C2001/1560, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 726 (2 May 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 6822
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER HINGLEY

C2001/1560

TENIX DEFENCE SYSTEMS PTY LIMITED
AWARD 1998 - 2001

Application under section 113 of the Act
by The Australian Industry Group to vary the
above award re provisions for personal leave

MELBOURNE

3.43 PM, MONDAY, 9 APRIL 2001

PN1

MR A DALTON: I appear on behalf of the Australian Industry Group for the company in this matter and with me today is MR A. IRVING from Tenix.

PN2

MR C. WINTER: I appear on behalf of The Australian Workers' Union.

PN3

MR R. JASTRZEBSKI: I appear for The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union.

PN4

MR J. MADDISON: I appear on behalf of the CEPU.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Dalton.

PN6

MR DALTON: Thank you, Commissioner. The applicant, Tenix Defence Systems Pty Limited, seek that the Commission vary the Tenix Defence Systems Pty Limited Award 1998-2001 in the terms detailed in the application form R6 and the draft order which have been lodged with the Commission. I do have other copies, if the Commission would like those.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN8

MR DALTON: The grounds on which this application are sought is to remove obsolete and out of date provisions, to update terms and titles used within the award, to insert provisions for personal leave and any other reasons that the Commission deems fit in this matter. The variations have been negotiated between the parties to the award and it is my instruction that the proposed variation is a consent position between the parties. Due to this consent position, I do not propose to give detailed accounts of each variation sought to the award, unless the Commission has any questions. The main variation is to include personal leave provisions within the award. These provisions replicate the provisions in the Metal, Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998, except for the appropriate variations due to enhanced accrual entitlements under this award.

PN9

It is appropriate to include this provision in the award, as it has already been the subject of a Commission test case and it provides to the employees more appropriate leave entitlements in this area. The variation as sought we believe complies with the objects of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 as set out in section 88A. The award underpins the certified agreement between the parties and provides a safety net of fair minimum wages and conditions for the employees at Tenix Defence Systems Pty Limited. In regard to award clause 6.1, there is another clarification that needs to be put on transcript and this states to clause 6.1.1.2 and the clause I would like to say on transcript is:

PN10

The company clarifies its position as follows. With regard to the spread of hours, consistent with the award, these would not be altered without agreement between the company and its employees. On the separate and quite distinct matter of starting and finishing times within the spread of hours, the company will give reasonable notice to relevant employees of such change.

PN11

That is just a clarification that the parties wanted again, as in the previous matter, put on transcript so that we are very clear on where that is. Other than that, Commissioner, I will leave my submissions there. If the Commission pleases.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Dalton, the terms of the personal leave test case decision sought to be inserted, are they the current test case provisions?

PN13

MR DALTON: I believe it is the current test case.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: I notice that this is an award that has been made since the interim period of the simplification. Is there any reason why some of these clauses were not picked up at that time?

PN15

MR DALTON: In terms of that, Commissioner, I believe that the company was of the view that the award did comply with all the principles of the Act with regard to simplification.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Were they not obsolete then, though?

PN17

MR DALTON: I must admit I was not involved in the drawing up of the award, nor the simplification process. In terms of this particular matter, as I say, all I can say is that the company was under the impression, validly sought from advice from parties involved in these particular matters, that the award did comply with all the simplification principles of the Act. If the Commission has a particular issue - - -

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, no, but it just occurs to me whether I should not be looking closer at the rest of the award.

PN19

MR DALTON: We believe that in this particular circumstance, given the nature of the relationship of the parties at the site, that this award accurately reflects what the parties want in terms of terms and conditions.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: And is consistent with all principles of this Commission and the Workplace Relations Act?

PN21

MR DALTON: Well, in terms of that, I am not aware of any principle that it is inconsistent with, in terms of any other of those simplification issues, so unless there is a specific issue that you would like us to deal with, I am satisfied with it.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: No. Thank you. Yes, Mr Winter.

PN23

MR WINTER: Thank you, Commissioner. I can confirm that The AWU does support the application to vary the award. The union was involved in the process throughout. I have spoken to the organiser, Mr Gent, who was involved in this process and he confirms with the exhibit that is before you. Therefore we would seek the application to vary. If the Commission pleases.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you say, Mr Winter, on the question I just asked Mr Dalton, that the rest of the award complies with the simplification - - -

PN25

MR WINTER: Well, I was unaware that there was an issue there and I actually thought that this was part of the simplification process when the organiser made me aware of what was going on in regard to these proposed changes to the award.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: One would expect it would not need to be simplified, given that it was made after the interim period.

PN27

MR WINTER: Well, you would presume that, but to my knowledge, going back through the award, there was no issues such as preference clauses or anything like that in the award, but I could not be sure whether there was other issues that needed to be simplified. If the Commission pleases.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Jastrzebski.

PN29

MS JASTRZEBSKI: If the Commission pleases, The AMWU supports the variation to the award. The union was involved at every stage of this and we agree with what was put on transcript also with regard to clause number 6.1.1.2. If the Commission pleases.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you want to answer my question that I asked of the other two advocates?

PN31

MS JASTRZEBSKI: Commissioner, I believe that this is simply a fine tuning matter, just finishing the process properly. If the Commission pleases.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes. Mr Maddison.

PN33

MR MADDISON: Thank you, Commissioner. We support the submissions made by Mr Dalton in relation to the application generally and again, Commissioner, note the undertakings given in relation to the specific clause in relation to the spread of hours and say that that is a reflection of the parties' intent. In reference to your broader question, Commissioner, I am afraid I am not in any position to illuminate that matter any further than has been put by the other parties at the bar table. I have had no previous dealings with the Tenix Award as such.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, can one of the advocates enlighten me as to the date the award was made?

PN35

MR IRVING: Excuse me, Commissioner, the 1998 award, yes, that was 20 January 1998.

PN36

MR WINTER: From previous proceedings in the Supreme Court, I think that is the correct date that I can remember.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Is there any further submissions?

PN38

MR WINTER: No, Commissioner.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: This matter is an application by the Australian Industry Group to vary the Tenix Defence Systems Pty Limited Award 1998-2001 for the removal of obsolete provisions, amendment of various clauses and the insertion of the personal leave provisions. Mr Dalton appeared for AIG on behalf of Tenix Defence Systems Pty Limited. Ms Jastrzebski appeared for the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, Mr Winter for the Australian Workers' Union and Mr Maddison for the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal and Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia.

PN40

I am satisfied that the consent positions of the parties to vary the award, to delete obsolete and outdated provisions and to adopt the personal leave test case provision, the current personal leave test case provision, should be approved. I indicate to the parties that I intend now to look further at the award in terms of the other provisions, to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Workplace Relations Act, the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act and the relevant Commission principles.

PN41

The variations, however, will come into force from today, 9 April 2001, and shall remain in force - I do not know if the parties advised me of a term of operation, did you? Is six months the appropriate time? Yes, shall remain in force for a period of six months. Before issuing the order, if I have any difficulties in respect to the matters I raised, I will raise them with the parties. This matter is adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.53pm]