AG2001/757, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 944 (23 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 7157

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER LEWIN

AG2001/757

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF
AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LK of the Act
by Equipsuper Pty Limited for certification of
Equipsuper Pty Limited Enterprise Agreement 2000

MELBOURNE

2.41 PM, TUESDAY, 2 MAY 2001

PN1

MR I. RAMSAY: I am the general manager of equipsuper Pty Limited, the employer in this matter.

PN2

MR J. TORMEY: I am the employee representative of equipsuper Pty Limited.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Is there some agreement as to who is going to present the application?

PN4

MR RAMSAY: I am happy to do that.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Go ahead, Mr Ramsay.

PN6

MR RAMSAY: This is an application that is along similar lines to an agreement that we put in place two years ago, which was the first time we actually entered into a section 170LK agreement. Basically what we have done is roll over that agreement that was put in place two years ago. There have been some minor changes to the agreement, which are summarised in the attachment information that is included with the application. And there has been agreement reached with the employees on salary increases and in relation to a number of other issues.

PN7

Supporting the application are the required questionnaires, and we have appended to those questionnaires the summary of the process that was gone through in reaching agreement with the employees, and a summary of the changes from the former agreement. Basically it is as simple as that. We have virtually just rolled over the former agreement and ne-negotiated the key issues of salary increases.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: It might just help me if you explain to me what equipsuper does in order to understand the particular designated award.

PN9

MR RAMSAY: Yes. There is a bit of background to this. equipsuper Pty Limited was formerly the State Electricity Commission of Victoria superannuation department, going back to 1994, pre the break-up and the privatisation of the State Electricity Commission. When that did occur in 1995 it became a separate company in its own right. It changed its name at that point to the Victorian Electricity Industry Superannuation Fund, and all of those entities that were spun out of the SEC and ultimately privatised remained as participating employers in that Victorian Electricity Industry Fund.

PN10

In 1997 the fund merged with the Gas and Fuel fund, and the name was changed to the Victorian Energy Industry Fund at that time, and subsequent to that the trustee of the fund has taken a decision, that given the trend towards national markets in the electricity industry and also the trend towards multi utilities, that it would try and position the fund to become an Australian utilities fund. And 1998, I think it was, the fund changed its name, moving away from the emphasis on Victoria, to equipsuper Pty Limited, and since that date we have been looking to target that broader Australian utilities market.

PN11

The Water Industry Fund here locally joined our fund in about 1998, and at the moment we are tendering for business in other states. So it has gone from what was formerly a department of a statutory corporation to now a business in its own right. And while the underpinning award for this agreement is the old SEC quad E award - - -

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, has been.

PN13

MR RAMSAY: Has been. Quite clearly the arrangements that we have in place between the company and the employers is far more reflective of the financial services industry these days than of an electricity utility.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: And what would be the proportion of persons employed by the employer who would have been employed in the old department?

PN15

MR RAMSAY: It is about half. Mind you, there is only a dozen people in total, and about half of them would be former SEC people and half would have been recruited since then.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: And what were the relevant classifications in the award?

PN17

MR RAMSAY: In the old quad E award?

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN19

MR RAMSAY: Most of the people would have been commercial administrative officers, and there would have been some - I am not too sure - - -

PN20

MR TORMEY: Gary might have been an engineer, I think.

PN21

MR RAMSAY: Yes, there may have been one or two engineers, and there would have been a few in the senior officer category of the SEC, but I am not too sure whether they were actually covered under the quad E award now. Memory has faded a little bit over the years. About half of the employees now are, in fact, investment professionals involved in managing investments, and I guess in the SEC days there really was not a classification that was consistent with that activity.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, it did seem to me that the nature of the agreement - well, that the agreement covered business activities and vocations that were not readily identified with the power industry.

PN23

MR RAMSAY: Yes. Well, I guess what we have tried to do when we entered into the original enterprise agreement was to pluck out those bits of the quad E award that we felt were relevant, and mainly that related to leave entitlements and those sorts of things, and basically the rest of the agreement reflects the way the company has, in fact, evolved in the financial services industry.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, I can see the logic of that. The issue for the Commission, of course, is that when one gives consideration to the certification of an agreement the legislation requires a comparison with some award, either in the terms of the legislation a "relevant award" or a "designated award." And it sounds as if there may be an issue emerging at least, if not already extant, about what award that should be.

PN25

But it is complicated by the fact that some of the employees obviously at some stage enjoyed the terms and conditions of employment of the Power Industry Award in Victoria. And some people have been recruited since then and are probably performing functions that were not performed at the time that it was a government department, or functions under that award.

PN26

MR RAMSAY: The functions are substantially different, yes.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, the agreement - I have only had a limited amount of time to consider the terms of the agreement. How do you suggest I should go about the task that is set out in the legislation of considering the terms of the agreement in relation to, say, the remuneration?

PN28

MR RAMSAY: In relation to what aspect, as to whether anybody is any worse off?

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, I have to actually apply a no disadvantage test of some sort, whether it be to that Power Industry Award or somewhere else.

PN30

MR RAMSAY: The statutory declarations that both Mr Tormey and myself have completed do, of course, stipulate that nobody is any worse off under the new agreement.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: Any worse off than?

PN32

MR RAMSAY: Than what was the previous position two years ago.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Under the earlier agreement?

PN34

MR RAMSAY: Mm.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Look, I understand that. You have probably added to the terms of the agreement in some ways?

PN36

MR RAMSAY: What has been added to the terms from the previous agreement is the agreed minimum salary increase for the two year period, and also included in this agreement is an undertaking that there is a substantial surplus in the defined benefit fund that most of the employees are members of, and we have undertaken under this agreement to distribute a small part of that surplus in the defined benefit fund to all the employees in the company, and with a further undertaking that at the end of the first 12 month period if the level of funding is of a similar order that we would distribute a further part of that surplus to the existing employees in the company.

PN37

Now, those two issues, the salary increases and that act of distributing part of the surplus in the defined benefit fund are the two major changes to the former agreement. The only other change is, there was a comment made when we were here two years ago that our arbitration clause should be more specific and should say that the parties will arbitrate, whereas previously the word may had been included in there, and may has been changed to will.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I don't want to complicate these things for you, but the way the Act operates is not so much to compare this agreement with the agreement that you reached two years ago, but requires me to look at the agreement and then look at a relevant award or any other Commonwealth legislation that may be relevant. That is one of the reasons why I asked you the questions about the award. Because when I was thinking about, you know, how you would go about applying a no disadvantage test to this particular agreement I found it challenging to sort of apply the terms of the old Electricity Industry Award.

PN39

MR RAMSAY: Well, you probably need to go back, I guess, in time to when we first put the first enterprise agreement in place. There was a clear break from the remuneration that people were under, under the old quad E award, and then moving into the new enterprise agreement. And clearly we had to pass that test relative to the old quad E award at that point, which I think was 1994 or 1995. So at that point that was clearly the test. Since then the test has been, has the conditions of employment been improved or worsened in the subsequent two year periods?

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. That is not really the test. That is what I said when I said I don't want to make things difficult for you. But unfortunately that is not quite the way it works. It is all a bit arcane, I know, but it might be helped if I could just ask you this question about clause 9. That is actually a provision for increases in remuneration of 4.5 per cent of the nominated figure, which is described as the TEC.

PN41

MR RAMSAY: That is a minimum increase. Nobody will receive less than 4.5, yes.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: And this TEC is the total employment cost concept?

PN43

MR RAMSAY: That is right.

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: And that is composed of certain designated amounts. And there is reference to a base salary. That is a different concept to the TEC amount, is it?

PN45

MR RAMSAY: Well, the TEC is made up of a base salary plus superannuation, and in some cases for certain people where they are above a certain level they are also eligible for a motor vehicle.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: But those salaries and the actual money value of the TEC are not actually specified in the agreement, are they? Or have I got that wrong? They may be described, but the amounts are - - -

PN47

MR RAMSAY: They are described. I don't think there is a schedule, no.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: You see, that is what just complicated it a little bit for me, was that, normally what you receive is something that actually sets out what the remuneration in money amounts of the employees will be, and then the relevant function for the Commission is to consider that and beneficial terms and conditions of the agreement as against the total prescriptions of an appropriate award. So I was wondering, would it be possible for you to make as an appendix to the agreement the actual schedule of salaries and the relevant amounts?

PN49

MR RAMSAY: Yes.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that would be useful because, for certainly at least, it is desirable that that part of the agreement which says that there will be an increase of whatever operates on a set of figures, if you like, or salaries, either whether it be a base salary, something described as the TEC, whatever that might be, that that is actually a part of the document that is certified, so that there can be no dispute that it is 4.5 per cent of something which is specified in the agreement, if you follow my meaning, rather than that just being a general statement that there be a 4.5 per cent increase, full stop.

PN51

I mean, this case goes a little further, and it says TEC and refers to base salaries, and the like. So that was the first matter of interest to me. The second was, the award is going to continue to prescribe certain terms and conditions of employment; is that right? Because the provisions of clause 6 seem to imply that.

PN52

MR RAMSAY: Our intention is that this agreement stands alone.

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, yes, that has crossed my mind that that may have been your intention. But what does clause 6 mean?

PN54

MR RAMSAY: I think clause 6 has been included, if I am right in what I think clause 6 is, if you just bear with me for a moment. My understanding is that clause 6 was inserted because an agreement of this nature needed to have some relationship to a parent award. And even though it has always been the intention of the parties that this agreement will stand alone, our legal advice was that there needed to be a reference to some underpinning award.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that advice may have been motivated by the consideration that if the agreement were to stand alone, and what is written in this document were to be the only terms and conditions of employment of the employees concerned, that there may be terms and conditions of employment in the award which were thereby excluded and would count as a loss.

PN56

MR RAMSAY: Well, as part of the negotiations with the employees, both myself and the employee representative went through - this is not this time around, but back in the mid 90s - went through the quad E award and extracted the bits - and you would know the quad E award has got a lot of information in there that is completely irrelevant to a company involved in the financial services industry.

PN57

We extracted those parts of the quad E award that both management and the employees felt that were relevant and that we wanted to be bound by going forward in the financial services industry, and they were incorporated in this enterprise agreement. Now, at the same time our legal advice was that a clause along the lines of clause 6 needed to be included in the enterprise agreement as well to provide some reference to the underpinning award.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, that may or may not be the case, but, I mean, I am sure you received that advice, but it is, strictly speaking, not necessary. As I say, this is a fairly technical field, and the issue is more to do with what is the relevant award or the designated award - they are the terms used in the legislation - for the purpose of the application of the no disadvantage test which is set out in section 170XA of the Workplace Relations Act.

PN59

If these terms and conditions of employment standing alone are so beneficial to the employees that they are not disadvantaged by the agreement when compared with the award, then it is not necessary that there be a relationship. There may have been some confusion in the way in which the advice was received. I mean, it may have been given to you for two reasons; first of all being that there has to be either a relevant or designated award, that is true. The way in which the relationship between the relevant or designated award is expressed in the terms of the agreement is a matter for the parties.

PN60

When the application for certification is made the Commission is required to, if there is a relevant award, compare the terms of the agreement to the award and to take a holistic view of the comparison between the two, not a line by line comparison. And if there is no relevant award, and relevant award is something which is referred to expressly in the legislation, then the Commission is obliged to designate an award to select, choose and decide that the particular award will be the designated award, and then to conduct a comparison between the agreement and the designated award, consider the agreement as a whole against the award as a whole, and even though there may be variations of detail, assess the value of the agreement as a whole against the value of the award as a whole, and make a determination as to whether or not the employees are disadvantaged by the agreement. That, as briefly as I can put it, is what is required.

PN61

So that clause, I have to say to you, at the present time means a little bit more than you might think it means. In strict terms you will note, it says it is to be read and interpreted wholly in conjunction with. So that, in other words, the two instruments operate. What the Act does is, where there is an inconsistency between the two, provide that the agreement will prevail. So that is one of the things that motivated my consideration of this issue, because I thought to myself, well, how much of that award really is relevant and, for my purpose, is relevant for the purposes of the no disadvantage test? For your purposes I think relevant to the nature of the industry and the business you are carrying on. But it is not for me to say that you should or should not have that. That is a matter of choice. I think if you - - -

PN62

MR RAMSAY: That same clause I am sure has been included in the previous three enterprise agreements.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, there is no reason why you can't include it. As I said, it is a matter of choice for you. I am not quite sure that it has the effect that you might think it does. Because all I am saying, it is an observation.

PN64

MR RAMSAY: Well, to be perfectly honest, we put it there because our advice was you needed to have that clause in there. I mean, in a practical sense, the way the company is run and the relationship with the employees, everything that is in this agreement is what determines how we react between each other. And the concept of the quad E award applying to a business that is operating in the financial services industry is a little ridiculous.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, it is problematic. That is why I raised it. When I sat down to do what I would normally do with an agreement, which is, say it was a Transport Workers Agreement, I would look at the Transport Workers Award and I would evaluate the terms of the agreement. Now, the agreement might provide as one that I dealt with this morning does, that the hours of work will be 50 hours a week. But it has a commensurate weekly wage rate which is much higher than the award rate.

PN66

The issue simply, well, is this good enough, does this beat the award for 50 hours. And it is a very straightforward sort of question. Or, if it doesn't, then are there other things in the agreement that, when you take them into account, they are benefits that the award doesn't prescribe, such as, there was a week's additional leave. You do a reckoning of those things and come to a conclusion as to whether there is a disadvantage. It is easy in that case because you are looking at a Transport Workers Award and a Transport Workers agreement about people driving trucks.

PN67

When I sat down to do the same exercise with this I found it problematic to try and apply an award that is largely, well, historical in a sense now almost, because to some extent it has been superseded by a number of other instruments in practical terms, you know, the power industry, the generation and distribution of electric power. I just made these observations. And for me to actually make a comparison, first of all, I would not even know which classifications in that award bear any relationship to the sort of work that equipsuper would be doing or sort of business that it would be carrying on.

PN68

So I would not even know where to start, frankly. I mean, it is not going to be an impediment to your prosecuting this. I am just making the observation that I think you are probably at a bit of a turning point.

PN69

MR RAMSAY: So in terms of what should we do in the future?

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I am quite happy to proceed with the task of considering whether or not to certify this agreement. I just make these observations, that a slightly unusual situation that your business probably evolving out of its historical sort of characteristics into quite different ones, and maybe the award is really a legacy that is sort of going past its use by date, and that maybe an award in the financial services sector is a more appropriate point to point comparison for the purposes of the no disadvantage test, certainly one that someone like myself would find a lot easier to reckon with when trying to evaluate this agreement for the purpose of the no advantage test.

PN71

You just have to rummage through this whole SECV award effectively and try and locate some comparators. But I doubt that, you that, that has got any real meaning for what you are doing now.

PN72

MR RAMSAY: None whatsoever. I mean, we would dearly like to move away from that completely, but our advice was that was still the underpinning award.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think that first of all there are two dimensions to what I am saying. The first is, I think maybe the question arises, perhaps not immediately, but certainly for the future, what is the most appropriate award? The scheme of the legislation is that any agreement like this has to be measured against something, and the scheme is that there is either a relevant award or a designated award, and that is dependent upon what people are doing and what awards cover the sort of work that they are doing. At some point I think you will probably have to deal with this question.

PN74

Secondly, I just make the observation that clause 6 does actually have quite an impact on the meaning of this agreement, and possibly a greater impact than you imagine, because it does actually quite specifically require that the agreement be read and interpreted wholly in conjunction with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, Electrical, Electronic and Engineering Employees Award 1989. Now, I doubt very much whether much has happened to that award since 1989. And the reason for that is simply that most of the principal places of employment are covered by that award, as you say, have been spun out of the old SECV as an entity and are now covered by enterprise bargaining agreements which are becoming more and more complex every year.

PN75

So the amount of attention that is being paid to the provisions of the award is very, very limited compared to the amount of attention that is being paid to the provisions of the enterprise bargaining agreement. So what you have is an agreement here that actually ties you to an award that is probably atrophied to some degree and reflects the work and business culture of the SECV. That is the second point. What would help me very simply is if you can just provide me with a schedule of salaries and pay scales, what people will actually be paid under this agreement as dollar amounts.

PN76

I think that will probably do the trick, because I doubt very much that those salaries, whether they be base salaries, amounts of remuneration expressed, there is TECs, or whatever, they can be anything other than significantly greater than the prescriptions of the SECV award. And those wage rates have probably been updated from time to time for safety net adjustments, but that would be all.

PN77

MR RAMSAY: But what can you compare them to in the quad E award anyway?

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I was about to go on and say that if you could help me with that I would be extremely happy. I imagine that you may be in a position to say that some of the employees that you have who used to work for the SECV, at the time that they were employed by the SECV were classified as. That is probably about as much as I can ask of you.

PN79

MR RAMSAY: Well, for some, for a minority of the positions I can do that.

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: Not necessarily all. I realise that you have actually appointed people to positions that probably don't have a corresponding classification in the SECV award, and in some respects you are not telling me about what these people are doing now, you are telling me about what they are doing then. But at least it helps me set a base line. And my suggestion would be that on the next time you make an agreement you give consideration to awards covering the financial services sector, and the selection of an appropriate award.

PN81

I imagine, from my experience, that those awards are going to be quite different from the SECV award. First of all, they are going to have a focus on the sort of industry that you are in, and secondly, their provisions are going to be a lot less complicated. But they are just observations. If you can give me that schedule of salaries, base rate salaries and TEC summaries, I am sure that there should not be any impediment to the certification of the agreement. And if you could possibly add to that what classifications some of the employees were working when they were employed by the SECV. Could I just give you an example of - do you pay overtime?

PN82

MR RAMSAY: No.

PN83

MR TORMEY: There is a provision for overtime.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: There is a provision?

PN85

MR RAMSAY: But in practice it hasn't been paid for six years.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you don't pay overtime to anybody over 400 points. That is a simple illustration. I doubt that there would be - well, is that equivalent to - was there an overtime bar in the SECV award? There wasn't.

PN87

MR RAMSAY: No.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, in that case there is a simple example of where, if you strictly applied the terms of the SECV award, that is in conflict with the award. The application of the no disadvantage test would require me then to say, all right, well, if people over 400 points don't get paid overtime and they work more than 37.5 hours in a week, is there a counter balancing advantage in this agreement? That is sufficient, looked at overall, to balance the value of the agreement against the award. That is the sort of exercise that I am supposed to be conducting.

PN89

In the absence of the summary scale that I have requested it is a little bit difficult to say, well, look, I look at the award, and these people were working in the administrative officers stream, for example. And I will look at the - say that the administrative officer class 4 salary prescribed by the SECV award is significantly less than this, so quite an amount of money has been in it, so that is a significant benefit that can be weighed against the fact that some people at that level may not be paid overtime.

PN90

That is the exercise I am supposed to be conducting. So if you can provide me with those salary levels that is going to help me do that quite significantly, I would have thought. But apart from that, provided I am satisfied that the employees have participated in approving the agreement, and that is what it says in the declarations, I just have to have something on the file to demonstrate that I can be satisfied on the basis of some sort of established level of salary remuneration that the benefits are adequate enough for me to reach a conclusion that the agreement passes a no disadvantage test.

PN91

MR RAMSAY: And do we need to come back again?

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: No. Provided what you do furnish to me meets that test, I will just simply advise you that I am going to certify the agreement.

PN93

MR RAMSAY: So I will fax or e-mail that information to you in the next day or so?

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you can send it to us electronically if you like. My associate with give you an e-mail address for a message. You can just set out the table of the salaries, the base salary and the TEC salaries. Just on that TEC concept can you just explain that to me a little bit. I mean, is that what the employees actually receive, or is that just a reference point for the purpose of calculating increases in their remuneration?

PN95

MR RAMSAY: It is a reference point for calculating increases in the remuneration.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: Which would be added to the salaries that you will advise me of.

PN97

MR RAMSAY: Well, what I will give you is base salary, other benefits, total TEC, and when we talk in increases we talk in terms of increases in TEC.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: Which are translated according to a salary packaging arrangement made discretely with each individual employee or to the base salary?

PN99

MR RAMSAY: No. The increases relate to the base salary, yes.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. I understand.

PN101

MR RAMSAY: But there is also performance pay arrangements as well which I will need to stipulate for you.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I noticed that as well.

PN103

MR RAMSAY: Which, of course, were not there before.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. I just wanted to try and understand how you use the TEC. It is more or less as I thought it was, but I thought I would just clarify that. All right. Good, thanks, Mr Ramsay. Mr Tormey, do you want to tell me about how this agreement was made on behalf of the employees?

PN105

MR TORMEY: Yes. If I can just go back to the clause 6. We do have a member who is - an employee who is a member of a union. Now, you were saying that if we do have to relate it back to a financial services award, what if his union isn't covered in that award, how do we then go about relating to a relevant award?

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you are not doing that at the moment. I am going to proceed on the basis of your application, which is to relate it to the SECV award. I am really just talking to Mr Ramsay about the fact that I think there is an issue about whether or not this award really should be the award going forward, and whether or not maybe, given the way in which the business is evolving, a more appropriate comparison is with an award that regulates what is happening now in the business as opposed to what used to happen in the SECV.

PN107

As I said, that is a matter of choice for the parties. That is not for me to tell you what you should or should not do about it. I am just saying, when I go to actually do this no disadvantage test with this award it is complex for this reason. Now, that is interesting. You say that you have someone who is a member of a union?

PN108

MR TORMEY: Yes, we do.

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: Was that union notified? Or he didn't request that they be notified?

PN110

MR TORMEY: No, that is correct. Because we asked him if we wanted the union to be involved, and he - - -

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. He didn't feel the necessity for it. All right. Did he support the making of the agreement?

PN112

MR TORMEY: Yes, he did, yes. Actually the union actually did help us originally put this agreement together. So they went through our old quad E award and suggested areas that we should keep and areas that were not relevant to the business that we were in at the moment.

PN113

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN114

MR TORMEY: There is an attachment 2 which identifies the steps which we went through to employ myself as the employee rep, to then discussing salary changes and what have you, or award changes to the agreement, and then for me to go back to the general manager regarding certification or approval of his new agreement. There is 10 steps on how we went through.

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well. That is fine. Did you have a meeting, did you, step 8?

PN116

MR TORMEY: Yes.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: And you were present?

PN118

MR TORMEY: That is right.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, thank you. That is fine. Well, there is only, in my view, the question of whether or not the agreement meets the no disadvantage test. On what has been put to me it seems more likely than not that it will. However, in order to confirm that conclusion it is appropriate that an appendix be provided as a part of the agreement which sets out the current salaries upon which the agreement will operate, so as the Commission can make a comparison as far as possible with the relevant award.

PN120

The company have been good enough to undertake to provide that schedule and moreover to identify classifications which were used at the time of the transition from the SECV to the - it was corporatised, was it; it became a company?

PN121

MR RAMSAY: Yes.

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Is it a company limited by a guarantee or - - -

PN123

MR RAMSAY: It is limited by shares.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: Limited by shares. And who are the shares held by?

PN125

MR RAMSAY: They shares are held by the chairman in trust on behalf of the participating employers.

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: So at the point of the transition from the SECV to the company, on receipt of that information if I am satisfied that the terms of the agreement do not disadvantage the employees then I will, as I am required under the Act, issue an order certifying the terms of the agreement. And that order would come into force immediately and continue in force until 12 October 2002, and that order, as a matter of explanation, will require compliance with the terms of the agreement from 12 October 2000 until the expiry of the order.

PN127

That information can be provided by whatever means is most convenient to the company, and there will be no further need for attendance at the Commission unless I reach a conclusion that the agreement does not pass the no disadvantage test. Thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.21pm]