|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220
Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:(02) 9238-6500 Fax:(02) 9238-6533
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
JUSTICE GIUDICE
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT POLITES
COMMISSIONER LARKIN
C NO 32208 OF 2000
C NO 32209 OF 2000
CALTEX REFINERIES (NSW) PTY
LIMITED AND ANOTHER
AND
THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION
APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 170MW OF THE
ACT FOR AN ORDER TO TERMINATE OR SUSPEND
A BARGAINING PERIOD - PART HEARD
SYDNEY
10.01 AM, MONDAY, 5 MARCH 2001
CONTINUED FROM 2.3.01
HEARING CONTINUING
PN1937
PN1938
MR GINTERS: For the benefit of the transcript, your Honours, Commissioner, I can indicate that it is Murrami - M-U-R-R-A-M-I Avenue in Caringbah?---That's correct.
PN1939
Mr Dean, you have prepared two statements in relation to these proceedings?---Yes, that's correct.
PN1940
Do you have copies of those statements with you? What I'll need you to do is answer with a yes or a no so the transcript picks it up?---Yes, I do.
PN1941
Thank you. Could I take you to the first of those statements? It bears a Commission filed stamp of 9 October. Do you have that with you?---I do.
PN1942
That's a statement of some three pages in length?---That's correct.
PN1943
I understand that there's an amendment that you wish to make to the second page of that statement, is that correct?---That's correct.
PN1944
What amendment is that?---3(c), that's on the second page, originally read, "There has been a significant increase in sampling due to tighter specifications and unreliability of analysers, especially RVP and octanes." During the typing of this, I don't know how it happened but it got a bit messed up. I would like to delete the words "and unreliability of analysers" and after "especially" insert "in relation to" and then it would read, "there has been a significant increase in sampling due to tighter specifications, especially in relation to RVP and octanes".
PN1945
Could I ask you to make those changes and then just initial the changes in the margin, please? With those amendments, are the contents of that statement true and correct?---They are.
PN1946
Could I invite you then to turn to the third page and sign and date that statement with today's date, please?---What's the date, the 4th. There you are.
PN1947
I tender that statement.
PN1948
PN1949
MR GINTERS: Mr Dean, could I take you to the second statement you prepared. That's also a statement of some three pages in length?---That's correct.
PN1950
Have you read that statement?---I have.
PN1951
Are the contents of that statement true and correct?---They are.
PN1952
Could I ask you to turn to the third page of that statement and, again, sign and date it, please? I tender that statement.
PN1953
PN1954
PN1955
MR WATSON: Mr Dean, you had an opportunity to read Mr Harrison's statement which responds to yours?---I did.
PN1956
And where you disagreed with Mr Harrison's statement, you have said so in the second of your statements?---Sorry, I didn't understand.
PN1957
Where you disagreed with Mr Harrison, you have said so in the second of your statements?---That's correct, yes.
PN1958
You refer to DOC tests, in paragraph 4 of your second statement. Do you see that?---On page 1.
PN1959
Yes, and over the page, on page 2. Do you accept that those tests have ceased?---Yes.
PN1960
That was well before 1997?---Yes, with the DOC tests, the only time we perform a DOC test is after there has been a regeneration of catalyst in the reactors or we add new catalysts to the reactor and then we just check for H2S gas. That's what the purpose of the DOC test is, that's the only time. Prior to '97 DOC test was done every shift, which ceased before '97.
PN1961
It was well before '97, wasn't it?---I don't know the exact date but definitely before '97.
PN1962
Previously, what that required was samples had to be taken and then taken to a small plant lab?---That's correct.
PN1963
You accept that was a time-consuming activity?---No.
PN1964
You also refer to the DHTU cloud analyser?---I remember referring to those. I just can't find it here.
PN1965
I think it was in your first statement, paragraph 3(d) on page 2. See, you refer to that - the cloud analyser?---Right, yes, I've got it here (d).
PN1966
Do you accept that the DHTU cloud analyser has no provision for RTs to make any adjustment?---The problems we have there are that we have to pull a sample now from the analyser itself and the extra workload is we have to, before pulling that sample, go into those CSC systems, see what the analyser's reading for the cloud point at that particular time, mark it on the sample tag and then when it goes up to the lab, they compare what the DCS system is saying in relation to what we pulled. You know, see how they compare. So there is additional workload involved, whereas before you used to pull the sample, put it on pickup point and it used to go off.
PN1967
But it doesn't involve making any adjustment, does it?---Well, not for the outside, it would involve making adjustments if it was incorrect maybe for the board operator, or the man in the seat, the CCB, central control room, but for an outside operator there's no additional adjustments.
PN1968
But the function is more to press the reset button rather than make an adjustment?---That is if the analyser is playing up then you have to go press the reset button which was never something we had to do before and it's not as if you walk outside you walk a fair distance to get to this button.
PN1969
Is that what you say is the new procedure, is it, to walk to that button?---With the analyser there is the resetting the button, there is what I mentioned before about putting the data from the computer on to the sampler tag, which you never used to do before and the whole analyser hut itself we've never had any formal training on, so it's a bit of teach yourself. The company just put it there and that was it, there was no formal training whatsoever given to any outside RTs or operators on that analyser hut so you had to work it out for yourself.
PN1970
When did you say this change occurred?---Sorry.
PN1971
When did this change occur?---When did this change occur?
PN1972
Yes?---I don't know the exact date.
PN1973
It was some time ago, wasn't it?---It would be a couple of years ago, 2 or 3 years ago, I'm not sure. I would be only guessing.
PN1974
Yes. So, you don't know whether it was before 1997 or after 1997?---I honestly don't know.
PN1975
Now, you give evidence about a new flare drum and I think it's mentioned in your first statement at paragraph H. Do you accept that that new flare drum was installed in 1995?---The flare drum may have been installed in 1995. Once again, I would only be guessing at the date. It has been there for a while.
PN1976
It's got an auto start pump?---It has an auto start facility, yes, which we don't have it on auto for an auto start though. It's for a local start because the line it would discharge into is also used for another purpose by another unit and we can't have them both going down the same line at the same time. So if we have to pump out the flare drum we have to check with the crackers as we call them, the SCCU, the CDUs and if they're not then we can use it. They're using it, we have to hold off.
PN1977
That's the procedure that has been in place since the flare drum was introduced in 1995?---That's just the procedure that we have to follow.
PN1978
Yes. Now, you talk about using nitrogen as a displacer? Do you recall that?---Yes, I do.
PN1979
Do you accept that the use of nitrogen as a displacer started in 1994?---Once again I wouldn't be able to say exactly when a date was, but I know the procedure that we have to follow now, due to a recent incident, where nitrogen was sent down the line to another unit. The procedure we have to follow now while we're displacing that dryer, it could take a couple of hours, we have to actually be there while that is happening so that we don't send nitrogen down the line.
PN1980
Can I ask you a couple of questions about your second statement? That's the one that had 23 November at the front of it. In paragraph 3 you refer to the HSR feed from No 3CDU?---That's correct.
PN1981
Are you aware of any piping and equipment changes in the last 12 months with respect to the stripper operation?---I wasn't referring to piping operations in the last 12 months. What I was referring to then, in that statement is that, the company not only Caltex but the companies tend to buy cargoes of oil which are not quite - they have a lot of light ends in them and the workload increases for the guys - the operators in the East side because with the light ends, we get a lot of overheads and we have a lot of problems with control on those overheads in our drums off the stripper. So it's not additional piping, it's just quality of the crude produce that the company purchase.
PN1982
Yes, but do you accept that there have been changes to the piping and equipment in the last 12 months?---I don't know, you have to be more specific.
PN1983
Well, do you accept that approximately 80 metres of insulation was removed from a system and the removal of the burners from a redundant heater, which is now used as a cooler? Are you aware of that?---No.
PN1984
Do you accept that changes that have been made, have dramatically improved the stripper column overhead system?---I can't - in the last couple of months, I don't know whether it's because we haven't got that cargo crude, type of crude in or not, but there has not been a problem with the overheads in the last couple of months.
PN1985
Yes. Now, at paragraph 4 of the same statement, you refer to RVP samples. Do you accept that they take less time than the DOC tests and the Schilling tests?---There's no relation between the two. The octane, what we are saying there pulling an octane or RVP sample involves going out and getting a sample and taking it down and putting it on the pick up point, because they're able to pick up, that normally would happen once a day maybe. Now, as I've said there it could happen up to 3 or 4 times a shift. It all depends on how the unit is performing at the time, what specifications they're looking for. The Schilling test is something we haven't done for a while and the Schilling test was a bottle of gas which, time wise, is not very consuming at all.
PN1986
The RVP tests, if you look at each time the sample is taken, is not very time consuming?---We don't do RVP tests.
PN1987
RVP samples, sampling?---We just pull the sample, the lab does the test.
PN1988
Yes, but taking the sample is not very time consuming, is it?---It all depends how many times a day you do it. The Schilling test is only done once a day or once a shift, whereas - the point I'm making there is that, instead of pulling an RVP sample once a day, we may have to do it up to a dozen times a day, 4 times a shift. That is where the extra workload comes in, which I'm referring to.
PN1989
How long does it take to take 1 RVP sample?---One RVP sample would, I would say, from writing out the tag to putting it on the pick up point, it would be about 6 minutes, 7 minutes.
PN1990
Yes. You have to do more RVP samples than previously but you don't do the Schilling tests or the DOC tests?---That's correct.
PN1991
At paragraph 5, you refer to CWT, cooling water tower. Are you aware there has been ongoing maintenance regarding that tower in recent months?---The work on the cooling water tower, we've had problems with the fin fans which is a maintenance problem, but it also involves the outside RT, time wise. The cooling water tower is in very poor repair and the concern of all the RTs is it's made of asbestos fibro and it's breaking up and that and that is, as we think, a problem as well. But as far as maintenance is concerned, it's only on the equipment itself, not on the cooling water tower itself.
PN1992
But do you accept that it is now operating normally, more often than it was previously, given the maintenance that has been done in recent months?---Well, when I left it wasn't operating normally because we had the spare turbine and because the shutdowns in the area there was a - the demand for cooling water was not sufficient to warrant the motor to pump - motor turbine pump to run so we had to have the turbine on reduce where it has been on - left there on night shift, a week ago I go back today. It may be back to normal, I don't know.
PN1993
When it's operating normally, then it doesn't involve very much RT attention?---I didn't hear that?
PN1994
It doesn't involve very much attention by refinery technicians?---When it's operating normally, you have certain duties to perform every shift on the cooling water tower.
PN1995
In paragraph 6 of this statement, you refer to the flare drum and just for clarification, that's the flare drum that you accepted earlier was installed before 1997?---I don't know when it - the date - I don't know when it was installed.
PN1996
Okay. Thank you, nothing further.
PN1997
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Mr Ginters?
PN1998
MR GINTERS: No re-examination, might Mr Dean be excused?
PN1999
PN2000
MR GINTERS: I recall, Mr Ian Ottaway?
PN2001
PN2002
MR GINTERS: Might Mr Ottaway be provided with exhibits 21, 22, 23 and 24, your Honours? Mr Ottaway, do you have your four statements in front of you?---What were the numbers, 21, 22, 23 and 24?
PN2003
Yes, they're exhibits number 21, 22, 23 and 24. They're the Commission exhibit numbers. Are your statements marked?---Okay, I've got 21, 22, 23?
PN2004
And 24?---I don't seem to have 24 here.
PN2005
JUSTICE GIUDICE: It might be right at the back, 23 has got a lot of attachments, hasn't it?---Yes, your Honour, it's right at the back, sorry, yes.
PN2006
Mr Ottaway, it's difficult I know because you haven't got much room there but could you try not to brush that microphone?---Yes, I know.
PN2007
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Thank you.
PN2008
MR GINTERS: The contents of those four statements, Mr Ottaway, are true and correct?---They are.
PN2009
Could you just briefly check for me, are all four of those statements signed and dated?---No, No 23 hasn't been signed and dated.
PN2010
Could I ask you to turn to exhibit 23 then please and turn to the final page of that statement?---Yes.
PN2011
And ask you to sign and date it?---Today's date?
PN2012
PN2013
MR WATSON: Is the one that you've just signed and dated AWU23, the one that - it originally had the date 23 November 2000 on it, on the front page, Mr Ottaway?---No it was October 2000 and I re-dated it to 1 March 2001. It's got 54 paragraphs.
PN2014
I want to ask you some questions about the witness statement in reply concerning the wage claim. Do you see that one?---What number would it be please?
PN2015
JUSTICE GIUDICE: I think that might be 21?---Okay.
PN2016
MR WATSON: Have a look at 21. Does that say at the top, "Witness Statement in Reply of Ian Ottaway Concerning the Wage Claim"?---That's the one.
PN2017
Yes, thank you. Paragraph 3 on the first page, you say that Mr Harrison had not referred to No 1 SRU?---That's correct.
PN2018
Do you accept that No 1 SRU is now redundant and inoperative, apart from certain pieces of equipment which have been incorporated into No 2 SRU?---No, I don't accept that.
PN2019
So you say that No 1 SRU is an operating unit?---Well, from the point of view it's got a live steam service there, it's got nitrogen to it, it's got a sulphur pit which is located there, it has to be checked. You have storage vessels which are used from other units, other than just No 2 SRU. No, I don't think it is completely out of the loop.
PN2020
You accept that the sulphur pit is a back up to the sulphur pit in No 2 SRU?---It's a very frequently used back up.
PN2021
Yes, and there are other pieces of equipment from No 1 SRU which are incorporated into No 2 SRU?---In what way?
PN2022
Well, it's part of the No 2 SRU as an operating unit?---They're attached to No 2, they're also attached to the crude, they're attached to the DHT, they're attached to the TSU. It's very hard to say that it's actually, you know, they have mothballed the unit per say, but the unit still involves a lot of work because the IR has to check the breathing apparatus, there's lots of things to do on the unit. It's hard to say it's just an extension of the No 2 SRU.
PN2023
One way of looking at it is, that it has been mothballed and there are parts of it still operating in conjunction with the operating unit being as No 2 SRU?---A significant part of it, yes.
PN2024
Now, at paragraph 6, you refer to No 3 CDU. It's true, isn't it, that No 3 CDU can now be operated in tri-mode?---That's correct.
PN2025
That has had the effect of reducing mode changes?---No.
PN2026
You don't accept that?---No, not at all.
PN2027
Well, could you explain what you understand the tri-mode function to be?---Well, a mode change is when you change from one mode to another, obviously. If you're in a heating oil mode, you change back to a jet fuel diesel mode, if you're in jet fuel diesel, you change to a heating oil mode. In heating oil, you're making just 2 products, heating oil and diesel. In jet fuel, you're making also 2 products, jet fuel and diesel. It's totally different. So, if you change from one mode to the other, it's just mode change. The valves have got to be changed, outside the operator has to make a lot of changes inside to the actual operator of the unit, so it does. Definitely, a mode change is a mode change, as far as I'm concerned.
PN2028
So, does the tri-mode enable more than one product to be made at any one point in time?---Well, we always make more than one product. It's just we make a different product, so it's a mode change.
PN2029
Yes, but I'm asking you about the tri-mode that has been installed?---Right, I'm answering that.
PN2030
Yes. It has an effect on the change in the process, doesn't it?---Yes.
PN2031
Yes. How would you describe the effect of that change?---We change from jet fuel to heating oil or vice versa. It requires the operator on the console to make a number of changes. You've got to raise the vapour line, he's got to do a lot of internal changes to get the products on spec and it also involves the outside operator having to go out and manipulate valves to affect the different run downs. We run different side streams to give us the different products.
PN2032
In paragraph 7, you refer to an environmental compliance course?---Correct.
PN2033
Can you tell the Commission what that entails?---There's a CD rom course, you sit down and you go through and you've got to answer questions on - you've got to go through the information supplied to you and you've got to answer questions correctly to get a sufficient number correct to pass the course.
PN2034
How many times do you have to do that?---Well, I've done it once, that's all. It's probably every 2 years or 3 years, I would imagine. I haven't actually looked to see.
PN2035
How long did it take you to do that through that CD rom process?---Well, really if you did it and you took your time, it could take you nearly up to 2 or 3 hours, but you can rush through it.
PN2036
Yes. The CD rom advises you of certain circumstances, relating to environmental issues?---Correct.
PN2037
It advises you of what processes you need to have regard to, in the course of your duties as an RT?---Correct.
PN2038
Now, do you accept that there have been modifications to the analyser systems in 3CDU?---What sort of modifications are we talking about? Can you enlighten me?
PN2039
Well, I can answer you that question, but do you accept that there have been changes?---Well, you're talking about a while ago, they put a cow pot on, if that's what you're talking about. They've put a freeze analyser in, which is new and I say that's the basic changes that I can think of. I know they have changed actually where the samples have been taken from. I'm not too sure if that's still the same, I've been on leave.
PN2040
Do you accept that those changes have led to an improvement in analyser availability?---No.
PN2041
Any other changes that lead to improvement in analyser availability?---No. The analysers have been dismal. They're absolutely a waste of time.
PN2042
Now at paragraph 9, you refer to salt usage?---Correct.
PN2043
Driers appear to be taken out of service?---Yes.
PN2044
Do you accept there's been no change regarding salt charging?---Well, I haven't got the figures to say whether that's true or correct or incorrect. But what actually does happen, we do have totalizers on both those desalters which give us a reading of what they estimate the amount of salt should be in the bottom of those salt driers. They have to be taken out to check those totalizer readings, they're taken out of service, they're dipped and put back into service. It's not something that takes a minute, it takes a considerable amount of time.
PN2045
In paragraph 10, you refer to heating oil, it's in the first sentence?---Yes.
PN2046
Do you accept that heating oil is always produced in the Winter months?---Not No 3 crude. We traditionally - when they started making heating oil again, we had to go back to one of the old operators to find actually how to run the unit on heating oil mode, because we hadn't done it. I've been refining for 22 years and I've been doing the crude, probably, for 10 and it's only been in the last couple of years that we've started running heating oil again. It's normally done on No 1 crude.
PN2047
Then you refer to the tri-mode?---Yes.
PN2048
Sorry, what was that?---It was spelt incorrectly.
PN2049
So it's t-r-i?---Yes.
PN2050
Do you accept that the tri-mode makes it easy for the console operator?---It makes no difference. He's still got to make the same adjustments as he would ordinarily. He's got to raise his vapour line, he's got to heat column up, he's got to make the top products heavier, so he's got to lift everything up, so it makes work for him.
PN2051
For the outside operator, it also assists the outside operator?---I have encountered the valves but I would suggest there would be very little difference. He's still got to manifold No 1 side stream into No 2 side stream and I don't think he might not do that now, but anyway, no, it wouldn't make a great deal of difference to him.
PN2052
Paragraph 11, you refer to a bypassing of control valves?---Yes.
PN2053
Whenever the valve is operating sub-optimally, then there should be a bypassing. Do you accept that?---If it's for maintenance purposes, I do. If it's not for maintenance purposes, just to increase the throughput, I don't think you should. That valve I think I refer to there is probably LV101 which has been inoperative for years.
PN2054
So the valve is inoperative?---Well, they had a specialist company come out and look at it and they thought that it was only a valve that opened 50 per cent, the valve is in such poor condition.
PN2055
So therefore, bypassing has been engaged in because - - -?---It's not bypassed. The bypass has been opened as well as the valve is still in service and every time you have to make a significant change, the outside operator has to climb up 3 flights of ladders to effect the change. It took the AO the other night, I think, in the order of 45 minutes to get it settled out.
PN2056
Paragragh 12, you refer to V105?---Yes.
PN2057
You say that the bypass valve was used in September?---Correct.
PN2058
That's last year, is it?---That's correct.
PN2059
Yes. That's the only time in recent history?---From my memory, but as I say, I've been on leave and this was prepared in October, so I haven't really looked since October.
PN2060
But you weren't aware of any other time it was used between July and September?---No. The problem is you only see the board occasionally and when you're on it you notice these things happening. But we travel around the refinery quite a bit with different job positions and you don't always see the changes that are occurring in each area.
PN2061
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Mr Ottaway, can I just ask you a question about your statements?---Yes.
PN2062
They've been sworn to on Friday and I think it was last Friday and today, something you just said in answer to Mr Watson made me wonder, on what basis you had sworn them. Are they sworn on the basis that they were true at the time they were sworn in the Commission here or on some basis that they were correct at the time they were prepared in October?---The way I view them, your Honour, I swore that they were correct when I made them and to my best knowledge they are still correct to this day.
PN2063
Yes. The answer you gave to Mr Watson about paragraph 12 of the one you're looking at at the moment?---Yes.
PN2064
Was that the bypass valve was used in September, that sentence he asked you about, you said you hadn't checked since October. There is the potential for the statement to be a bit misleading?---Well, I can say that it was used in September, because I am aware of that time.
PN2065
No, no, I'm just looking at it as a question of principle. You say that these statements are correct, as at the time they were sworn. Is that right?---That's correct.
PN2066
Yes. I mean I understand there's the potential for a bit of confusion, because they were prepared some time ago. Anyway I understand that. Thank you?---Thank you.
PN2067
MR WATSON: So, to your knowledge the bypass valve was only used in September, that's the only time that you're aware of that it's been used between July and now?---Yes.
PN2068
In your statement, which I think is AWU24, it's a 3 page statement, it should be the heading, "Witness Statement of Ian Ottaway", and it has 9 October stamped on the front?---That's correct.
PN2069
See in paragraph 4G you refer to her bypass of LV105?---Yes.
PN2070
You say:
PN2071
This is operated manually and it is required to be open and shut regularly.
PN2072
?---Well, it was. It was only after they discovered that by opening the bypass up - it was brought in by our manager which was Bruce Dixon and I only discovered after a time that by opening the bypass they were actually causing the other exchanger to foul. When this statement was probably prepared, it had been general operating procedure that - and it was actually an op mark put on the computer that if you got to a certain point you had to get the AO to go outside to check that valve and to open the valve if it was necessary to bring the unit back under control. It was a special op mark that was put in to actually do it and it was pretty much regular work.
PN2073
So you were really talking about a situation previously to earlier on in the year 2000, first half of the year 2000 and before, rather than the situation which applied in the latter part of 2000 and now?---Well, the new management has changed the procedure. As I say, nowadays they don't want to use that valve at all. It's just a shame that - I responded by saying September basically because when I went back in Mr Harrison's statement, he said that it hadn't been used and it wasn't going to be used and in actual fact just at that particular time when I read it, the valve was in service.
PN2074
Yes, but you accept the statement that it is required to be opened and shut regularly is not an accurate description of the position as at now?---Not now, no.
PN2075
Nor in the last six months or so?---I can't comment on the time frame.
PN2076
But given that you were only aware of the bypass valve being used once in September, you would accept that it's not accurate to describe it as, "required to be open and shut regularly" as accurate as to the current situation?---True.
PN2077
Now in the next paragraph, you refer to a number of matters. You accept that the advanced control system has taken away many incremental control changes?---True, incremental.
PN2078
So as I understand that correctly, that means that the new technology caters for the incremental changes and the console operator who previously had to make those incremental changes is now only concerned with the more substantial changes?---Yes, that's correct.
PN2079
Now are you familiar with Calpot Tests?---Yes.
PN2080
Is it true to say that they are a new test?---We actually don't do the test. All we do is - the work for the Calpot is basically in draining it every Saturday morning, refilling it. It takes time to do. It's not something that's done quickly. We then pull samples, send them to the lab for testing. Every day we also run a controlled sample through the analysers to, well, they put a bias on the reading to take into account any adjustment was necessary.
PN2081
So the Calpot test is a new test? It's actually conducted in the lab, not by the refinery technicians?---We don't actually do a test. Well, we do a test - we run the Calpot which you could say is a test. We run that every day, daily that's gets run.
PN2082
Do you accept that the introduction of the Calpot test, regardless of who actually does them or who does what in relation to them, has reduced the number of manual tests that are required to be undertaken?---No. The figures show that's just not correct.
PN2083
Paragraph 15. You refer to the 120KPA Steam Supplier?---That's correct.
PN2084
You accept that that was installed prior to 1997?---That's correct.
PN2085
The process you described there as being in operation since it was installed?---No.
PN2086
What do you say the changes that have occurred during the period of its operation?---Prior to 1997 we never made auto mix for HCE. With auto mix we have to heat the strip of column up or the splitter column up a lot higher in temperate. We run at a vapour line of about 98 degrees centigrade, where we would normally run at 40, and because of this, the 120KPA steam, because it's a saturated steam, doesn't have a great deal of heat in it, so you find that you are forever having now to put the de super heater station into service where before we only put it in if there was a problem with the 120KPA steam. But nowadays we change, I think every 7 shifts, we're changing between auto mix and propane, butane production so it's basically an ongoing job for the owner to have to go and put it into service, take it out of service.
PN2087
That change occurs once every 7 shifts, did you say?---7.9 shifts, I think it is, from memory, on average.
PN2088
In the next paragraph you refer to CSC tests?---Correct.
PN2089
They were previously conducted by the operator?---The head operator did them, yes.
PN2090
The head operators went, when?---Usually on overtime, afternoon shift.
PN2091
Yes, but when did you cease having head operators?---Probably 1995, I think, but the difference with this is that as far as I'm aware, these things have never been taken into account for any previous wage claim. That's why it was included.
PN2092
Now it's true, isn't it, that now that a day worker operator oversees the routine CSC tests?---He may oversee them. It's not necessary that he does them and in my case I always insist on doing them myself.
PN2093
Paragraph 17, you refer to equipment installed during the revamp. Now the revamp was in 1995?---I think it was 1996-1997. I went back and looked it up and I thought it was 1996-1997. The dates - we don't live on them.
PN2094
Some of the equipment that you have mentioned there has never been used and is now redundant?---Quite possibly. It's still there. The only thing I can think of is the crinolene pump.
PN2095
With the revamp, there were several items of equipment removed?---Yes, there was.
PN2096
For example, a sulphur pit lime burner. Sulphur pit?---The old sulphur pit was replaced by a new sulphur pit.
PN2097
Line burner?---Two line burners were taken out and were replaced with reheaters, which I don't think I've even put on there. There were two reheaters, 400 pound steam reheaters put in there in their place, so that was just complete replacement of existing equipment.
PN2098
"Startup guns were something we also removed"?---I'm not too sure about that. That's a little bit confused, that one.
PN2099
So you accept that there was a fair bit of replacement of equipment?---No, that's basically all new equipment. You can't say, like when you get two or three new pumps or four or five new pumps that it's a replacement of an existing pump that wasn't there. There was no pump there. There was new equipment.
PN2100
There was some old equipment that was taken out of it?---Yes, there was. Some was replacement equipment.
PN2101
Yes, thank you, Mr Ottaway. Nothing further. Sorry, one more question? When you've prepared your further witness statements you've considered the statements of Mr Harrison in particular?---That's all I considered. I didn't look beyond anything else.
PN2102
Where you disagreed with Mr Harrison, you said so in your subsequent statements?---I did.
PN2103
Thank you.
PN2104
PN2105
MR SHAW: That completes then the oral evidence for the union. There may be a few documents that we might seek to tender and I will certainly draw my friend's attention to them during the day if that's so but, subject to that, that's essentially the union's case
PN2106
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Thank you Mr Shaw. Mr Watson?
PN2107
MR WATSON: If it pleases, we have filed and served a number of statements in addition to those that have already been tendered in the proceedings and they include statements that were filed last year when the substantive issues of wages and manning and there are subsequent statements filed in two batches this year in relation to, not only those matters, but the other matters which are part of these proceedings now.
PN2108
In essence, most of the witnesses we will be calling, the initial witnesses, will be the managers of the four areas involved in the Kurnell refinery and there is further evidence from one of the area specialists, Mr Willis, and the human resources manager, Mr Mitchell, and the Corporate Industrial Relations Manager, Mr Geeves. But the first four witnesses we propose to call will be the area managers for each of the four areas. If it is convenient at this stage, I call Mr Ray Haywood.
PN2109
MR WATSON: Mr Haywood, could you tell the Commission your full name and address?---Raymond Alexander Haywood, 1 Spruce Grove, Menai.
PN2110
Have you prepared four witness statements for the purposes of these proceedings?---Yes, I have.
PN2111
Do you have copies of them with you in the witness box?---I do.
PN2112
Is the first witness statement, one headed, "Witness Statement of Raymond Alexander Haywood filed pursuant to the further directions of the Full Bench, issued 15 September 2000" and is it some 59 numbered paragraphs?---It is, yes.
PN2113
Are there any changes or modifications you wish to make to that statement?---Other than the misspelling of my middle name, no.
PN2114
That is on the final page?---Correct.
PN2115
With that change, is the content of this statement true and correct?---It is.
PN2116
Could you please sign and date the statement on the final page? I tender that statement.
PN2117
PN2118
MR WATSON: Is the next statement, headed, "Second Witness Statement of Raymond Alexander Haywood" and is that some 19 numbered paragraphs?---It is.
PN2119
Are there any changes you wish to make to that statement?---Same misspelling of my middle name.
PN2120
On the final page?---Correct.
PN2121
With that change, is your statement true and correct?---It is.
PN2122
Could you please cross out the date, 24 November, on the final page, sign and date that final page? I tender that statement.
PN2123
PN2124
MR WATSON: Do you have the third witness statement of Raymond Alexander Haywood?---Yes, I do.
PN2125
Is that a statement of some 73 numbered paragraphs?---That's correct.
PN2126
Are there any changes you wish to make to that statement?---Yes, I do.
PN2127
Which changes?---Paragraph 13. About six lines down, the sentence that reads, "That lead to similar refusals in other areas", could that be deleted, please.
PN2128
Delete that sentence?---Correct.
PN2129
Could you delete that on the copy you have and initial in the margin. Any others?---Paragraph 19. Fourth line down where it says: "Such as area expertise", if you could strike out "area expertise" please.
PN2130
If you could do likewise and initial that in the margin. Any others?---And the final one is in paragraph 26. The last sentence says: "In 2000 it was 94.5". That should read: "In 2000 it was 94.5 as at the end of October".
PN2131
Have you made that change on the copy that you have?---I have.
PN2132
If you could initial that?---Mm.
PN2133
Is the statement otherwise true and correct?---Yes,
PN2134
Could you please sign and date with today's date the statement on the final page? I tender that statement.
PN2135
PN2136
MR WATSON: Do you have with you the fourth witness statement of Raymond Alexander Haywood, a document of some 40 numbered paragraphs?---I do.
PN2137
Is the content of that statement true and correct?---It is.
PN2138
Any other modifications?---No.
PN2139
Could you sign and date that statement? I tender that statement, the fourth witness statement of Mr Haywood.
PN2140
PN2141
MR WATSON: No further questions.
PN2142
PN2143
MR SHAW: I'm sorry, your Honour, I'm just sorting out some paperwork here.
PN2144
Mr Haywood, you, I think, were a member, or perhaps still a member of, the company's negotiation team with the AWU arising from the expiry date of the 1997 enterprise agreement?---Yes, I was the lucky one.
PN2145
You have a familiarity with that process?---I do.
PN2146
Could I ask you first about manning, on the question of manning levels? That's been a difficult issue between the company and the union for some years has it not?---As I understand it, yes, but specifically during these negotiations.
PN2147
Is it within your knowledge to accept that, at the Kurnell refineries, there has been significant manning reductions in the last decade?---Only from what I've been told, yes.
PN2148
Do you accept that something like a 40 per cent reduction has been effected since 1991, in manning?---That's the number that is reported.
PN2149
Do you accept that there is a genuine view from the refinery technicians about safety considerations and that's seen as linked with manning levels?---I think they believe that, yes, but I think processes can be put in place to actually test that, yes.
PN2150
You know, don't you, that there were in the 1997 enterprise agreement specified manning levels which were agreed between the parties?---That's correct.
PN2151
Is it fair to say that those numbers which were specified of refinery technicians in particular areas were those thought to be appropriate for the work to be done within the 35 hour week?---..... but they work .....
PN2152
Could I ask you to go to JM16? It isn't in your statement but I will see if I can find you a copy of it. As the initials indicate you will accept that that is an annexure to Mr Mitchell's statement? You will accept that that document was a company response to the AWU position paper of 17 April 2000, wasn't it?---Yes.
PN2153
You will see in clause 1 the company offer as to wages, that is 7.5 per cent for a two year settlement period.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.03am]
RESUMES [11.29am]
PN2154
MR WATSON: If the Commission pleases could I just clarify one point relating to exhibit Caltex 16 which is Mr Haywood's fourth witness statement? Mr Haywood indicated that that statement was 40 numbered paragraphs and we note that the numbering moves on page 6 from paragraph 20 to paragraph 26 so there are in fact no paragraphs 21 to 25 just so we've all got the same document in front of us we thought we should clarify that.
PN2155
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Yes, thanks, Mr Watson.
PN2156
MR SHAW: Thank you, your Honour.
PN2157
Mr Haywood before the short adjournment I was putting to you the document which is marked JM16. Have you had that?---Yes.
PN2158
Was that a document prepared quite shortly after the AWU position paper of 17 April 2000?---I believe it was.
PN2159
Would you accept that it was produced on or about the 18 April 2000?---I do.
PN2160
Clause 1 deals with the proposal about wages that is an offer of 7.5 per cent for a two year settlement period. I take it the company was prepared to begin paying that forthwith at the time when that document was produced?---No, I think that the operative date would have been the date of agreement.
PN2161
All right, so whenever agreement was reached was your understanding of the basis and did that proposal to your knowledge take into account work changes and technological changes experienced by the refinery technicians since 1997?---Yes, it does.
PN2162
So it was accepted by the company as part of its offer that there were relevant work changes which where to impact on the wage levels paid to RTs?---There was changes, yes.
PN2163
It was accepted that they were changes which were relevant to the determination of a wage increase for RTs?---Yes.
PN2164
Now, the only other clause I want to specifically raise with you is the manning clause, clause 9. Do you accept, looking at that last dot point, that the company was prepared to list the current manning numbers in the new agreement if there was a process for discussion if new opportunities for demanning further are identified?---That's what it says.
PN2165
Yes, and that accurately reflects the company's position does it not?---The intent is that the numbers aren't locked in you can list them but there has to be a mechanism by which they can be discussed during the life of the next agreement, yes.
PN2166
Now, there's no doubt that those particular manning levels were agreed in 1997 but as you say the company was looking for a process whereby they could be reviewed?---Correct, from what I understand from the 1997 agreement there was even a clause in that which was supposed to facilitate changes, but which was effectively blocked from the outset because the numbers were listed in the agreement.
PN2167
Well, the company was prepared to relist the numbers but wanted an effective method mechanism whereby the manning levels could be reviewed, is that so?---That's what it says, yes.
PN2168
In relation to your own area which is the FCCU is it?---Area 2.
PN2169
Is it the fact that as at April 2000 you were parting to agreeing that there were to be five additional RTs in that area?---Are we talking new trainees?
PN2170
RT60?---Yes, there agreement to have five more RT6 in Area 2.
PN2171
What was the basis of that proposed addition to establishment?---With regard to why they needed more sixes?
PN2172
Yes?---From my perspective as the manager of the area it had been a bottleneck for the previous two years. It wasn't just impacting on Area 2's performance, but from what I could see is that it was impacting across the whole refinery because it was the only area that wouldn't come to agreement with that.
PN2173
Now can you tell us Mr Haywood how much time you would spend on each working day or each shift that you work on actually examining or reviewing the work of refinery technicians?---Possibly something like an hour I suspect a day.
PN2174
What's your daily hours - what is your daily hours consist of?---In terms of number?
PN2175
Yes, approximate?---12, 10, 11, 12 something like that.
PN2176
So, it's a minor component of your daily task?---I presume so, yes.
PN2177
Now, we know don't we that the refinery technicians at Caltex haven't received a wage increase since September 1998?---That's correct.
PN2178
We know that the enterprise bargaining agreement of 1997 expired on 30 September 1999?---Correct.
PN2179
The company proposing now, as I understand it, in relation to wage increases is that they would not effect until the date of any award that is made, is that so?---That's been consistent right from the start of negotiations. That's not just now.
PN2180
So that would mean the absence of any increase following the expiry date of the EBA of something over two years?---If that's how long it is that's how long it is, yes.
PN2181
That is so despite your acknowledgment that there have been work changes affecting refinery technicians which you accept I take it should impact upon the wage levels paid?---And will be paid, yes.
PN2182
But would not be paid according to the company proposal for that period of over two years between the expiry date of the EBA and the making of an award?---Correct.
PN2183
Could I then raise with you the subject of bonuses? Is it right Mr Haywood to say that the company's bonus proposal departs from previous bonus arrangements that have applied to refinery technicians which were not dependant upon outside factors that is factors that didn't directly result from the work of refinery technicians?---I'd say that would be true.
PN2184
What is proposed as I understand it is that the bonus would be dependant upon the occurrence of no more than 12 treated injuries across the refinery?---Across the Kurnell sites.
PN2185
So that would contemplate treated injuries affecting personnel that the refinery technicians have no particular influence or control over, for example, the kitchen staff and the office staff?---That would be true.
PN2186
Doesn't that mean that in relation to the bonus benefits payable to RTs they could be prejudiced despite - even if it were the case that there were little of no treated injuries pertaining to refinery technicians as a result of injuries to other people, other employees?---The short answer is yes, as with everyone.
PN2187
Is it right that across the refineries, there have already been 6 treated injuries in the period January to March 2001?---I thought it was actually 7.
PN2188
So, that that means if you get up to 12 in the calendar year, the bonuses would not be paid to the refinery technicians?---Nor to the other employees on site, including myself.
PN2189
But in the past that fact would not have denied the payment of bonuses, would it?---I don't know. It depends what was the percentage or what was the break down for the RTs as well. I can't remember the exact break down but if it 7, I think 2 were RT related already. I know one was an LTI from an RT, so I don't know. If they've had it on their own they may well be out of the game already.
PN2190
But assume that you ended the year with more than 12 treated injuries across the Caltex refineries at Kurnell and assume that the bulk of those injuries were not treated injuries with respect to refinery technicians, then I would suggest to you it wouldn't be fair to deny the RTs of their bonuses on that basis?---That's a bit hard to say, because the RT can have a major impact on safety of other employees, not just themselves. I mean they are responsible for issuing all the work permits that are given out maintenance tasks. So, if for instance, a maintenance person is injured on the unit the question could be raised, what was going wrong there and is there any responsibility even with the area management as to why someone's injured on the area.
PN2191
Now, I accept what you say there but the fact is there could be a maintenance employee who had a treated injury which could have nothing to do with the work or the role of the RT?---Yes it could.
PN2192
You accept there would be cases where there might be a responsibility and other cases where there would be no responsibility whatsoever?---Correct.
PN2193
The position would be even clearer with respect to the examples I put to you a moment ago, namely the kitchen staff and the office staff, wouldn't it?---More than likely, yes.
PN2194
It's difficult to conceive that the RTs would have any role whatsoever with respect to those treated injuries?---No, it would be very rare. Kitchen staff do deliver supplies but yes, it would be very rare.
PN2195
So what I want to suggest to you is that for the first time, in relation to a condition precedent with respect to bonuses, the company is inserting pre-conditions arising from facts and circumstances that the RTs may have nothing to do with, in practical sense?---They will have a part to play in those targets.
PN2196
In the way that you've explained?---Yes and in the fact that they can contribute to those targets or not contribute to those targets, which ever way you want to measure it.
PN2197
Yes but I think it's fair to put to you that you've really agreed with me, that there may well be numbers within the 12 that have literally nothing to do with the work role or responsibility of the RTs?---That's correct.
PN2198
Another criterion contained within the company's proposal about bonuses is, as I understand it, operational availability. Is that so?---That is correct.
PN2199
I want to put to you that there may well be factors within the concept of operational availability that the RTs have no influence or control over?---Very small part. There's a lot that the RT does have to do with operational availability.
PN2200
Well, I suggest to you that factors such as the break down of plant and equipment and the speed of maintenance repair work in relation to those break downs, are matters that are really beyond the practical control of the RTs?---Provided the former wasn't the result, that's correct.
PN2201
Providing?---What break the equipment - you said break down of equipment, I don't know what break down.
PN2202
Yes, well I'm assuming - so that there would be break down of plant and equipment where there's no fault to be attributed to the RT, wouldn't there?---It would.
PN2203
Yes, and that would be a not in frequent occurrence?---I don't know to be honest.
PN2204
All right. Now, as you've said, you've been part of the negotiating team and you have knowledge about those negotiations which began in September 1999, didn't they?---Yes, I think it was September.
PN2205
Yes?---August or September.
PN2206
Do you recall a document which was produced by the company, dated 11 April 2000, which sought to set out resolved and unresolved issues?---I don't recall it.
PN2207
Could I hand you a copy of this document, Mr Haywood?---Yes, please. The beginning of April is a very busy time.
PN2208
Yes, I'm not being critical of you but I'm just seeing if that would jog your memory?---I have to be honest, I don't recall this but I'll accept it as what you say.
PN2209
Yes. Could I just correct myself, Mr Haywood? What I've given you is really 2 documents stapled together. One dated 11 April 2000?---Yes.
PN2210
Then about half way through, there's another document dated 13 March 2000?---Correct. This format is not - did you say the company produced these documents?
PN2211
That's my understanding?---It's just not a format that I'm used to seeing.
PN2212
I want to at some stage tender these documents, if the Commission pleases, but I'm just - the witness has said he doesn't recognise the format, so I'm a little inhibited about that, but I apprehend that during the proceedings, we will be able to tender it.
PN2213
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Somebody else will?
PN2214
MR SHAW: Yes. Now, could I just take you to the document, the latter document dated 13 March 2000, Mr Haywood? If you go to the second page of that, it, I think confirms something you've already told us, where it refers to - you see about 5, 4 lines down, "Five additional RT6s on FCCUs agreed"? Second page of the document, dated 13 March 2000?---Yes, yes I do.
PN2215
You see that first box on the second page:
PN2216
Areas of responsibility, five additional RT6s on FCCUs agreed
PN2217
Then the column on the right hand side that says that's resolved?---Mm.
PN2218
JUSTICE GIUDICE: You will have to speak up, Mr Haywood, otherwise it won't be picked up?---Yes, I'm sorry, yes.
PN2219
MR SHAW: That just confirms the discussion we had earlier about that. But what I want to put to you is that the question of whether the RRS should become a team leader, was not a matter which was being in any serious way, pressed by the company during the course of the negotiations for the new certified agreement?---I don't think we got to it. Things were getting very fast at the end there and there was obvious reasons of things that were going to appear, yes.
PN2220
This might be a somewhat unfair question, but I want to put to you and if you want time to look through it, I want to put to you that one doesn't find any reference to that issue in these two documents, setting resolved and unresolved issues?---Mm.
PN2221
Do you find that unfair or would you like time to look through the document?---Can I just have a quick look?
PN2222
Yes, sure?---No you'll be correct. I can't find it on either of those two documents.
PN2223
MR SHAW: Yes, thank you Mr Haywood. Do you have an understanding of the, what I'll call the prior negotiations, that is the negotiations that led up to the 1995 award and the negotiations that led up to the 1997 enterprise agreement as part of the background?---Very vague yes, but a little bit.
PN2224
All right. Tell me if you have any difficulty answering any of these questions by reason of that?---Thank you.
PN2225
That perhaps lack of background with the prior negotiations but you know that annualised salaries came in with the 1995 award, don't you?---Yes, I do.
PN2226
Are you able to accept that it was the company that during those negotiations, proposed that the work team should have control of the rosters?---I don't know that but I've heard that in these proceedings so far.
PN2227
Certainly you know that the idea of the work teams having control of the rosters was part and parcel of the agreement of 1995 that led up to the annual salary concept?---I believe that's true, yes.
PN2228
Would you accept that that was regarded as an incentive for the AWU and its members to accept the move to annual salaries?---I don't what was incentive for them to accept, it could have been, yes.
PN2229
Do you accept or do you say that annualised salaries have advantages for the company?---Yes.
PN2230
How would you explain those advantages?---The obvious advantage would be, I presume, to deal with overtime payments.
PN2231
Just explain that in a little more detail if you can?---Once again it's before my time, but there was a lot more overtime work prior - as a matter of fact almost infinitely more overtime work prior to annualised salaries and that would have had an overtime payment to those who are working overtime. Since annualised salaries, overtime has almost vanished.
PN2232
Are there any other advantages that occur to you of annualised salaries from the company's point of view?---Not that I can think of.
PN2233
All right. The question of the work teams having control of the rosters was then carried over into the 1999 certified agreement was it not?---It was for the shift team, yes, including the RSS.
PN2234
The award being propounded by the company in these proceedings seeks to make some fundamental changes about all of that allocation of rosters and so on, does it not?---It requires the RSS to have final say in the rosters, yes.
PN2235
Do you accept that that is a fundamental change of the arrangements that have existed during the 1990's at Caltex?---Fundamental to what was practiced.
PN2236
But the company isn't seeking to change the concept or nature of annualised salaries, is it?---No.
PN2237
In relation to the role of the RSS as a team leader, what happens if there are problems in two sub areas at the same time, on the companies proposal?---Problems in what way?
PN2238
Any difficulties with which the RSS would be expected to deal as a team leader?---It would make his job very difficult but he would be working from the CCB I suspect in that case where he could see both consoles?
PN2239
Well, isn't there a potential for difficulties in communication and leadership in that circumstance of problem in more than one sub area at any one time?---I don't think so.
PN2240
Does that in fact happen, that you could get two problems occurring in two sub areas at or about the same time?---Within the one area - two sub areas within the one area?
PN2241
Yes?---Yes, it could, because one could be a result of the other one.
PN2242
Yes. Now there is provision in the company's award for the RSS to conduct training, isn't there?---Yes.
PN2243
Is it the case that some of the RSSs have not worked as RTs for significant periods of time?---For several years.
PN2244
Would there be a gap or knowledge in competency of work stations within the particular area?---In staying current with some of the changes, they might not be 100 per cent with.
PN2245
All right. Again, I want to take you to some of the details of the company proposals. Do you have that draft award in front of you?---No I do not.
PN2246
Could Mr Haywood be given a copy of the company draft award? Caltex 7, your Honour?---Thank you very much.
PN2247
I wanted to take you to clause 11, workplace flexibility, paragraph 28?---Workplace flexibility is 11 on my - - -
PN2248
Yes, I'm sorry it's page 9?---Correct.
PN2249
Page 9 Mr Haywood, I'm sorry. You'll see that in clause 11.2 of the draft award, there's reference to any other union?---Yes, I do.
PN2250
I want to put it to you that that has the potential for demarcation disputes between the AWU members and members of other unions?---I'm not close to it on site but from what I understood it wouldn't in a lot of places because of the annualised salary of our maintenance employees which is the one that springs immediately to mind.
PN2251
You know that no other unions on site are parties to these proceedings?---That's correct.
PN2252
Particularly I suppose this would affect the maintenance unions would it?---That's what I was thinking.
PN2253
Yes. Do you see that the company would be given scope to direct the employees covered by this award, that is the AWU employees to do anything within their operating skills and competence, with the qualification that's there set out?---That's what it says, I think, yes.
PN2254
What I'm putting to you is that that doesn't have the potential for demarcation disputes or difficulties?---To be perfectly honest I don't know, but it may.
PN2255
Now the emergency response team is dealt with in this draft award. I think it's more particularly dealt with in your statement, isn't it or one of your statements, isn't it?---I think it is mentioned in one of mine, I think it's the fourth.
PN2256
I'm sorry for this, your Honour. I just want to identify the part of Mr Haywood's statement that deals with this in particular, which statement. I believe it's Caltex 15.
PN2257
Do you have that identified there?---I do.
PN2258
Paragraph 32 of it at page 8, deal with the ERT and as you say correctly that's historically been voluntary, hasn't it?---Correct.
PN2259
Had there been difficulties in getting volunteers?---The numbers are still oversubscribed. I know of cases where it's been filled and I know of cases where positions haven't been filled.
PN2260
But there are no significant practical difficulties arising from continuing on a voluntary basis, are there?---I think that's what we would actually prefer it to be.
PN2261
What, voluntary?---Yes. We just don't want to have - the business can't handle having the threat of it being withdrawn.
PN2262
It can be quite dangerous work, can't it?---I would say so.
PN2263
Is it the case that the availability of AWU RTs to perform ERT has never been withdrawn in practice?---That is correct.
PN2264
Could I then bring you to competency reassessment and, I think we're looking at the same statement beginning of paragraph 46 page 12? Do you accept, Mr Haywood, that during the negotiations for a new certified agreement the company and the AWU did in fact reach agreement on the terms of a Refinery Competency Clause?---In an attempt to narrow differences and hopefully get an overall agreement signed yes, there was agreement on that at one stage.
PN2265
Was that agreement reduced to writing by the company?---I believe it was.
PN2266
Was the focus of that agreement on gap training?---I'd like to see the document again. I think it had two parts to it.
PN2267
I'll hand you the final page, the final annexure of exhibit AWU36?---I appreciate it.
PN2268
If I could just give the witness a moment to read through what is a fairly short document.
PN2269
JUSTICE GIUDICE: I'm not sure that the lettering on the annnexures was actually correct on my copy. I think I had two (e)s. I'm not sure which one you are showing the witness. How is it marked?
PN2270
MR SHAW: It's certainly at the very final page of that exhibit, your Honour.
PN2271
JUSTICE GIUDICE: 36?
PN2272
MR SHAW: That's my understanding, exhibit AW36. I apologise for that difficulty of numbering, your Honour. It's headed Refinery Technician Competency 13 March 2000?---That's correct.
PN2273
Do you feel you've had sufficient time to look at that, Mr Haywood? I might uncover it if I can so I can see it. That's the document drafted up by the company and is it fair to say overall that there was a focus on gap training?---That document, as it is, is in two parts. One covers the gap and one covers the recertification of current skills. I don't know whether you can draw that one's more important that the other.
PN2274
This document, I put it to you and I'll hand it back to you if I need to, doesn't deal with recertification?---Isn't No 2 to deal with maintenance of current skills, six monthly process reviews and documentation check-outs. That's current skill material, the second one.
PN2275
It certainly deals with refreshing current operator skills or regular refreshing of current operators skills, does it?---That's correct. You've either got the - you've got the current and the new. It's to make sure that you re-check out on what you've known and check-out on what's new.
PN2276
It doesn't use the term or refer to competency recertification, does it?---Once again, I'm sorry. What was the heading of it?
PN2277
Refinery Technician Competency. I'm happy to hand this document back to you. I just want to put to you that it doesn't refer to or use the term recertification. Is that correct?---Yes.
PN2278
I understand the point you make. It does refer to regular refreshment of current operating skills in paragraph 2 thereof and paragraph 1 concerns the training gap, doesn't it?---Correct.
PN2279
That document if given effect to, would not require each and every one of the refinery technicians to be reassessed or recertified?---I think that's correct, as written.
PN2280
It's been put by the company to the union and its representatives, has it not, that the recertification of refinery technicians if someone were not certified would have disciplinary consequences for the employee concerned?---On as a very last resort. There's many other avenues before then.
PN2281
Certainly it could, if there were a failure on the part of the technician to gain recertification it would have disciplinary consequences for him?---Ultimately, yes.
PN2282
Is it right that this question of competency reassessment is not part of the discussion with other unions including the maintenance union at the Kurnell Refinery?---I'm not privy to the maintenance union ones but I actually, I don't know.
PN2283
Do you know of any other refinery in Australia which requires its operators or refinery technicians to all be recertified?---Once again, I don't know but that's as much based on my ignorance as anything else.
PN2284
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Mr Shaw, just before you lead, I don't want to bog this down but I will just check with you what that document is marked, the one you have just shown to the witness?
PN2285
MR SHAW: I'm sorry your Honour, that should be clarified.
PN2286
JUSTICE GIUDICE: You look at paragraph 13 of the statement. The document seems to have been referred to as having been marked with the letter G.
PN2287
MR SHAW: Yes.
PN2288
JUSTICE GIUDICE: The document I have is marked with a letter E. But I have pencilled beside it perhaps it should have been G. Is that right?
PN2289
MR SHAW: I'm very grateful, for your Honour raising that matter with me. I believe it should be correctly marked G.
PN2290
JUSTICE GIUDICE: All right. As long as we operate on that basis.
PN2291
MR SHAW: I can ask the Bench or all of us at the bar table to make that adjustment. Thank you very much, your Honour.
PN2292
Mr Haywood, on the question of learning time, do you acknowledge that there was an agreement between the company and the AWU with respect to learning time?---Yes, there was.
PN2293
Is it the case that the company proposal departs in material ways from that prior agreement?---I think it effectively goes back to where it originally was.
PN2294
Could I show you what I hope is correctly marked as annexure D to exhibit AWU36 and ask you to confirm that that was the agreement with respect to learning time. Is that correct?---That's correct. Yes.
PN2295
In terms of what the company is now proposing is it correct that the company seeks a maximum requirement of 73 hours per calendar year?---Correct.
PN2296
Whereas the agreement that you've identified required 24 hours in a calendar year?---That's correct.
PN2297
Is this document that you've just looked at again one that was drafted up by the company as a result of negotiations?---Most of the things were written up by the company and were brought back to the next meeting - and was brought back at the next negotiating meeting.
PN2298
So that both the company and the union and all its representatives were able to see whether the document accurately reflected the agreement that had been registered in the negotiating process. Is that right?---That's correct. Yes.
PN2299
What is proposed is that training would be rostered by the company?---Yes.
PN2300
Does that include the possibility that training could be rostered immediately after the completion of a night shift?---It wouldn't preclude it. It wouldn't be desirable but it wouldn't be precluded.
PN2301
It wouldn't be desirable because it could work, it would be unfair to the employee concerned, wouldn't it?---It would be awkward, uncomfortable.
PN2302
Does the company proposal also allow the possibility that an RTA with a rostered day off could be rostered on for training and therefore have to come into work for that purpose?---That's correct.
PN2303
You see that happening in practice?---It could happen in practice.
PN2304
The penalty for an employee who fails to attend the allocated training session on the company roster would be loss of pay. Is that so?---If there wasn't good reason or if it hadn't been excused I presume it would go that way, yes.
PN2305
Could I take you to your fourth statement which is, I think, exhibit Caltex 16? In paragraph 1 of that you acknowledge that the proposal that the RSS would have an overseeing role?---Which paragraph, sir?
PN2306
I think it's paragraph 1. Yes, paragraph 4, I'm sorry. In paragraph 4 you acknowledge that the RSS will have an overseeing role, is that right?---He'd be the shift team leader for their area and oversee several operational groups.
PN2307
It's obvious that he can't be in all subareas at once and can't oversee all subareas at once, isn't it?---Correct.
PN2308
Paragraph 9 reflects something you've said to me earlier in your evidence. "The proposal is that the RSS will have the final say in the roster requirements."?---Yes.
PN2309
That would be the roster in relation to annual leave, is that so?---Correct.
PN2310
What other rosters are contemplated to be within his role?---If there's additional coverage work needed for such things as TNIs or possibly training.
PN2311
I just want to go to a few other aspects of the draft award. You still have that draft award with you?---I do.
PN2312
Clause 5.4 - - -?---Yes.
PN2313
Expressly removes any higher duties provisions or acting up pay. Is that right?---That's correct.
PN2314
If an RT6B acts up, for example, for a significant period, to cover the role of an RT6A then that person would not get any higher duties payment?---It's envisaged that they would be the leave relief for the RT6 which might be a couple or a few cycles a year.
PN2315
What does that mean, forgive my ignorance, but what does that mean in terms of pay?---That his pay is effectively over the whole year for working a portion of the year as the RT6.
PN2316
So you don't get anything additional for working as the RT6?---Not when you're working as the RT6, no.
PN2317
In the event of serious illness or the like, that could be for a significant period could it not?---In that situation, it could, but then again - that's true. Yes.
PN2318
If I could take you to clause 5.6. That contemplates those people, that deal is in part with those people who work day shift, is that so?---That's correct.
PN2319
Under the 1995 award, the company agreed that the day work position would be paid at the annualised salary rate. Is that so?---Yes, but for the day work position, that's correct.
PN2320
The proposal, as we understand it in that provision of the draft award is that those people who work day shift would receive the total salary less the shift allowance?---For those that work day work permanently.
PN2321
That that is so, you deduct the shift allowance?---Correct.
PN2322
Is that a detriment from the existing position?---I don't know that this position even exists so I think this is for the future.
PN2323
Are there RTs who work regularly on day shift?---Regularly or permanently?
PN2324
Regularly?---I presume they can work it regularly.
PN2325
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Is there anyone working permanently on day shift?---Not in my, I think there might be one but that's not in my area. I'm not even sure that that's true.
PN2326
MR SHAW: You don't seem sure about that. We'll try to clarify that.
PN2327
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Is this is essentially a proposal for day work as distinct from day shift?---Correct.
PN2328
MR SHAW: Clause 25.7 concerns training. Can I take you to that?---Yes.
PN2329
You see reference there to the term, national guidelines?---Still getting there. Yes, I do.
PN2330
Do you know what that term means?---No, I do not.
PN2331
Can I take you to appendix 2 ?---Appendix 1 is the big one, I think. Yes.
PN2332
That there lists the responsibilities and duties of refinery technicians?---Yes, it does.
PN2333
Are you able to agree with me that section is uplifted from or taken from the SBIT report?---And edited, that's correct.
PN2334
So that's part of the SBIT report that the company seeks to continue on into the new award, is that right?---It's an edited version of that, yes.
PN2335
But is it true that there are other aspects of the SBIT report that the company doesn't want to continue into the new award?---Yes, I would say that's correct.
PN2336
So it's really the company selecting some portions that it wants to carry forward and other portions that it wants to negate or not carry forward?---Yes.
PN2337
Do you acknowledge or do you agree that when the SBIT report emerged and when it was the subject of negotiations between the parties, it was accepted by the AWU on the basis that it was a total package?---This is before my time when this was prepared. I know the EBA and the SBIT book came out at roughly the same time, if not the same time.
PN2338
But you weren't directly privy to that?---Not back in 1997.
PN2339
Do you know sufficient to know that the AWU has accepted the SBIT report as a whole?---I would say that's true.
PN2340
For example, if you adopted the SBIT report as a whole, you would maintain team responsibility for rosters, would you not?---That is in the SBIT at the moment, and by and large that's how it would remain in the future.
PN2341
Well, I thought that you had said that under the company proposition the RSS would have final responsibility for the rosters?---He would have final say when there was, shall we say, points of contention.
PN2342
But what I'm putting to you is that that's different from the concept and the form to be found in the SBIT report?---Well, the SBIT report had the RSS as a member of the team before, but for all practical purposes that meant nothing because he was just "a member".
PN2343
But the SBIT report saw the final responsibility for the rosters as resting with the team, did it not?---Of which the RSS was a member.
PN2344
Yes, but do you not agree with me that there is a break between what was in the SBIT report and what is now suggested by the company with respect to the final say of the RSS for rosters?---Well, there's the same members of the team. The RSS was in the team before and recognised in the SBIT. The RSS will be in the team afterwards and the thing is that the RSS will have more say in the roster than before.
PN2345
So that is a departure from the SBIT report in that respect?---Yes.
PN2346
Wasn't there provision in the SBIT report for a learning allowance?---For certain courses for certain people, I think it was, yes.
PN2347
They would be not paid under the company proposal?---That's correct. They would be covered by the 73 hours.
PN2348
The skill based classification structure was supported by the SBIT report, was it not?---I would say that's true.
PN2349
If you were to maintain the skill based classification structure, then the RSS would not be regarded as the team leader? Is that so?---One more time, please? What was your question?
PN2350
If you were to maintain the skill based classification structure, then you would not have the RSS as the team leader. Is that right?---If you were to keep the SBIT as it was, then the RSS would simply be a member of the team.
PN2351
And not the team leader?---Correct.
PN2352
Now can I just show you again the document which sets out resolved and unresolved issues as of 13 March, 2000? Your Honours and Commissioner, it might be convenient if I were to tender this document which is not objected to by my friend at this stage. I think I'll tender it after lunch if I may. However many copies one has, you never seem to have enough when it comes to the time. Well, rather than be ferreting around trying to find the requisite number, I think we'll tender them after lunch. But we don't need to detain Mr Haywood on that.
PN2353
But if you can go back to that second page of the document, March 13, the second page that we were looking at a few minutes ago? I've drawn your attention to the passage about five lines down about the additional RT6s. Could I now just direct your attention to the first item, "Skill based classification system". Revisit, "Areas of responsibility," "Open ended learning," "Upskilling" and in the middle column you'll see, "Skill based classification structure" t/b, which I assume means "to be"?---I would say that's right.
PN2354
You accept that?---I would.
PN2355
That issue is marked "resolved" in the column on the right hand side of the page?---That's correct.
PN2356
So if that agreement were to be adhered to, Mr Haywood, you would not have the RSS as the team leader, would you?---I think we might be - at least in my mind I'm a bit confused over semantics. The skill based classification structure for the RTs is and will remain. That's with regard to how they progress their career paths. The skill based classification structure again to me doesn't preclude the RSS being the team leader. The only place that I know that that is sort of implied is in the actual SBIT document, which is the skill based implementation team document, which even has a diagram where it shows the RSS as being part of the team. But the skill based classification doesn't preclude the RSS being the team leader.
PN2357
Perhaps it could be put this way. The skill based classification structure, as formulated by the SBIT report?---To me it makes no difference - - -
PN2358
Did contemplate, as you say, that the RSS would be part of the team, but did not contemplate that the RSS would be the team leader?---The SBIT did not contemplate the RSS being the team leader.
PN2359
No, and who was it who was responsible for compiling the SBIT report?---I don't know. I think it was an RT from each area. I don't know exactly who. I could take a guess as to the 4 or 5 that are involved.
PN2360
I don't want you to take a guess. It's true, is it, that that report was accepted by the company?---It was rolled out with the EBA of 1997.
PN2361
And was regarded as a foundational document by both parties to the skill based classification scheme?---I would say that's correct, yes.
PN2362
No further questions.
PN2363
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Thank you, Mr Shaw.
PN2364
MR WATSON: Mr Haywood, you were asked some questions about annualised salaries and advantages to employees?---Correct.
PN2365
Sorry, you were asked a question about advantages to employers. What do you say as to the impact of annualised salaries on employees?---They've got it fixed, they know what their income is. The way it is working at the moment. I would like to see a little bit more overtime worked on some instances where it's required and as it stands at the moment, I don't have the ability to manage that or control that.
PN2366
What do you mean by that?---An example, there was a TNI coming up in 2000 for one of the plants in my area, trying to follow things correctly in about September or October of '99, some five months previous, I packaged up some information for this TNI and tried to get the roster co-ordinators together to explain to them when it was, what was happening, what the scope of work was and to come up with a roster to man that shutdown. The meeting was finally held in October, I did ask that the roster be rolled out before the end of October and, to be perfectly honest, I asked a few other times, I never received that roster at all until a roster was finally pinned up about a week before the TNI commenced and it didn't really address the request that I had made. It made it very difficult, I thought, particularly at turnover time to get good turnovers and to keep the continuity of work.
PN2367
Why is that related to annualised salaries?---Well, it's built into the annualised salary. As part of the annualised salary, there's an overtime component built in.
PN2368
Do you know what that is?---I think it's 8.5 per cent.
PN2369
Do you know what the average or usual overtime actually worked is?---I don't to be honest. I don't know for the whole refinery. For area 2 I think there was at least one year that I looked at, it was about one per cent. It was less than one per cent. But I don't know the figures for the refinery.
PN2370
Which year were you looking at?---Either '99 or 2000, I can't remember now. I think it was '99.
PN2371
From your understanding, what is the over time practice as at now?---It's to work as little as possible.
PN2372
And what's that?---Zero, if possible.
PN2373
Are there any other impacts of annualised salaries on employees, either at work, the hours they work, or in terms of their benefits?---I don't know exactly how it worked before but annualised salary, because it is all encompassing, must be better for superannuation purposes, I suspect. Because beforehand the overtime wouldn't have been involved, yes. Beforehand the overtime wouldn't have been included in superable benefits but now as annualised salary it must have everything in there, shift allowance, the other allowances, everything would be superable.
PN2374
You were asked some questions about an issue that arose in negotiations concerning additional RT6s?---Correct.
PN2375
Could you explain to the Commission what the issue was in relation to that matter?---From almost the outset of the signing of the '97 EBA, and it happens to be my particular area, or the FCCU sub-area in area 2, believed they were disadvantaged when compared to other areas in that they didn't have a complement of RT6s that they believed they should have. They were allocated 10 and they said they needed at least 15 and this was, like I said, almost from the first month or two after the EBA was ratified. This caused a lot of troubles in area 2 specifically to get people to take on the roles. I only had one person who actually nominated for an RT6 role out of the 10. Another gentleman was appointed at some stage later because of the fact he had worked as a supervisor for a while and that was so he was not disadvantaged while doing that. No matter what was tried or what was asked, it was not possible to get the RT6s for the FCCUs. From my perspective this was holding back a lot of things for the whole company, for the whole refinery, because training was to be arranged, the full complement couldn't be sought and it was, being area 2 manager, I felt this was being worn fairly much on me. Ultimately, I think there was an annual review or just after that it was formally tabled by the union with a request for five extras and, cutting it short, it tic-tacked backwards and forwards for about the next 12 months trying to get these additional RT6s specifically for the FCCUs.
PN2376
When you talk about additional RT6s, are you talking about additional manning in area 2 or are you talking of re-classification?---Re-classification.
PN2377
What were the employees classified as if they were not classified as RT6s?---They would have been RT5s before.
PN2378
What was involved, then, in having five additional RT6s?---It never got ahead but it would have been similar to the original which was to be balloted, to nominate and be supported by your shift team and then they had a ballot, I think, from the shift team to see if there was more than one person who would be nominated as the RT6 for that shift. It would have brought the numbers up, 15 in a workforce of 40, or nominally 40, is a very high percentage in my opinion. It makes it very difficult to work.
PN2379
What is the workforce in your area?---Nominally it's 60 in total.
PN2380
Approximately RT6s are there now in that complement of approximately 60?---Right now, I've got, because I can't get the other eight or 13 in the FCCUs, I currently have 12. But it could have been 20 or 25.
PN2381
You were asked some questions about the bonus and also the issue of operational availability as far as it impacted on bonus and you said that there would be factors going to operational availability where the RTA would have no influence and you said that would be very small. Why did you say that?---Operational availability in my very simple terms is meeting plan, it's, if a unit is set a planned rate for the month of a certain feed rate, if it achieves that it has full operational availability. The achieving of the rate is what RTs do, I mean maintaining the feed rate. I don't say they can always do it because there may be something that limits them, but the net result is that it is really within their control to achieve that feed rate. Or to best achieve that feed rate.
PN2382
You were asked some questions about the RSSs and you agreed to a proposition from my learned friend that some of the RSSs have not worked as RTs for several years and they may not have 100 per cent understanding of the units in the respective areas. Could you tell the Commission your view as to the impact of that circumstance on the role of the RSS?---To start with, I actually said in terms of the console. In terms of the plant, the outside plant, I think they would be as conversant as ever with the outside plant. They may not be completely up to date with all the controls that have been put in the DCS. The fact that they aren't 100 per cent up on that, to me, has very little concern for what they would be required to do either in times of normal operation or in times of emergency operation.
PN2383
Why is that?---Because their skills, trying to think of where, based on area 2, where they would really step in, would be in start ups and shutdowns and in those particular cases they would probably be more likely outside, overseeing what's occurring with the outside operators so the console would have little effect in that.
PN2384
You were asked some questions in relation to the emergency response team and you said that the business cannot handle the threat of manning of that team being withdrawn?---That's correct.
PN2385
Why did you say that?---I'm not sure what sort of situation you would be in a refinery if you didn't have adequate emergency response teams available to respond. I wouldn't even like to contemplate that thought.
PN2386
There are some questions about the RT6B and the provision in the proposed award proposed by the company that the 6B would not receive a higher rate when relieving the 6A. Could you explain what an RT6B would do when the RT6A was on shift?---An RT6B would be an RT5 for all intensive purposes when the RT6 was on shift.
PN2387
Thank you. No further questions. Could Mr Haywood be excused?
PN2388
PN2389
MR WATSON: I ask the Commission what time it has proposed to adjourn for lunch?
PN2390
JUSTICE GIUDICE: We intend to adjourn at 1.45 and return at 2.15 and then go until 4.15 this afternoon.
PN2391
PN2392
MR WATSON: Mr Edgar, could you tell the Commission your full name and address?---My full name is Gary Charles Edgar and I reside at 4 Yalla Road, Bengall.
PN2393
Have you prepared 2 statements for the purposes of these proceedings?---I have.
PN2394
Is the first headed Witness Statement of Gary Charles Edgar and is 36 numbered paragraphs?---That's correct.
PN2395
Are there any changes you wish to make to that statement?---Yes. There are a number of changes I wish to make.
PN2396
What are those changes?---In paragraph 5 I'd like to change 75 to 76.
PN2397
You can change that and initial that in the margin?---I have done that. In paragraph 9 in the second line I'd like to change the word "many" to "some".
PN2398
Yes?---In paragraph 27, in the very last paragraph of, or the very last section of paragraph 27 I'd like to delete the word "will" so it becomes "who operate" and I'd also like to delete the words "will be" and replace them with "is".
PN2399
So it changes to the current tense?---That's right.
PN2400
Make those changes and initial them?---I'd also like to change paragraph 29 in the second line where it says "to", I'd like it from "4" to "6" so it becomes "6 tanks".
PN2401
Any other changes?---The only other change will be the final date which was 27 October.
PN2402
With the changes you have identified, is that statement true and correct?---They are.
PN2403
Could you sign and date with today's date, the statement. I tender that witness statement.
PN2404
PN2405
MR WATSON: Is your second witness statement headed Second Witness Statement of Gary Charles Edgar?---Yes, it is.
PN2406
Are there any changes you wish to make to that statement?---The only change will be the date at the end of it.
PN2407
Is that statement true and correct?---It is.
PN2408
If you could sign and date that statement, I tender that statement.
PN2409
PN2410
MR WATSON: No further questions.
PN2411
MR SHAW: I see the time now but I am in a position to tender the summary of unresolved EVA issues dated 11 April 2000 and attached to it the second document dated 13 March 2000 entitled AWU/AIMPI EVA Status Report.
PN2412
PN2413
MR SHAW: Thank you, your Honour. Would that be a convenient time to adjourn?
PN2414
JUSTICE GIUDICE: We will adjourn until 2.15pm.
LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.47pm]
RESUMES [2.16pm]
PN2415
MR SHAW: If the Commission pleases, Mr Edgar you are the Production
PN2416
Manager, area 1?---That is correct.
PN2417
And like all of the other production managers as I understand it, you are a professional engineer?---That's right.
PN2418
You have in each area, do you a rostered shift supervisor?---Yes, we have one per shift plus relief person.
PN2419
Plus a relief person?---Yes.
PN2420
And the RSS is a former operator or refinery technician?---Yes, that's right.
PN2421
But not necessarily from the particular area that the RSS is appointed to?---That's right.
PN2422
The areas are quite specialised, aren't they?---Yes, they are.
PN2423
And so, knowledge of the details of working in area X does not imply knowledge of the work in the other areas?---No, that's right, but over time you gradually pick up that knowledge.
PN2424
Yes and the production managers, being professional engineers, could I put it to you, may view the impact of technological or other work change in a somewhat different manner than do the refinery technicians themselves?---That could be so, yes.
PN2425
You view those changes, obviously enough, from a perspective of a professional engineer?---Not exclusively.
PN2426
But that's your academic and professional training. That's the background from which you come and the perspective that you see things from, I suggest to you.
PN2427
But I have also worked as a shift supervisor at one stage?---Right. What I want to put to you Mr Edgar is that it is distinctly possible that professional engineers working as production managers may tend to underestimate the impact, the practical day to day impact of these various job changes and technological innovations that affect the refinery technicians?---Yes, that could occur.
PN2428
And that would be understandable given the quite different background and training of the two different groups of company employees, wouldn't it?---That's correct.
PN2429
So really what I wanted to take you up about if I may, if you have got a statement there, is this statement in paragraph 6 and I'm dealing with your first statement, Caltex 17, that the wages offer of the company is fair and reasonable considering the changes that have occurred.
PN2430
That's your view from your perspective, isn't it?---You accept that it is a matter for the Commission to determine those wage increases in the course of the arbitration, don't you?---I do.
PN2431
And you don't come here putting yourself forward as any expert on economics or wage fixation or industrial relation do you?---No, I don't.
PN2432
Is it a fair generalisation that the discussion we have just had about the perspective of the production managers, the professional engineers, at Caltex would apply not only to you, but to all of them?---Could you repeat that again, please?
PN2433
Yes, I'm just saying that the discussion we have had about the professional perspective and the areas of expertise, that you have just discussed with me, would be applicable to all of the production managers?---I think they would be similar.
PN2434
Yes. Now, is it right that you as a production manager, do not have very much direct contact or direct supervision of the refinery technicians?---No, I don't.
PN2435
You tend to deal in all or almost all the cases with the rostered shift supervisor, do you not?---I also deal with the area specialist and also with the refinery technicians as well, but primarily it's with the shift supervisors and the area specialist.
PN2436
Yes. If I can put it this way, the thrust or the theme of your statement about work changes is that, yes, you accept that work changes have occurred but you don't believe that they are, I think you used the word "dramatic". Do you remember using that word in paragraph 8, second sentence. You don't characterise them as dramatic, although you do accept the obvious fact that changes have occurred?---That's correct.
PN2437
You accept the legitimacy of a different point of view that might been expressed by the refinery technicians, that yes, these really have in a tangible way affected our working life?---I can see their point of view, but I still fundamentally don't believe that they have changed significantly.
PN2438
As we know Mr Edgar, the manning levels at Caltex are as specified in the 1997 enterprise bargaining agreement?---That's correct.
PN2439
That has led to the situation where there is not a great deal of overtime worked at the refineries?---That's right.
PN2440
I suppose from the companies point of view, that's generally speaking a desirable thing?---It's both desirable and undesirable. If I can say that.
PN2441
To give you an opportunity, what are the desirable features of it?---
PN2442
I think the desirable features when we went to annualised salary we wanted to obviously lower the level of overtime that did occur and I suppose that has occurred. The undesirable parts about the level of overtime being extremely low is that we don't often have RTs working overtime when we would like them to work overtime.
PN2443
I understand but in that respect, the company as I understand it, is not proposing any change is it?---The only change is that we would like the shift supervisors to have some power to utilise the RTs particularly as Mr Haywood mentioned in TNIs where we do need additional people for some stages of TNI shutdown.
PN2444
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Mr Shaw, can I just ask? I am troubled a bit by that at evidence as I was earlier. I understood that part of the annual salary arrangements were that when people needed to stay back, they did stay back and if the company said work had to be finished it had to be finished, is that not right?
PN2445
MR SHAW: I'll let the witness answer that.
PN2446
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Yes.
PN2447
THE WITNESS: On a number of occasions we do not get the RTs working the hours as required. Sometimes they do it and sometimes they don't.
PN2448
MR SHAW: Are you talking about TNI positions or situations?---I'm talking about TNI positions, also sometimes with manning during startups and shutdowns particularly startups.
PN2449
Are these situations where the company directs that work be performed?---During TNIs there is usually negotiation between the area management about how many are required for the TNI shutdown as Ray Haywood mentioned in his evidence. He was talking about putting out notice 5 months ahead to make sure he got the required manning for the shutdown.
PN2450
So you are saying that there is sometimes difficulty in getting enough RTs for some particular situations, is that right?---That's correct.
PN2451
But does the company issue direction that workers must be made available?---We have done that in the past.
PN2452
And when that's done has it been complied with?---Not always.
PN2453
We are talking, I assume, about a minority of situations are we?---The company doesn't put out these requests that frequently. It is usually around TNI situations.
PN2454
How many of those say in your area are they per annum?---In my area because it's mainly off-sites we only have TNIs associated with the boilers. The TNI's are really associated with the process plants which are in the other three areas.
PN2455
So you don't have TNI's at all your area 1?---Except for the boilers.
PN2456
Yes, all right and how many of those do you have a year?---Well, on average about one a year.
PN2457
Does the company to your knowledge take the view that it has the right under the existing industrial prescriptions to direct that work be performed if it takes the view that that's needed?---The company has the right, but we don't necessarily get the co-operation required.
PN2458
So you take the view that you have the right now to get that done, but your complaint is that from time to time and I take it it's a minority of situations there isn't sufficient co-operation?---That's right.
PN2459
PN2460
MR WATSON: Mr Edgar that situation that you've just described where you indicated that you don't get the co-operation you like to what extent is that situation - do you believe that situation will change if the RSS is the team leader?---I think the situation that we are looking for is to get the RSS to direct people and obviously then if we don't get that co-operation then we will have to take possibly disciplinary action, etcetera to make sure that we do get the additional manning as required.
PN2461
How will it work differently with the RSS as the team leader compared to how it has worked in the past?---The RSS he can if he is looking after the rosters and he only has to look after the rosters around when we do have events like TNIs he would then roster additional people for those occasions when we do need additional people.
PN2462
What happens now?---At the moment the request is made by the area manager and the area specialist to the roster groups to provide those additional people and like I say sometimes that's the additional people are supplied and sometimes they are not.
PN2463
Who makes the decision as to whether people are supplied or not?---At the moment that is made by the RTs themselves.
PN2464
What is the basis of their decision as to whether people are supplied or not?---They make up their minds about the situation they determine if people are required or not.
PN2465
No further questions.
PN2466
PN2467
JUSTICE GIUDICE: I wonder Mr Watson if you could direct me in due course to part of the evidence I suspect it might be Mr Wicks' statement actually where the annualised salary agreement or arrangements reached in 1995 are setout, are they the ones appendix to the award or are there other indications of what the agreement was?
PN2468
MR WATSON: The guidelines are an appendix to the 1997 agreement and I think they are the genesis in the 1995 award. I will check that and correct that answer or expand on it if I need to, your Honour, but in short compass I think that is the answer.
PN2469
PN2470
MR WATSON: Mr Harrison could you state for the Commission your full name and address?---Steven Blair Harrison, 28 Wardell Drive, Bardon Ridge.
PN2471
Have you prepared three witness statements for the purposes of these proceedings?---Yes, I have.
PN2472
Is the first witness statement headed witness statement Steven Blair Harrison filed pursuant to the further directions of the Full Bench issued 15 September 2000?---Yes, it is.
PN2473
That's a document of 61 paragraphs?---Correct.
PN2474
Are there any amendments or corrections that should be made to that statement?---No, there isn't.
PN2475
Is the statement true and correct?---I believe so.
PN2476
Could you sign and date it today's date, the statement, on the final page? I tender that statement.
PN2477
PN2478
MR WATSON: The second witness statement and its 15 numbered paragraphs?---Yes.
PN2479
Are there any corrections or amendments that should be made to that statement?---No, there isn't.
PN2480
Is it true and correct?---I believe so.
PN2481
Could you sign and date that statement? I tender it.
PN2482
PN2483
MR WATSON: Is the third statement some 32 numbered paragraphs?---Correct.
PN2484
Is it true and correct?---I believe so.
PN2485
Could you sign and date that statement on the final page? I tender that statement.
PN2486
PN2487
MR WATSON: With the leave of the Bench if I may ask a couple of questions.
PN2488
Mr Harrison have you recently seen a statement of Mr Ian Ottaway dated 23 November 2000?---I saw it for the first time last Friday.
PN2489
Do you have a copy of that with you in the witness box?---No, I don't.
PN2490
It's exhibit AWU21. I will show you a copy of exhibit AWU21. Are there any matters you wish to respond to in that statement?---I'll make a comment about the - start with the last paragraph 17. Some of the items there mentioned by Mr Ottaway three of them are in fact today redundant. In fact the information has been given to me that they have never been used at all. The other piece of information that or comment I will make is that there was a lot of equipment that was removed when the No two sulphur plant was revamped in 1995 and some of this equipment superseded that equipment that was removed.
PN2491
What do you say to paragraph 7 of Mr Ottaway's statement?---In terms of upskilling I don't believe the examples given by Mr Ottaway the environmental compliance course is a - represents a significant level of upskilling as required it's a - I've done the course I think it's a very basic course in terms of understanding what the course is about and the way it's delivered and the knowledge you need with computers to utilise that course. It's no different to many of the other things that is ongoing on site. The reference to the safety committee report I interpret that as the safety audits that is done by the operators currently which is just putting in minutes into a data base. That's no different to some of the other data bases that are currently utilised by the operators, for example, a social forum and the putting of data into that is no different, I believe, to these safety reports Mr Ottaway refers to.
PN2492
Yes. Are there any other matters you wish to make a particular response to?---Probably the last one will be in paragraph 3. The reference about the No 1 sulphur plant, it is true that some of the equipment from the No 1 sulphur plant is used with No 2 sulphur plant, in a way where the tip heater, we call it, was part of the original No 1 plant. It now works as part of No 2, that being if you started from scratch, you would have had to put that heater in anyway, so we just kept that. That was utilised from their old No 1 SRU. But the rest of the unit which includes reactors, condensers, burners, they've all been - they're now redundant.
PN2493
PN2494
MR SHAW: Mr Harrison, when you are dealing with paragraph 17 of Mr Ottaway's statement and you said that your understanding was that some of those items, I think three of them you mentioned were redundant and some, I presume the same three had never been used. Is that so?---That's the information I've collected, yes.
PN2495
Yes, that's what I was going to draw your attention to. You used the phrase, that's the information given to you. Doesn't that emphasise that the production managers are somewhat remote from the day to day work of the refinery technicians in their professional duties?---At times we can be, yes. But this particular equipment, it was brought to my attention by our maintenance force that this equipment had never been in use and it was a shame that it was still sitting there deteriorating due to the weather.
PN2496
Yes. I wasn't really taking you up about that particular equipment but more trying to ascertain the relationship between the production managers, the professional engineers, such as yourself, the rostered shift supervisors and the refinery technicians, to put to you that your role, as a managerial role is not really a one of regular attention to the way that the RTs perform their work and their various functions?---Generally, not. However, if there are problems or issues out in the field, then there are times where our involvement becomes necessary, so I can't really give a yes or a no. It would depend on the circumstance.
PN2497
Yes, I understand what you're saying but the fact is, you don't spend a great deal of time just looking at what the RTs do and in any direct sense, supervise their work?---Only if they have an issue that they would like us to comment on.
PN2498
I understand. Now, you, in paragraph 7 of your statement is an expression of opinion about the wage increases proposed and whether it's satisfactory or fair to meet the changes in work. So first point, you accept that there have been relevant changes in the work of the RTs?---I believe there's been some change.
PN2499
Second point, that's the - I'm not sure whether it's the same paragraph as in every production manager's statement, but it's certainly textually the same as the statement of Mr Haywood, paragraph 6, I think it is, of Mr Haywood's statement. So I take it that it's not a coincidence that textually it's just the same declaration that's in your statement as in Mr Haywoods?---I haven't seen the other statement.
PN2500
No, I see. But, presumably, you didn't actually draft this?---I contributed to it, but the final draft, no.
PN2501
All right. Next point, you assert that one of the reasons why you think the wage offer is fair, is that it's comparable with the increases that have been given to staff positions and the production areas. Now you don't assert, do you, that the wages for refinery technicians have had any past connection or linkage with staff salaries?---Well, I haven't been at the site for - I've only been there less than 2 years, I'm not familiar with what linkage there may have been or may not have been.
PN2502
You're not aware of any historical connection between the RTs wages and the wages to which you refer in paragraph 7?---No. I don't know that.
PN2503
If you were to assume that there was no established relationship and that RTs salaries or wages had been looked at quite separately and independently from the salaries of staff positions, then it wouldn't be particularly relevant for you to draw that comparison, would it?---I'm not quite sure what you're actually asking me there.
PN2504
What I'm saying is that, you've said you really don't know about whether there's been any past linkage between the salaries for the staff positions and the production areas and the wages for the RTs? I'm focusing on paragraph 7 of your statement?---Right.
PN2505
Now, I'm asking you to assume that the wages for RTs have been determined separately and independently from salary movements given to staff positions and I'm saying to you, well let me put it bluntly, your point is not a very good one, if you assume that there's been no past linkage, that there's - not been seen to be any particular relevance between movements in the RT wages and salary movements for staff positions?---I don't really know what linkage there has been in the past, not having been involved at all. Now you're asking me to assume, well, there has to always be a - there will be that comparison made between the award and the staff, with regards to their wage increases.
PN2506
You would assert that there should be a comparison?---Personally, yes, I do.
PN2507
All right. What staff positions did you have in mind when you used that expression in paragraph 7?---No particular role on the staff, as such but if I look at the statements, the three statements from my area, I base that on what their examples were in their statements.
PN2508
Sorry, you don't have any particular staff positions in mind?---No.
PN2509
But are you saying that if the production managers got an 8 per cent increase in one year, then the RTs ought to get it too?---No, I would prefer to see cases put forward as to what's changed. If any changes have existed between the two roles and the performance of the two groups.
PN2510
So, you don't say that there should be an automatic flow on of staff position with salary increases to the RTs wages?---Again, I can't really give a yes or a no to that. It's the circumstances, depends on how the performance of the two groups are and if there's been any changes, which is I thought, the process where these statements are about.
PN2511
Yes, I don't want to spend too much time, Mr Harrison, but you just seem to be saying in paragraph 7, if I've correctly understood it that, you would want to compare the increases for the RTs with the staff positions and you thought the company's offer was, okay, I'm at basis?---I do, compared to what staff is getting. I think it is reasonable and I look at the examples presented by the three witness statements from my area, I think there is a - it's comparable.
PN2512
But you don't proffer that view as any expert in salary structures or wage fixation or industrial relations, do you?---No.
PN2513
Nothing further, Commission.
PN2514
PN2515
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Thank you, Mr Harrison.
PN2516
PN2517
MR WATSON: Mr Taylor, could you tell the Commission your full name and address?---John Martin Taylor. May address is 6 Corinne Avenue, Loftus.
PN2518
Have you prepared 3 statements for the purposes of these proceedings?---Yes, I have.
PN2519
Is the first statement headed, Witness Statement of John Martin Taylor and does it have 22 numbered paragraphs and 2 annexures?---Yes, that's correct.
PN2520
Is the statement true and correct?---Yes.
PN2521
Could you sign and date the statement at the end of the statement, crossing out the date of 6 October 2000? I tender that statement.
PN2522
PN2523
MR WATSON: Is the second statement headed Second Witness Statement of John Martin Taylor and it is 17 numbered paragraphs?---Yes, that's correct.
PN2524
Is it true and correct?---Yes.
PN2525
Could you sign and date that statement crossing out the date of 24 November 2000? I tender that second witness statement of Mr Taylor.
PN2526
PN2527
MR WATSON: Is the third statement headed Third Witness Statement and it's 16 numbered paragraphs?---That is also correct.
PN2528
Is that statement true and correct?---Yes, it's correct.
PN2529
JUSTICE GIUDICE: How many paragraphs?---16.
PN2530
What is that statement headed?---Third Witness Statement of John Martin Taylor.
PN2531
You have got 16 paragraphs on that?---That's correct.
PN2532
Has it got a registry stamp for 12 January on it?
PN2533
MR WATSON: Our copy doesn't have stamp on it, your Honour but it's dated 12 January.
PN2534
JUSTICE GIUDICE: I have a statement that looks a bit like that but it's got 32 paragraphs.
PN2535
MR WATSON: It may be the same numbering issue.
PN2536
COMMISSIONER LARKIN: I think we have two statements stapled together, Mr Watson.
PN2537
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Which explains why I couldn't -
PN2538
COMMISSIONER LARKIN: This may account for our missing statements the other day.
PN2539
MR WATSON: It may be another statement at the end of statement yet to come. The final page has your name John Martin Taylor and 12 January at the bottom?---That's correct.
PN2540
And 16 paragraphs?---Correct.
PN2541
Can I ask you whether that was true and correct?---You did ask me that and I haven't read every paragraph but I am assuming yes, that will be the case.
PN2542
When you say that you haven't read every paragraph?---Not as I am sitting here.
PN2543
Do you recognise this?---I recognise it as the document I prepared.
PN2544
I tender the Third Witness Statement.
PN2545
PN2546
PN2547
MR SHAW: Mr Taylor, you are aware, are you not that the process for reviewing manning issues dealt within your statement has really been agreed between the parties in substance at any rate?---I believe that to be the case, yes.
PN2548
Would you acknowledge that Kurnell Refineries are potentially hazardous workplaces?---Yes, I believe that's the case.
PN2549
Isn't it the case that incidents do occur no doubt notwithstanding the best attempts of management and the workforce to avoid them, incidents do occur from time to time?---Yes, that's correct.
PN2550
Can you give us any examples of incidents that posed some danger or risk in the last few years?---Yes, I can.
PN2551
Please give them?---An incident occurred quite recently, only a week or two back where a hydrogen leak occurred on our hydrogen treating unit which was in the process of being shutdown.
PN2552
Did that lead to a fire?---No, it did not.
PN2553
Was there an incident last week that did lead to a fire?---Not in the part of the refinery that I am responsible for.
PN2554
Did you attend any such incident last week where there was a fire?---No, I did not.
PN2555
In any event, from time to time quite significant incidents occur despite no doubt the best endeavours of all concerned to avoid them?---That is correct, yes.
PN2556
Would you accept that in hazardous workplaces there is a need based on safety requirements to have additional labour that can be called upon quickly in emergency situations?---That is helpful if the situation demands it, yes.
PN2557
Indeed, in situations of great emergency or risk it is really essential to have sufficient manpower to enable that emergency situation to be dealt with, is it not?---In an emergency, it is necessary to have sufficient manpower. That is correct.
PN2558
The manning levels specified in the 1997 agreement have been sufficient to allow the refinery to operate with very little overtime being worked. Is that so?---Yes, that's correct.
PN2559
If less RTs were assigned to particular areas then one consequence is that overtime may increase?---That's a possibility, yes.
PN2560
If less RTs were assigned to a particular area then there would be a reduced capacity for extra labour to be used in emergency situations?---Yes, that's correct.
PN2561
Indeed you will see that attached to your first statement is a document about the proposal manning changes which was made JMT1. Do you have that? Exhibit Caltex 22, I think. Do you have that?---I do.
PN2562
JMT1, which is called Area 4, "Proposed manning changes, detailed review"?---Yes, I have that.
PN2563
At page 3, paragraph 1, point 3.1, you deal with - when I say "you", could I ask you what the status of this document is?---It is still a proposal which was intended to be used as the basis for discussion with our RT workforce.
PN2564
Your area is Area 4, is it?---That is correct.
PN2565
Were you the author of this document?---I was ultimately the author. Yes, that's correct, but of course in constructing the document I took advice from others in the refinery.
PN2566
Yes, and paragraph 1.3.1 deals with emergencies and begins by saying:
PN2567
The key determinant of whether reduced manning is acceptable is the impact on the safe management of emergencies.
PN2568
You adhere to that statement?---I do.
PN2569
Do you accept, Mr Taylor, that though there may be differences in function and the like, that there is some analogy with the hazards involved in the Longford establishment in Victoria and the Caltex refinery here?---In that we're dealing with hydrocarbons, I think that there are similarities, yes.
PN2570
Would there be some analogous risks and dangers in the conduct of the enterprises?---I would imagine so.
PN2571
Would there be some analogies in terms of the workforce levels or numbers that one would desire in those two establishments in order to cope with emergencies?---That's more difficult for me to comment on because one needs to know the details of processes, safety systems, the level of training of personnel, things of that nature. So I don't think I can give you a specific answer to that.
PN2572
Thank you, if the Commission pleases.
PN2573
MR WATSON: No re-examination.
PN2574
PN2575
MR WATSON: Mr Willis, could you tell the Commission your full name and address?---My name is Raymond Francis Willis and I reside at 3 Lyon Avenue, Padstow Heights.
PN2576
Have you prepared three witness statements for the purposes of these proceedings?---I have, yes.
PN2577
Do you have a copy of them with you in the witness box?---I have second and third.
PN2578
So you don't have the first?---No. I'm sorry. I do have the first one. It's not numbered.
PN2579
No, it has a heading "Witness statement of Raymond Francis Willis filed pursuant to the further directions of the Full Bench issued 15 September 2000"?---I have that one.
PN2580
Yes. Is that statement 35 numbered paragraphs?---It is, yes.
PN2581
Is that statement true and correct?---That statement is true and correct.
PN2582
Could you please sign and date with today's date the statement on the final page? I tender that statement.
PN2583
PN2584
MR WATSON: Is the second witness statement headed "Second witness statement" and 27 numbered paragraphs?---Yes, I have that one. I would like to make a change in paragraph 6.
PN2585
Yes?---Where it states in the last sentence "three people" I would like to change that to "five people".
PN2586
Paragraph 6 of the second statement?---Yes. Computer competency.
PN2587
I see. It's got the bold heading in paragraph 6, "Computer competancy" and there's a No 10 on the left hand margin?---That's it, yes.
PN2588
Yes, I see. The end of that paragraph - could you just identify the change again please?---The changes are to the last sentence, where it says "three people" in brackets change that to "five people".
PN2589
COMMISSIONER LARKIN: Are we in the second witness statement?
PN2590
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Yes, we are.
PN2591
COMMISSIONER LARKIN: In the second witness statement, paragraph 6?
PN2592
MR WATSON: It's paragraph 10, Commissioner. It's confusing because it has a bold heading, paragraph 6, by reference to being responses to the witness statement of Mr Peddie.
PN2593
COMMISSIONER LARKIN: So it's the last bracket, is it, change 3 people to 6?---That's correct.
PN2594
Thank you.
PN2595
JUSTICE GIUDICE: 5 or 6?---5, your Honour.
PN2596
MR WATSON: Any other changes to that statement?---No, no more changes to that statement.
PN2597
Could you initial that change in paragraph 10?---I have.
PN2598
Is that statement true and correct?---That statement is true and correct.
PN2599
PN2600
MR WATSON: Is the third witness statement headed "Third witness statement and its 12 numbered paragraphs"?---That is correct.
PN2601
Is that statement true and correct?---That is true and correct.
PN2602
PN2603
MR WATSON: Now Mr Willis, you say in your first statement that you have been employed by CLOR since 1964. That's in paragraph 5, your first statement. Could you tell the Commission the various roles you have held over that time?---Started with refinery Kurnell, they're known as ALR in 1964, and I started there as an operator or assistant operator as they called them in those days, prior to RTs coming into being. I worked by way through the company from the beginning, I suppose, the RT1 level, if you like for today, through to the RT6, I suppose, today, the old head operator, through shift supervisor and into a day supervisory role where I now have the position of Area specialist or operation specialist.
PN2604
In a day to day sense what are you responsible for and what is an outline of your activities as area specialist?---I'm responsible for the operation of major process plants, aside from the waxing unit, also taggage, shipping, tankalising, tank truck loading and all things associated.
PN2605
For the employment history that you mentioned, how much of it has been in Area 4?---I suppose the the major part, all of it. I've had sojourns into the Middle East, I spent six months over there studying a refinery and probably about 6 months down at the fuels refinery.
PN2606
But when you've been working at Kurnell, do I take it that you have always been working in area 4?---Not always, no, I have spent, probably about six months working, or advising, at the other refinery, CRN.
PN2607
How would you describe your level of familiarity with the entirety of the operations in area 4?---From a management point of view, I've done every position and I've covered every position. I've worked in all the plants, actually nuts and bolts, except the tank farm which I now supervise, but I've had a supervisory role then since 1976.
PN2608
Where you have not had operational experience such as the tank farm, to what extent do you have knowledge of the operations in that area?---I think I'm pretty good with knowledge.
PN2609
If you've been in your current role for 20 years, it's been some time since you've been in an operating role in those areas where you did operate. To what extent are you required to, in your current role, have an up-to-date knowledge of the operations and procedures?---I find it necessary to have maintain that intimacy. The nuts and bolts, I do a lot of touring around the place from time to time, I mean, every day. I interface with the operators, if any problems come up I assist them with them. Occasionally I might do a little bit of hands-on but it's very rare. I do a lot of training, I train people and I check out the training on people as well.
PN2610
Thank you Mr Willis. Nothing further.
PN2611
PN2612
MR SHAW: Thank you Mr Willis, Your Honours, Commissioner.
PN2613
I think it's fair to say in your statement you've accepted various changes that have occurred in the area that you deal with, area 4, affecting the RTs?---How do you mean I've accepted them.
PN2614
Well, you agree that such changes have occurred?---Changes have occurred since I've worked at that establishment, yes.
PN2615
Since when?---Since I've worked in that establishment. I've seen a lot of changes in 36 years.
PN2616
Yes, but we're talking about changes in the last three or four years and you've accepted in your statement that they have occurred and impacted upon the work of RTs?---Yes, I beg your pardon.
PN2617
Take a number of examples in your statement. In your last statement you, for example, accept that workload is increased during the actual shutting down and starting up periods but you say the workload is substantially diminished once the plant is secured?---That's true.
PN2618
What you have done is, you've proffered some opinions about the significance of those work changes in your statement, haven't you?---Inasmuch as?
PN2619
For example, you've expressed the opinion that the changes, whilst they have occurred, are not dramatic?---That's true.
PN2620
That's the same terminology used in the statements by the production managers, isn't it?---I haven't read the production managers statements.
PN2621
How did it come about that the terminology in your statement is substantially the same as the terminology in their statements?---I have no idea.
PN2622
It couldn't be a coincidence, could it?---It could be. It's a word I use quite a bit, "dramatic.
PN2623
One of the viewpoints that you put, if I can paraphrase it is that, "look, there have been these changes in work but the company's offered a wage increase which you understand, I take it, to be 3.5 per cent each year for the next two years"?---I believe that to be the case, yes.
PN2624
You say, well that's enough to compensate for those changes in work value?---That's true.
PN2625
But of course you know, don't you, that workers generally in the last few years over a whole varieties of industry have been getting wage increases?---No, I'm afraid I don't know that at all.
PN2626
You don't?---No.
PN2627
But you do know that the RTs at Caltex haven't had a wage increase for about two and a half years don't you?---Since '99, I believe.
PN2628
Sorry?---Since '99.
PN2629
Yes. To the extent that there have been changes in the work, of technological innovation and the like and I acknowledge that you put a different view about that than do the refinery technicians in their evidence but, to the extent that there have been those changes, they haven't, so far, been compensated for by any wage increase actually received by the RTs to date, have they?---That's true.
PN2630
Nothing further.
PN2631
MR WATSON: No re-examination.
PN2632
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Thank you Mr Willis.
PN2633
MR WATSON: Can Mr Willis be excused?
PN2634
JUSTICE GIUDICE: I don't know that he actually needs to be excused does he? He's not compelled to attend.
PN2635
PN2636
PN2637
MR WATSON: Mr Geeves, could you tell the Commission your full name and address?---Colin John Bruce Geeves and I live at 17 Ferry Street, Hunters Hill.
PN2638
Have you prepared a statement for the purposes of these proceedings?---I have.
PN2639
Do you have a copy of it with you?---Yes, I do.
PN2640
Is it some 25 numbered paragraphs long?---Yes, it is.
PN2641
To the best of your knowledge, information and belief, is the statement true and correct?---It is but I would like to make one correction.
PN2642
What's that correction?---In paragraph 25, which is the very last page, in fact there are a number of corrections there. In the first column, the greater than five per cent should be greater than four per cent and that should be under the heading, "Clyde".
PN2643
So it should still be in the first column but underneath the word "Clyde" in the heading?---That's correct.
PN2644
And in the column headed, "Kwinana Bulwer" the 4.5 per cent relates to Bulwer.
PN2645
So that should be moved, as it were, to be underneath the word "Bulwer" but in the same column?---That's correct. And that does, of course, change the conclusion which says, "wage increases range between 3.5 and 5", it should be "3.5 and 4". With that correction the statement is, to the best of my knowledge, correct.
PN2646
JUSTICE GIUDICE: What do the asterisks refer to?---To the statement underneath.
PN2647
MR WATSON: Can I just ask you this? If Bulwer should be 4.5 should the wage range be between 3.5 and 4.5?---Yes, thank you for that, it should.
PN2648
So, you should cross out 5 and put in 4.5 in the final paragraph underneath the total. Could you initial those changes and sign that statement with today's date, crossing out the date of 23 February.
PN2649
I tender that statement?
PN2650
PN2651
PN2652
MR SHAW: Thank you, Mr Geeves. You will acknowledge will you not as other witnesses have that Kurnell Refineries have undergone significant manning reductions since 1991?---Well, I'm not really knowledgeable about Kurnell prior to 1995, but I have heard what other people have said.
PN2653
You have heard the figure of a 40 per cent reduction being mentioned?---I have heard that figure yes.
PN2654
One of the points you are making in your statement I gather is that you say that various wage increases agreed at other refineries are in some way connected with de-manning arrangements or reviews of the manning levels?---Yes, every one of those agreements other than Bulwer are connected with de-manning, yes.
PN2655
In the present case you know that Caltex and the AWU have breached an agreement as to a process whereby manning levels can be reviewed?---I am aware of that.
PN2656
That it is a consultative process?---Yes.
PN2657
But it means that existing manning levels, I suppose, either up or down are not locked in?---That's correct.
PN2658
You acknowledge do you, in terms of reductions of manning that management needs to bear steadily in mind safety considerations?---Absolutely.
PN2659
And management and for that matter the union and it's delegates and members need to bear in mind the need to provide sufficient manning for emergency situations or other risk situations in the refineries?---Yes, I accept that.
PN2660
You give some evidence about the Shell Clyde Award, that is I think only recently been finalised in the NSW Industrial Commission, has it?---I wasn't aware of that until I heard that in this Commission, but it was certainly ready for finalisation.
PN2661
But you are not precisely aware of where that's up to?---No.
PN2662
But your evidence is I think that the wage increases for the operator's or technicians at Shell Clyde are between 10 per cent and 10.45 per cent. I'll just have a look at paragraph 14 of your first statement. Yes, paragraph 14 of exhibit Caltex 28?---Yes, I think that's an error, I think it should be 10.245. No, that's correct.
PN2663
That's correct?---Yes.
PN2664
What I wanted to put was that - - -?---Sorry, may I correct that? I understand in Clyde that there was an average 2.45 per cent increase based on re-classification, so really that is incorrect. It should be 10 to 12.45 and that means that some would 10 and others would get more than 12.45.
PN2665
So it should be 12.45?---That's correct. The base increase was 10 over 30 months.
PN2666
Yes, what I wanted to put to you was that that base increase of 10 per cent was applicable to the lowest classification at Shell Clyde?---It would be applicable to the classification that did not benefit from the broad banding effect of re-classification.
PN2667
That's correct. Does that represent only a very small number of claims?---I don't know, I really don't know.
PN2668
All right?---I have read the heads of agreement but I don't have detail.
PN2669
I understand. Now the company's proposal about wages doesn't comprehend any element of retrospectivity does it?---No, it does not.
PN2670
It fails to give any retrospectivity, notwithstanding that there has been no wage increase for the RTs for two and a half years?---It does not.
PN2671
Does this figure ring a bell with you. I want to put to you that the salary costs of refinery technicians and the emergency response team equals about 19.4 million dollars per annum?---That is a vaguely familiar figure, yes, I think that is correct.
PN2672
And are you able to put that into perspective by giving any figures about the total costs of the operations per annum?---No, I can't.
PN2673
All right. The fact is that if, assuming that figure is correct, and if you assume and on cost figure of about 40 per cent for a refinery technician, the saving that the company has achieved by not reaching an agreement or otherwise paying a wage increase for the refinery technicians over the last 2½ years, has been something in the order of $18,000.00 per week, is that right?---I can't agree with that.
PN2674
Because you don't know?---No, because in that equation, there have been two stoppages which cost the company significantly. There were changes that the company sought that would have been beneficial, so that to use that figure baldly, I don't think is putting it accurately.
PN2675
What you're saying is that you are not disputing the figure as such, but you are saying there are discounting factors that ought to put that figure in perspective and the two matters you referred to are the stoppages which I think were 2, 2½ hour stoppages?---Well, the effect was much greater. They may have been 2 and a half hour stoppages but I think evidence has already been given that the effect is much more significant than 2½ hours.
PN2676
And you are saying that other cost saving changes could have been in place over that 2½ years, what particular items did you have in mind?---I don't have detail, because I don't deal with the detail at Kurnell, but manning could well have been agreed, and implemented by now. It wasn't.
PN2677
The manning position was agreed in the latter part of last year?---No, there were reductions being sought. That is a process that was agreed.
PN2678
Yes, that's right, but it's a process with which the company is presumably content?---The company accepts it, it wouldn't have said so otherwise.
PN2679
Is it the case at Shell Geelong that there was an improvement in superannuation in the order of 3 per cent?---I don't know that figure, but Shell Geelong moved to an annualised salary and when you move people to an annualised salary, there is automatically a superannuation increase.
PN2680
All right, nothing further.
PN2681
MR SHAW: No re-examination.
PN2682
PN2683
MR WATSON: Mr Mitchell, could you tell the Commission your full name and address?---James Mitchell, 73 Como Parade, Como West.
PN2684
Have you prepared two witness statements for the purposes of these proceedings?---I have.
PN2685
Do you have copies of them with you in the witness box?---I do.
PN2686
Is the first witness statement 69 numbered paragraphs and contain 16 attachments?---It is, yes.
PN2687
Are there any corrections or amendments you wish to make to that statement?---There are.
PN2688
What are those amendments?---If we go to paragraph 13, at the beginning of line 5, the date June 2000 should be June 1995.
PN2689
Yes?---In the line below that, in the brackets there's a date of 20 October 2000, that date should be 20 October 1995.
PN2690
Have you made those amendments on the copy that you've got?---Yes.
PN2691
Could you initial in the margin next to each of those changes? Are there further corrections?---There are. At paragraph 36, at the very end of the paragraph there's a date 27 November 2000, that should read 27 November 1998.
PN2692
Yes?---Paragraph 40, second line, there's a date November 2000, that should be November 1998. Paragraph 52, the first date, from January 1999 should read from January 2000 and that's all.
PN2693
Those changes are - is the contents of your statement true and correct?---They are, yes.
PN2694
Would you please sign and date with today's date on that statement? There seems to be a typographical error in the last line of the final paragraph?---Yes, I hadn't notice that. There's a word in the middle that should read, "the", t-h-e, as e-h.
PN2695
I tender that statement.
PN2696
PN2697
MR WATSON: Is the second witness statement, headed, "Second Witness Statement", contains 107 numbered paragraphs and 7 attachments?---It is.
PN2698
Are all the references to years correct in that statement?---Unfortunately, yes.
PN2699
Any other corrections?---No.
PN2700
Is that statement true and correct?---It is.
PN2701
Could you sign and date that statement? I tender the second witness statement of Mr Mitchell.
PN2702
PN2703
MR WATSON: No further questions
PN2704
PN2705
MR SHAW: Mr Mitchell, you make the point in that second statement that the 1995 Award was a consent award before the Commission?---I do, yes.
PN2706
Yes. It was the result of protracted negotiations between the parties?---It was, yes.
PN2707
Similarly, the 1997 Enterprise Agreement was the subject of detailed negotiations between the parties?---It was, yes.
PN2708
Caltex ended that agreement with a full understanding of what it entailed, in terms of any concessions made and arrangements effected?---Yes.
PN2709
You were involved, were you not, in the annualised salaries negotiations?---1995, yes.
PN2710
Yes. The principles of those negotiations were embodied in that award?---They were.
PN2711
There was an annexure to the award entitled, "Guidelines", wasn't there?---There was.
PN2712
I think that's annexure 4?---I'm not sure, but it's certainly part of the award.
PN2713
The contents of that annexure were regarded as an integral part of the package, that led to annualised salaries at Kurnell?---I would say, no, put in those terms.
PN2714
Well, they were formulated by the company, weren't they?---The process was that in February, I think, 1995, there was a recommendation from a joint sitting of the Federal and State Commission, to adopt annualised salaries and that recommendation was adopted by both parties. Having achieved agreement on annualised salaries, the company, towards the end of February, published some guidelines on annualised salaries and the next step in the process was for the parties to negotiate an enterprise agreement. Now those guidelines certainly form part of the negotiations from February onwards and were eventually incorporated into the consent award.
PN2715
But those guidelines were formulated by the company?---Initially they were, yes.
PN2716
Were they then subject to negotiation?---Yes.
PN2717
Were they varied in the negotiation process?---My recollection is there was some changes but not substantial.
PN2718
Was it the company that first put forward the proposition, that the team should have the control over the rosters?---It did, although the guidelines, when defining a team, do specifically say that the shift supervisor was part of that team.]
PN2719
Yes, but it was the company put that forward, right?---Yes.
PN2720
Why was that so?---Well, I guess at the time we recognised that the team - they had concerns at the time about going into to a new arrangement. There was certainly concerns that the company would use annualised salaries to defacto, break away from the 35 hour week and impose some unfair obligations on employees, so they were put in to allay those concerns.
PN2721
So, it's fair to say that it was a company proposal designed to allay certain concerns or fears that the AWU and it's membership had about annualised salaries?---Yes.
PN2722
That was really part and parcel of the deal reached between the parties about annualised salaries, wasn't it?---Well, as I said, the guidelines weren't in place when annualised salaries were adopted in principle. It was certainly a part of the deal, when the consent award was made.
PN2723
Were the guidelines in place when annualised salaries were implemented in practice?---The guidelines in the award weren't, but the company published guidelines were.
PN2724
Were the company published guidelines in material respects the same as the guidelines that were annexed to the consent award?---Substantially, yes.
PN2725
Prior to the introduction of annualised salaries, Mr Mitchell, was it the case that overtime for RTs was running at something like 23 per cent?---I can't recall an exact figure, but it was certainly in the order of 20 per cent, yes.
PN2726
While the tangible benefits from the company's perspective is the very substantial reduction of those overtime payments?---Yes, it went from around 20 per cent to 8½ per cent.
PN2727
Are the penalties for overtime the ordinary industrial standard?---No, the penalties at Kurnell was all overtime was a double time and in addition to that there was some triple time overtime paid for certainly. Occurrences mainly start up and shutdown of units.
PN2728
What, I'm sorry?---Starting up and shutting down of units was triple time.
PN2729
It wasn't an amount of hours that kicked in the triple time it was for a specified reason when overtime was called for that reason triple time was the agreement, was it?---It was, yes.
PN2730
Apart from that all overtime was paid at double time?---Correct.
PN2731
How long had those standards prevailed, do you know?---Long before I arrived at Kurnell I suspect.
PN2732
We've tendered a document which I - if my understanding is right was marked exhibit AWU45 that's the summary of unresolved issues at 11 April 2000 and the attached document which is the Caltex Kurnell AWU/AIMPE EBA status report of 13 March 2000. I'm not going to take you to that in any detail, but can you confirm that they were company prepared documents to try to analysis the state of play in the negotiations as at the time they were dated?---I would need to have a look at it. My recollection isn't and certainly the first part of the document, I think that this was prepared in proceedings before Commissioner James to try and indicate what the current position and the differences between the parties were at that point in time.
PN2733
They were the conciliation proceedings were they?---They were, yes.
PN2734
The first document was a company prepared document in that context. What about the second document, part of the same exhibit?---Yes, I think that was a company prepared document as part of the negotiations process we did endeavour to have status reports on an ongoing basis so you didn't loose track of where we were up to.
PN2735
Thank you. Now, I'm just hiking back to overtime for a moment you acknowledged I think that the overtime component was something like 23 per cent prior to, sorry, I think you said 20 per cent?---I said in the order of.
PN2736
In the order of 20 per cent prior to annualised salaries being implemented and we know now that the annualised salary recognises something like well not something like recognises 8.5 per cent as an overtime component?---Yes. 8½ per cent in hours.
PN2737
JUSTICE GIUDICE: What is that, is that 4 hours, Mr Mitchell?---About three a week, 2.975 I think was the exact figure.
PN2738
On how many hours a week?---On 35.
PN2739
MR SHAW: Does that alteration represent a net gain for the company?---From where we were in 1995, yes. Assuming things stayed the same.
PN2740
Hiking back if I can to manning. You would acknowledge that we have worked out a process agreed to by both parties to review manning in the life of the forth coming award?---Yes.
PN2741
Can I ask you to go to JM16, I believe it's annexed to your first statement. That's a document which was issued on or about 18 April 2000 isn't it?---It is, yes.
PN2742
Could I draw your attention to clause 9 Manning and the final dot point thereof and put to you that the company was prepared to continue or specify the existing manning levels subject to an agreed process for reconsidering or reviewing manning?---Yes, we've never had a problem in principle of listing current manning as long as it's done on the basis that it's not a set in concrete figure for the life of the agreement.
PN2743
I don't want to take you down too many of the areas that I've dealt with other witnesses, but would you accept that the company's proposal with respect to bonus contains some fundamentally different criteria from those agreed in 1995 and 1997 with respect to bonus?---It's certainly different in that the targets we are looking for are refinery wide targets rather than being confined just to the RT work groups, yes.
PN2744
Isn't that - doesn't that contain an element of unfairness in that it could prejudice the position of RTs in respect of their bonus because of factors realistically beyond their control?---It could be viewed that way. I think the reality is that across the site various of our groups such as the refinery technicians, the maintenance, and the staff people all have a bonus scheme and we're trying to align the bonuses for all the groups so that we have a common interest across the refinery.
PN2745
What about if the performance of the RTs in relevant respects was superior to some of the other groups wouldn't it mean that in terms of the RTs receiving their bonus they would be held back by the non performance of those other groups?---That could be correct, yes.
PN2746
In terms of the rostered shifts supervisor becoming team leader you have made the point that it was contemplated that the RSS would be part of the team?---Yes.
PN2747
It is true is it not that the notion of the RSS becoming team leader is a significant departure from the annualised salary's guidelines?---It could be seen that way, yes.
PN2748
It is also a significant departure from the SBIT report and the notion of the skill based classifications?---It certainly is a change form the SBIT report. I think I'd echo some comments made by Mr Haywood before that I think that the concept of a skill based structure is somewhat different to the context that you put it in there.
PN2749
Mr Mitchell, that idea of the team having the determination of the rosters was a significant selling point for the union and its members in relation to annualised salaries was it not?---Sorry, what period are we talking about here.
PN2750
I'm talking about the 1995 negotiations in particular?---Well, as I said the concept of annualised salaries was voted on and accepted prior to the annualised salary guidelines being published or negotiated but they certainly formed a substantial part of the negotiation process between February and when the award was finally made.
PN2751
That notion, of the team having control of the rosters was part and parcel of the package deal that you reached with the AWU at that stage?---For the consent award, not to go into annualised salaries.
PN2752
That concept was reiterated and further agreed in the negotiations leading up to the enterprise bargaining agreement of 1997?---If anything, the concept was probably extended a bit in '97.
PN2753
Thank you. In terms of competency reassessment, you were party to the documented agreement reached between the parties about that, were you not?---I was, yes.
PN2754
I mean in this last phase of negotiations?---Yes, I was.
PN2755
I put it to you that that was a reasonable compromise between the competing positions of the company and the union?---Well, it was certainly a compromise made at the time when we were trying to get an agreement in place.
PN2756
It enabled you to have a significant period of gap training and also of what seems to have been called recap?---Yes. Gap training was never an issue in dispute between the parties it was more an issue of re-certification on what were called pre-existing skills.
PN2757
It wasn't part of that agreement that there be a re-certification of all RTs, was it?---No, the agreement reached at that point in time on that issue was that there would be regular, I guess they'd call it, a group refresher session rather than individual refresher assessments.
PN2758
It has been suggested to the AWU that re-certification could have disciplinary consequences for individual RTs, is it not?---Yes.
PN2759
I take it that that could mean dismissal?---As a last resort, yes.
PN2760
Do you see re-certification as something in addition to an ordinary training program?---Certainly an ordinary training program in my view is design to equip employees with initial skills. Re-certification would be going back and making sure employees have retained those skills.
PN2761
So it's a re-testing rather than simply re-training?---Yes.
PN2762
The company didn't press that when it reached it's agreement with the AWU during the course of negotiations, did it?---No, at that point in time on that particular issue there was a compromise position reached.
PN2763
Similarly, we know, well, we know from earlier evidence that you had an agreement with respect to learning time?---Yes.
PN2764
The company, in these proceedings, is pressing for something more than it was content to agree upon in the earlier negotiations, in that respect?---I think you've got to look at, the fact is that during the negotiation process the position of the parties changed at various points in time. For example, in relation to learning time we certainly had an agreement earlier on in negotiations where the AWU had agreed learning time should be 73 hours. So, the positions changed at particular points in time in the context of trying to get a whole package put together.
PN2765
Mr Mitchell, the agreements I am putting to you were the agreements which were still in place between the parties when the full bench assembled to deal with this matter last year in November, was it, or the latter part of last year, anyway?---Yes, that's correct.
PN2766
They were the agreements which were able to be put before this full bench in formal conciliation proceedings and they seemed to be the agreements at that stage?---They were the last agreements that we have on that particular issue - - -
PN2767
It was really, I'm sorry, I'm sorry - - -?---I was just going to say, agreement in terms of an item within the total package.
PN2768
It was only really, when the company formalised and filed its draft award that it was clear that those agreements were no longer being accepted by the company?---Yes. Having said that though I think it's normal practice in negotiations I have been involved in that what we are looking for is a total package. I don't think it's ever been any different at Kurnell.
PN2769
Do you have the company's draft award there?---No, I don't.
PN2770
Could we make a copy available to Mr Mitchell? Could we hand this up, Commissioner, please? I don't want to go over ground I have dealt with, hopefully, clearly enough with other witnesses if the Commission pleases but there are a couple of aspects I would like to take Mr Mitchell to. Some of which I didn't take the earlier witness to and some of which the earlier witness didn't know about.
PN2771
Can I refer you to clause 13.6, Mr Mitchell?---Yes.
PN2772
That contemplates, if we read it correctly, that only lieu days would be paid out on termination. Does that mean that part-days would not be paid out?---Sorry, can you repeat that.
PN2773
Yes. Clause 13.6?---Yes.
PN2774
In the last sentence on the top of page 11 says, "On termination of employment, any lieu days owed but not taken will be paid out." Do I understand that correctly to mean or, if not, please correct me, that part-days would not be paid out on termination?---No, that's not the intent.
PN2775
That's not the intent?---It may be badly drafted.
PN2776
There is an arrangement of some kind in place about the payment of part-days, is there not?---I believe so. It's not intended to change that fact.
PN2777
If there's any ambiguity about that the company would not object to that being re-drafted?---No.
PN2778
Thank you. Secondly, in relation to clause 20. Clause 20 simply refers to, in terms of long service leave, refers to a Long Service Leave Oil Companies Award 2000, obviously made recently?---Apparently, yes.
PN2779
Are you not very familiar with that, or?---I think that's a typographical error.
PN2780
I believe there was a simplified award made last year but if you're not familiar with it, it might not be something you can answer. I will try the question anyway and you tell me if you don't know. I am instructed that it was the understanding when that award was made that shift workers would retain long service leave of 65 shifts for a period of 10 years service. Is that correct or not?---That's certainly from, I think, the '84 award, yes.
PN2781
As far as you're concerned, is that arrangement still in place?---Yes.
PN2782
Clause 25.7. You might have heard me ask an earlier witness about this. It deals with current competencies and the like and then it says in the last sentence, "National guidelines will be applied." Do you know what "national guidelines" means?---No, to be honest, I'm not 100 per cent.
PN2783
Appendix 2 to the award, or draft award I should say, deals with the responsibilities and duties of refinery technicians, does it not?---In their coordination roles as distinct from their operational roles.
PN2784
That's taken from the SBIT report?---Substantially, yes.
PN2785
The company is prepared to adopt that aspect of the report but in other respects the draft award seeks to negate or role back aspects of the SBIT report, does it not?---Certainly in relation to leadership roles, yes.
PN2786
Certainly, in relation to the team responsibility for rosters, does the company also propose to take away some incentives that would contemplated by the SBIT report?---I think the incentive we are seeking to remove is the payment of a learning allowance.
PN2787
PN2788
MR WATSON: You were asked some questions about the long service leave award and you indicated that you understood the arrangement was still in place that there be 65 shifts off for 10 years service for long service leave. Can you tell the Commission what length or lengths of shifts that arrangement was in respect to?---Shifts at Kurnell are 8 hour shifts.
PN2789
Is that what you understand the arrangement relates to?---Yes.
PN2790
You were asked some questions about the bonus system and in particular the system proposed by the company and you indicated that in the past, different groups of employees have had different schemes and the company had adopted the approach of having them all aligned. What's the reason for that?---I think it's just a basic human resource philosophy that we want everyone on the site to have common aims and to work together to achieve those common aims rather than to be seeing people to have different agendas.
PN2791
What do you say as to the implications of the company's proposal for equity to various groups of employees?---If the company was successful, certainly everybody on the site would be in the same boat but we'd all, in a sense, live and die by our own combined results as a refinery.
PN2792
What do you say as to the implications of the company's proposal as far as the goals of encouraging the achievement of the objectives concerned?---Could you ask that again?
PN2793
Yes. What do you say are the implications of the change that the company is proposing from single, group based bonuses to site wide based bonuses for the achievement of particular goals that are identified in the targets?---Certainly, in our view, on the targets that we've proposed, the refinery technicians have a major input into achieving those goals and not just for themselves but for the majority of people on the site and I think Mr Haywood's touched on some of those things in terms of permit issuing, their role in monitoring the plant and making sure other employees on the site conform with site standards and practices.
PN2794
PN2795
MR WATSON: That concludes the witness evidence we wish to call. There are some other documents we propose to rely on and if convenient, we would seek to tender them now. The first is a chronology of events we have prepared relating to the enterprise bargaining at the Caltex Kurnell Refinery.
PN2796
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Do you want to reserve your rights in relation to this, Mr Shaw? Have you seen it?
PN2797
MR SHAW: No, I haven't. I suppose for moribund caution, I should.
PN2798
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Yes. Anyway, it's your version as it were, of the history, Mr Watson?
PN2799
MR WATSON: Very much so. It's tendered on that basis, your Honour.
PN2800
PN2801
MR WATSON: We next tender a document which is headed Caltex Kurnell Refinery's Comparison with Metal Industry of Wage Movements since 1991. What we have sought to do in this document is indicate the wage rates as they have existed at various points in time since, in fact, November 1990 in the case of Kurnell and the various changes which have occurred over the period to the present and there is some material at the end of it as to the dollar increases and percentage increases in relation to those rates. The right hand column is the metal industry award rates.
PN2802
MR SHAW: We will seek to reserve our rights in that respect as well, your Honour.
PN2803
PN2804
MR WATSON: I next tender a Caltex Australian Stock Exchange Media Release dated Friday, 23 February 2001.
PN2805
PN2806
MR WATSON: This document is the latest public announcement as to culpability of Caltex Australia Limited and there are some previous documents. I don't know whether they have been formally tendered but certainly material filed by the union. This is the most recent statement of that nature.
PN2807
Can I next tender a set of documents which is relating to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 in the state of New South Wales? There is a recent piece of legislation passed that not proclaimed to commence as yet and in the bundle of documentation are guides to the regulations, copies of regulations and a draft code of practice which has been circulated publicly for public comment before it's finalisation. As we understand it that legislation is due to come into course with associated regulations towards the middle of this year or so. I don't know whether a final date has been fixed.
PN2808
MR SHAW: Nor do I, your Honours, but I should just point out there are two classes of documents. First of all there is, in this bundle, a statute that certainly has been passed by the parliament but I think, not yet proclaimed. That's one category but the draft regulations are merely that and not, as I understand it, inextricably linked with the legislation. They are merely drafts for consultation, so, I don't know what parts of it my friend relies upon, if any, but I am just pointing out that there are two quite different statuses of the documentation in this bundle.
PN2809
PN2810
MR WATSON: Unless, there is some other document we have omitted that's the evidence that we employ. We might simply reserve our rights to - in case there is something else that might turn up overnight.
PN2811
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Okay, Mr Watson, thank you. Mr Watson, you're going to submit first are you?
PN2812
MR WATSON: Yes, I am, your Honour and I am reminded there is a further document that we will be proceeding to tender. It is the company's announcement regarding the notice nova bonus, project nova. When we last checked a short time ago, no one had pressed the send button of an email that was due to be distributed. When that is sent and can be printed we propose to tender that document. It is agreed that we would commence with our submissions and we propose to commence in the morning.
PN2813
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Yes, in that event it probably appropriate to adjourn now if there is nothing else. Could I just ask whether you and Mr Shaw feel that you will finish this week?
PN2814
MR WATSON: I believe I speak for both of us to say that we're confident we will.
PN2815
JUSTICE GIUDICE: Yes. Good, yes, you don't have to say anything else.
PN2816
MR WATSON: I won't say anything else.
PN2817
JUSTICE GIUDICE: All right, thank you. We will adjourn until 10 am in the morning.
ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY, 6 MARCH 2001 [4.09pm]
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
BRIAN EDWARD DEAN, SWORN PN1938
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GINTERS PN1938
EXHIBIT #AWU43 FIRST STATEMENT BY MR BRIAN DEAN, DATED 04/03/2001 PN1949
EXHIBIT #AWU44 SECOND STATEMENT BY MR BRIAN DEAN PN1954
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WATSON PN1955
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2000
IAN DOUGLAS OTTAWAY, ON FORMER OATH PN2002
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GINTERS PN2002
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WATSON PN2013
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2105
RAYMOND ALEXANDER HAYWOOD, SWORN PN2109
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WATSON PN2109
EXHIBIT #CALTEX13 FIRST STATEMENT OF MR RAYMOND ALEXANDER HAYWOOD PN2118
EXHIBIT #CALTEX14 SECOND STATEMENT OF MR RAYMOND ALEXANDER HAYWOOD PN2124
EXHIBIT #CALTEX15 THIRD WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR RAYMOND ALEXANDER HAYWOOD PN2136
EXHIBIT #CALTEX16 FOURTH WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR RAYMOND ALEXANDER HAYWOOD PN2141
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SHAW PN2143
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2389
GARY CHARLES EDGAR, SWORN PN2392
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WATSON PN2392
EXHIBIT #CALTEX17 FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT PN2405
EXHIBIT #CALTEX18 SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT PN2410
EXHIBIT #AWU45 AWU/AIMPI EVA STATUS REPORT PN2413
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WATSON PN2460
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2467
STEVEN BLAIR HARRISON, SWORN PN2470
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WATSON PN2470
EXHIBIT #CALTEX19 FIRST STATEMENT OF MR HARRISON PN2478
EXHIBIT #CALTEX20 SECOND STATEMENT OF MR HARRISON PN2483
EXHIBIT #CALTEX21 THIRD STATEMENT OF MR HARRISON PN2487
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SHAW PN2494
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2515
JOHN MARTIN TAYLOR, SWORN PN2517
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WATSON PN2517
EXHIBIT #CALTEX22 FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT PN2523
EXHIBIT #CALTEX23 SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT PN2527
EXHIBIT #CALTEX24 THIRD WITNESS STATEMENT PN2546
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SHAW PN2547
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2575
RAYMOND FRANCIS WILLIS, SWORN PN2575
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WATSON PN2575
EXHIBIT #CALTEX25 STATEMENT 1 OF RAYMOND FRANCIS WILLIS DATED 05/03/2001 PN2584
EXHIBIT #CALTEX26 STATEMENT 2 OF RAYMOND FRANCIS WILLIS DATED 05/03/2001 PN2600
EXHIBIT #CALTEX27 STATEMENT 3 OF RAYMOND FRANCIS WILLIS DATED 05/03/2001 PN2603
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SHAW PN2612
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2636
COLIN JOHN BRUCE GEEVES, SWORN PN2637
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WATSON PN2637
EXHIBIT #CALTEX28 STATEMENT BY MR GEEVES PN2651
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SHAW PN2652
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2683
JAMES MITCHELL, SWORN PN2683
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WATSON PN2683
EXHIBIT #CALTEX29 STATEMENT OF MR JAMES MITCHELL PN2697
EXHIBIT #CALTEX30 SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR JAMES MITCHELL PN2703
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SHAW PN2705
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WATSON PN2788
WITNESS WITHDREW PN2795
EXHIBIT #CALTEX31 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS PN2801
EXHIBIT #CALTEX32 CALTEX WAGE COMPARISON SINCE 1991 PN2804
EXHIBIT #CALTEX33 CALTEX MEDIA RELEASE 23/02/2001 PN2806
EXHIBIT #CALTEX34 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS CONTAINING STATUTE PN2810
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2001/343.html