, no.

PN295

MS FORBATH: Because that is pretty new stuff there so we need to have some further meetings to finalise that. Well, the other issue I was going to ask, Commissioner, is having clauses about the provision of training allowable?

PN296

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, they are. They certainly are in - I have it a number of times recently but I am going confused whether it is in agreements or in awards because I have done both. I think it is arguable it is incidental to the career structure under 89A, but I will just get - Margo has gone a reference for me so I will take that on notice and a few minutes I will be able to give you a response.

PN297

MS FORBATH: Well, it would be good to clear that up because I mean there is a thousand decisions that ..... then we will not beat our breasts over it in subsequent months.

PN298

MS MINOGUE: No.

PN299

MS FORBATH: Well, I would like to write a note about it.

PN300

MR MORAN: Just for the sake of it.

PN301

MS FORBATH: No, just for the sake of it. I think it is incidental to the operational classifications structure and absolutely essential to even in the private sector if they don't update their rapid response defibrillation certificate every 12 months - - -

PN302

MR MORAN: Yes, okay.

PN303

MS FORBATH: There are things like that are absolutely critical to the operation of the whole industry.

PN304

MR MORAN: Yes, okay.

PN305

THE COMMISSIONER: I think I might take that on notice otherwise I will be wandering through this till I find the right place. I will let you know later today.

PN306

MS FORBATH: Well, if Margo could get back to one of us and we will kind of know how far we can take it at least and give us some framework to work within.

PN307

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what I will do is give you references to some decisions and give you some references to clauses.

PN308

MS FORBATH: Commissioner, the resource book that the Commission puts out, what is the most recent update of that, because I have got one from September last year?

PN309

THE COMMISSIONER: I think there is April this year. It is on the internet. www.air.gov.au and it is either on that one and I think it is, or on www.airc.gov.au. One of those. Perhaps Margo can go and look it up on the net now and tell you when the latest is.

PN310

MS FORBATH: There is two other issues that I think we need to clarify. I think there is - in this document we swing between calling an ambulance officer and ambulance paramedic and I think that we have to try to decide what it is that person is going to be called. Now, the term ambulance paramedic did come up through enterprise bargaining in the private sector but the course of study to qualify someone changed as well over the last few years and you now qualify as an ambulance paramedic and the courses study that you do is ..... ambulance paramedic studies. So the title is no longer officer, ambulance officer.

PN311

It is ambulance paramedic in terms of the qualification and I guess it is probably not so much of an issue for the public sector. It is more an issue for the private sector in calling your people ambulance paramedics, if they have a recognised ambulance qualification. It is something that we would like to clear up because I think the document has got to reflect a consistent language.

PN312

MR MORAN: Well, I will take that on board and get back to you on that, Brenda.

PN313

MS FORBATH: Okay. The other broad issue, again a question of consistency, is there are a number of allowances that are tied to a percentage of the ambulance paramedic/ambulance officer rate of pay and in some instances we tie it to the year 3 rate and in some instances we tie it to the year one rate and I think that we need to clarify that as well. The original award does not give us much guidance on that because of the aggregation process that we have been through.

PN314

MR MORAN: Yes, I notice in 5.3.1 that shift allowance that was an issue at one stage on the first document that you I had and you have now settled on it being a percentage of an ambulance officer third year.

PN315

MS FORBATH: Yes. Yes, all of the parties, including John, agreed with that.

PN316

MR MORAN: Agreed with that.

PN317

MS FORBATH: Yes.

PN318

MR MORAN: What you are saying is there are some other sections of the document which it has not been agreed?

PN319

MS FORBATH: No. Where it is tied to year one year. So I think that that is something that we need to specifically reach a consensus on.

PN320

MR MORAN: Yes, okay.

PN321

MS FORBATH: And I suppose I need to - - -

PN322

THE COMMISSIONER: Normally what you have got to do is you have got to work what is the benchmark rate and then all the others that apply relate to that.

PN323

MS FORBATH: Yes.

PN324

THE COMMISSIONER: So it is either paramedic level ..... year three or whatever it is. That then becomes the benchmark for the rest. It is usually the rate which is closest to tradesman rate in the Metal Industry Award, but I mean that is a very broad rubric I suppose. It is a really a question for you to come to an agreement about and provided the relationships make sense, well, I am not going to argue with that.

PN325

MS FORBATH: We will ..... the evidence of the safety net for working out all of the allowances.

PN326

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well, that would seem to be the rates you would use.

PN327

MS FORBATH: Now it becomes a question of what year we base it on. We haven't had to have that problem in the past because of how the award was split up between a base rate and the service increments and the qualification allowances. So all those bits got increased separately under safety nets, the safety net process. Now we are aggregating the rate so we are forced to make that decision. Initially we weren't confronted with that previously.

PN328

Those are just two broad issues that we think that the parties need to agenda in terms of getting some consistency. At least then we can provide the position to the Commission.

PN329

MS MINOGUE: We should really seek to meet regularly. Commissioner, did you say you were going to schedule one late December and again in February or just February?

PN330

THE COMMISSIONER: No, just February.

PN331

MS MINOGUE: Just February. We should really schedule some regular meetings in order to work through that issue ..... so that we can come back in February with the majority of.

PN332

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, do you want to set a date now?

PN333

MS FORBATH: Next year is ..... but I am sure it is not - - -

PN334

MS MINOGUE: Sure it is not already over - - -

PN335

MS FORBATH: It is not filled up in February.

PN336

THE COMMISSIONER: I will just go and get my diary.

OFF THE RECORD

PN337

THE COMMISSIONER: The reference book was updated, Margo tells me, three weeks ago. I can remember getting advised a number of things had been changed in the organisation. So if you look through that training stuff the test is whether it is necessary for the proper operation of the award and it seems to me there is certainly an arguable case that in relation to quite a number of the classifications there is a need for people to receive training in order to get the skills, etcetera.

PN338

I presume the salary progression once you have got the base skills there is sort of refresher courses that people have got to keep up to date with each year, etcetera?

PN339

MS FORBATH: Advanced training.

PN340

THE COMMISSIONER: Pardon?

PN341

MS FORBATH: And advanced training as well.

PN342

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN343

MS FORBATH: Two types of training that the employer offers. One is refresher training but you are still operating within your current range of skills but you are just being rechecked if you like to make sure that you are still operating at that level and then there are - - -

PN344

THE COMMISSIONER: That is the clinical aspects.

PN345

MS FORBATH: Yes, clinical skills and then there is advanced training where you may be selected by the employer to - not everybody gets to do MICA training, just put your hand up and say I want to train as a MICA officer. You have to be selected and you have to go through a process to do that training and it is only offered at Monash to people who are already employees. You can do MICA training through a Victorian university without being an employee, so there are two ways you can go about it. But we are referring here to the relationship between the employer and employee, not what somebody might do outside all of that.

PN346

MS MINOGUE: A pre employment model.

PN347

MS FORBATH: Yes.

PN348

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. I mean if it is training issues, you know, incidental and necessary ..... for the operation of the award, in other words, it is linked to the classification ..... it would seem to me it is allowable. It is just a question of how it is phrased and of course I mean if you are talking about allowances which apply to people when they are training, well, that obviously isn't allowable matter. It is an allowance quite clearly.

PN349

MS FORBATH: Because I think we say somewhere in this document that if an ambulance paramedic/officer has to be accredited on a 12 monthly basis to perform rapid response defibrillation and they will be given the opportunity to get a bit of training and then they will get assessed and they will go through a test, if they fail it the employer may give them a couple of sessions of training if you like to get them to that point. But if they keep failing they cannot then operate as an ambulance officer/paramedic. They have to operate at a lower level and they actually lose a part of their wage.

PN350

THE COMMISSIONER: Certainly, I mean if they were going to work on you or me we would want them to be able to do it. Let us hope it never occurs.

[11.12am]

PN351

In terms of the next report back we can do it in the week of 5 February or the week of the 18th.

PN352

MS MINOGUE: 18th.

PN353

MS McKENZIE: 18th.

PN354

MS FORBATH: 18th.

PN355

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I will make it Tuesday, 19th. Is that all right? Would you prefer Monday, the 18th.

PN356

MS McKENZIE: No, no, the 19th is fine.

PN357

THE COMMISSIONER: I am still working three days a week at that stage.

PN358

MS FORBATH: What time? Same time or - - -

PN359

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it is just a question of convenience for you. I mean I was in a hearing all this morning but usually any time after say quarter past nine.

PN360

MS FORBATH: Does not worry me.

PN361

MS McKENZIE: 9.15.

PN362

THE COMMISSIONER: 9.15. And that really will be a report back and hopefully at that stage the intention is to reach as much agreement as possible and then with a view to setting a program to arbitrate those issues which are outstanding. I don't propose to issue a direction. I mean we have had discussion and from my understanding you will meet on a regular basis between now and then with a view to resolving any differences that are possible and 19 February I will get the good news that I have a consent order that I can make on the day.

PN363

MR MORAN: Eternal optimist.

PN364

THE COMMISSIONER: You have to be in this business.

PN365

MS FORBATH: Could I just ask, Margo, are you intending to re-do this in the Commission's format?

PN366

THE COMMISSION: Yes. The anti-discrimination clause will have to be inserted. It has to be put into the award and the personal leave clause I know is not actually in there either and then I can send them to you.

PN367

MS McKENZIE: Margo, is that the most up to date personal leave, carer's - - -

PN368

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Margo puts all that in automatically and she formats it.

PN369

MS MINOGUE: Yes.

PN370

MS FORBATH: So will you be able to give us a copy of that then so that we would then be working from that document?

PN371

THE COMMISSION: Yes, I will e-mail it to everybody so everyone has the same copy.

PN372

MS FORBATH: So roughly what are you time lines on that do you think?

PN373

THE COMMISSION: Without sending up to the upstairs area, because I think it is not really ready to go up to the award simplification area yet.

PN374

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

PN375

THE COMMISSION: I could have it formatted by the end of next week.

PN376

MS FORBATH: Fantastic.

PN377

THE COMMISSION: With all the relevant standard test case provisions in as well. I will have to re-number it all and put it into its part 1, 2, 3 and all that but that will be by next week.

PN378

MS FORBATH: Thank you.

PN379

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. If you want to keep meeting you are free to stay.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.16am]