C2001/140, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 363 (23 March 2001)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 6284

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER HOLMES

C2001/140

APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 113(1) OF
THE ACT BY RURAL FINANCE CORPORATION
OF VICTORIA TO SET ASIDE THE RURAL
FINANCE CORPORATION OF VICTORIA
AWARD 1989

MELBOURNE

11.19 AM, TUESDAY, 6 MARCH 2001

PN1

MS M. KNIGHT: I appear on behalf of the Rural Finance Corporation.

PN2

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have any idea whether the other side are going to appear?

PN3

MS KNIGHT: Well, no, I thought perhaps this lady was from there. We have rung the union on a couple of occasions but the CPSU have been changing their personnel, and whilst I have spoken to Mr Richardson I haven't actually met him face to face.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Have they indicated to you a view about the application?

PN5

MS KNIGHT: Well, they indicated that because we were a very small workplace in terms of number of people under the award, and because we had only one union member, that they put us down their list of priorities and tasks to do.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: That is an interesting view of the world.

PN7

MS KNIGHT: And the Department of Treasury and Finance, who whilst we don't report to them are sort of our umbrella, if you like, for industrial relations.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: From a past life I know well how that system works.

PN9

MS KNIGHT: They suggested that we make the application on our own behalf, if that is all right.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, there is no reason why a party to an award can't make an application. So perhaps I will just let you explain to me what your - I think I know what you are proposing the variation will achieve, but if you could just let me go what you have got.

PN11

MS KNIGHT: Well, we have got two issues at the moment. One is the simplification of our award which is also before you, and the second issue is the variation to the rates of pay. You may recall that you sent us away to find out how those original rates of pay were set in the award and they were originally set against the VPS structure, but once Rural Finance then amended the award six months after it was brought in, they are now against your skills and progression through your work, and they are aligned with market rates.

PN12

Now, a consultant at that time helped both Rural Finance and the union through that process. We haven't varied the rates of pay since August 1998. There has been a 1999 decision and also the May 2000 decision and we - it has sort of been sidetracked because of the simplification.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN14

MS KNIGHT: So we would like for our staff to incorporate those changes into the award.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: And what date do you want the variations to apply from?

PN16

MS KNIGHT: Well, I would like them to apply from the date that the first - the 1999 one came down in September '99, for that - can you make two dates or do you only have one date?

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: No, well - - -

PN18

MS KNIGHT: I would like to give them a little bit of back pay if that is the question. I would like it to go back a little bit. In other words, I don't think staff ought to be - miss out because I have taken a long time to come before you.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: These are actual rates of pay?

PN20

MS KNIGHT: Yes. So that 1 May 2000.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: I will just go off the record for a moment.

OFF THE RECORD

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: In relation to the application, Ms Knight, I certainly can grant the April '99 safety net review outcome as requested, save that I can only give it a prospective date of operation which means that that application is granted with effect from the first pay period on or after today, Tuesday, 6 March 2001. Under the principles in relation to the application for the adjustment for 1 May 2000 living wage outcome, I could grant that application with effect from 6 March 2002.

PN23

I know from our discussion off the record that you wish to consider - the organisation wishes to consider its position in that regard as to whether in fact it might make an application for a special case, which I would then refer to the President, seeking to have the normal 12 months' time elapse between safety net adjustments which are required under the principles dealt with, such that the May 2000 increase could be made to apply from an earlier date.

PN24

As I have indicated to you that does require consideration by the President as a special case and I think that the best course of action, therefore, given your understanding of your corporation's desire, is to adjourn that application whilst you seek further instructions, and if you can advise me in writing. If the advice is that you don't wish to proceed, or don't wish to make an application for a special case, but are prepared to live with an increase from 6 March 2002, that advice when I receive it in writing I will indicate that under the principles I would grant - would have to grant it in fact if I apply them properly.

PN25

Therefore, if that is your advice I would ask for an order which provides wages rates which incorporate the 1999 safety net adjustment as from today and for the 2000 increase as from 6 March 2002, and my associate with liaise in relation to that. If it is in relation - if you wish to take a special case will you just advise me of that in writing and I will arrange for a copy of this transcript, plus your application, to be forwarded to the President for his consideration. That, I understand, is the course of action that you would like to flow from today, is that correct?

PN26

MS KNIGHT: Thank you, yes. Thank you.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, this matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed in relation to the application for a wage increase from the safety net review decision of 2000. This matter is adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.34]