|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220
Level 2, 16 St George's Tce, PERTH WA 6000
Tel:(08)9325 6029 Fax:(08)9325 7096
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
O/N 7278
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER EAMES
C2001/1409
TARGET (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
and
SHOP, DISTRIBUTIVE AND ALLIED
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re implementation of scanning
equipment onto forklifts
MELBOURNE
10.03 AM, MONDAY, 7 MAY 2001
PN1
MR A. BURKE: If the Commission pleases, I appear on behalf of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, with me is MR L. NOONAN.
PN2
MR P. HOWELL: If the Commission pleases, I appear on behalf of Target (Australia). With me today is MS V. FRINZILAS and MR A. NORTH.
PN3
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Burke?
PN4
MR BURKE: Thank you, Commissioner. The matter today is to hear submissions and evidence in relation to our dispute over the proper classification of forklift drivers in the dispatch area of the Target Distribution Centre at Taras Avenue in Altona and we have two witnesses and I think the company has two witnesses. We have witness statements from our two witnesses, a copy of which has been given to the company this morning. I propose to call firstly those two witnesses, perhaps then it's suggested that the company calls its two witnesses and we give our submissions after that. That would be what I propose today.
PN5
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Are you comfortable with that, Mr Howell?
PN6
MR HOWELL: Yes.
PN7
MR BURKE: There is also an agreed statement of facts which is not very lengthy and covers a few points. It includes an observation of what was observed at the site, some information about the classification structure in the agreement, the previous agreement and also the current agreement and some history of the grade 3A which we can provide to the Commission.
PN8
PN9
MR BURKE: In relation to exhibits, Commissioner, I might point out that there were three tendered by ourselves in the conciliation, the first I think was a copy of the agreement, the other two we may rely upon as well. I certainly would seek to have included in today's hearing so if that could be noted.
PN10
PN11
MR BURKE: Yes. Well, we may rely upon SDA2 at least, Commissioner.
PN12
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN13
MR BURKE: At this stage, Commissioner, I think I would like to call our first witness, Ian Stubberfield. There are three other witnesses and we would ask that they remain outside.
PN14
PN15
MR BURKE: Mr Stubberfield, have you prepared a witness statement for this matter?---Yes, I have.
PN16
Do you have a copy with you?---Yes, I do.
PN17
PN18
MR BURKE: I am wondering, Commissioner, whether you would like the witness to read this into transcript or are you happy to - - -
PN19
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think we can take it as read and in due course undertake obviously to read all of the statement.
PN20
MR BURKE: Yes. I only have a few initial questions to ask.
PN21
Mr Stubberfield, I might just point out, you say in your statement that you were the employee who performed the demonstration of driving a forklift in the dispatch area on the day that we came out with the Commission?---That's correct, yes.
PN22
And that is the area where you are employed and have been employed since the warehouse opened?---Yes. That's correct.
PN23
Okay. Now, the issue we have is in relation to forklift drivers who perform the function that you were doing that and their proper classification. I might point out to the Commission - I might just point this out, Commissioner, in fact, Mr Stubberfield is a grade 4 under the agreement. It was by chance he was picked as a witness, he did the work that certainly grade 3s do and I want to make it clear and we have in the statement that we are certainly not seeking that the grade be a grade 4, we are saying it's a grade 3A and I will just ask the witness.
PN24
In relation to people who drive forklifts in the dispatch area who aren't grade 4s and 5s, would you have an idea as to how many people our claim might fit, in other words, people who are 1s or 2s or 3s? Any idea how many people who are forklift drivers who were in those classifications?---Probably about 12, 12 people, yes.
PN25
Okay. And there would be other people such as yourself in grade 4s and 5 who also do drive forklifts in the dispatch area?---Yes, that's correct.
PN26
Okay. You say o,n the last page of your document that you did receive some specialised training in relation to operating the gripper?---That's correct, yes.
PN27
Do you know who performed that training for you?---It was a fellow by the name of Jeff Rendell, I think.
PN28
Is he employed by the company?---I think he was, yes.
PN29
He was an employee of the company?---No, he wasn't an employee.
PN30
He wasn't an employee of the company. No. He was an outside employee. Was he from a Government agency?---He was from some agency, yes, some place, yes.
PN31
Okay. And he was - was he brought in then to provide specialist training for you in relation to the gripper, yes?---That's correct, yes.
PN32
You also state in that paragraph that:
PN33
There is a taller forklift that you use which goes to the highest rack.
PN34
?---That's correct, yes.
PN35
We didn't observe that on the day that we were out at the warehouse, did we?---No. No.
PN36
No. Does that forklift have a scanner on it?---No.
PN37
Do you - what do you do then if you have to collect slip sheets from the tallest rack, how do you scan those?---Well, basically you - the forklift driver would hop onto the bigger floor, he would go to his location, he would pull each one down then hop back onto his little floor and then scan off. The same procedure as the racks but you would have to take them off and put them onto the floor first.
PN38
Onto the floor?---Yes.
PN39
And do you then have to come along with the other forklift with the scanner and then perhaps - how many times might you have to move the forklift to get the scanner in the right place?---It depends on the - actually whether they will sit, but usually about two - at least about two or three times.
PN40
And you say that previously you had not been scanning the barcodes by hand, you might have used a tethered scanner for only two weeks, is that your understanding - - -?---Something like that, yes. Health and safety stopped it, basically straight away.
PN41
And that for the rest of the time the scanning job was done by a separate person, not yourself?---Yes, by the storeperson.
PN42
Yes. Do you say then that you are doing an extra job in relation to scanning, a job that someone else was doing you are now doing that because the scanner is mounted onto the forklift?---That's correct, yes.
PN43
I would like to show the witness a copy of SDA2 which I have a copy of I will provide to the witness. This is a document that has been provided to the Commission, have you seen this document before?---Yes, I have.
PN44
Can you tell the Commission who gave you this document in the workplace?---My manager.
PN45
Can you recall why you were given this document, what led up to this document being provided to yourself and I assume other forklift drivers?---Basically there was no actual procedure in place where they should scan from the racks or actually retrieve the pallet out, the slipsheet out, put it into the truck, then scan it. There was no procedure in place so the company basically printed this up and it was handed out to the managers to hand out to us.
PN46
Can I put it to you then was this then a new document that was given to you for the first time back in February because of the mounted scanners?---Yes.
PN47
Yes. Were there any other procedures that you are aware of on scanning that you - - -?---Not that I was aware of, no.
PN48
Okay. I might just take you to the procedures and if you can tell me if these were new procedures as a result of the scanners being put on to you at the forklift. It starts at: Dock Selection.
PN49
The senior storeperson selects the correct Dock ID for the load.
PN50
Was that done prior to the scanner being on the - - -?---That's right, yes.
PN51
Yes:
PN52
A crew member will rotate the overhead bar with the door barcode label using the pole hook provided.
PN53
Was that done before the mounted scanner was put on the forklift?---No.
PN54
No, okay:
PN55
Required Dock ID barcode should be facing down towards the door.
PN56
Did that only come in because of the mounted scanner on the forklift?---That's right, yes.
PN57
Yes, okay:
PN58
Forklift operator will then press the button located on the forklift to activate the camera and light.
PN59
?---That's correct.
PN60
Was that a new function because of the scanner?---Yes.
PN61
Yes.
PN62
The forklift driver will then drive under the bar.
PN63
We won't worry about that.
PN64
An audible beep will be heard and the light will go off.
PN65
Is that new because of the mounted scanner?---That's correct, yes.
PN66
Yes. Then there are some notes about what happens. If we go to: Retrieval of Slipsheet.
PN67
Forklift operator will approach the slipsheet in the normal manner with the gripper bar in the retracted position.
PN68
That was done previously?---Yes.
PN69
Yes.
PN70
Forklift operator rests the platens onto the orange stop bar.
PN71
Was that done previously?---Yes.
PN72
Yes.
PN73
The forklift operator will then press the button to operate the camera and light.
PN74
?---Yes.
PN75
Is that a new procedure or a previous procedure?---No, that's a new procedure once - with the camera set up the way it is now.
PN76
Thank you.
PN77
Forklift operator will then extend the gripper bar as normal. As the camera moves forward it will scan the barcode.
PN78
Is the second part new - I will do the first sentence.
PN79
Forklift operator will then extend the gripper bar as normal.
PN80
That was done previously, was it?---Yes.
PN81
Yes.
PN82
As the camera moves forward it will scan the barcode.
PN83
Is that a new procedure because of the scanner?---Yes, it is.
PN84
Yes.
PN85
An audible beep will be heard and the light will go off.
PN86
Is that a new procedure?---Yes.
PN87
Yes. Then the note goes on about - well: "If no scan is achieved" - and then it points out "the operator retracts the gripper bar." That's new because of the mounted scanner, is it?---That's correct, yes.
PN88
And then you go ahead and try and scan again?---Yes.
PN89
And:
PN90
Loading into the vehicle forklift operate presses the button to activate the camera and light.
PN91
Is that a new process because of the scanner?---Yes. That's correct, yes.
PN92
A forklift operator drivers under the overhead bar at the door.
PN93
Is that new because of the scanner?---Yes.
PN94
An audible beep will be heard and the light will go off.
PN95
Is that also a new process?---Yes.
PN96
And then it goes on: "If no scan is achieved..." Is it your understanding that this document was provided to other forklift drivers in dispatch when the mounted scanners were introduced?---Yes. I think we all got them, yes.
PN97
That's all we wish to put to this witness, Commissioner. If the Commission pleases.
PN98
PN99
MR HOWELL: I have only got a couple of questions for you, Ian. When you first came across to Taras, what sort of training did you receive for the RF units and the tethered scanning?---We were called up in groups and we went up into the front office and simulated the actual procedures through little cartons made up and we had an RF unit - - -
PN100
Which is similar to the one that's mounted on the forklift?---Yes. Similar but a hand-held version.
PN101
Yes?---And basically scan labels, we got used to scanning labels in the training. I think I did a couple of sessions with that.
PN102
You are from the Footscray - - -?---Originally, yes.
PN103
When you were driving the forklift for Footscray DC and collecting pallets off the shelves, what sort of paperwork would you have to help you out with that job at Footscray?---What we called a "picking list" and it would be a small piece of paper with a series of locations for the store that I was loading on that day.
PN104
So you would get a list of what you needed to go and collect?---Collect.
PN105
You would then go and collect the pallets. What would you have to do with the pick sheet, was there documentation that you were required to complete or write in?---I would just tick them off as I went through them.
PN106
And then just load them in the truck?---Yes. And that was it.
PN107
So you received the training when you first came across to Taras. You then for a period of time used the tethered scanner and the RF unit on the job at the DC at Taras?---For a short period of time, yes.
PN108
Okay, thank you.
PN109
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything arising?
PN110
MR BURKE: No, Commissioner.
PN111
THE COMMISSIONER: Just for my benefit, Mr Stubberfield, in comparison to the procedure that was previously in place where there were hand held scanners as opposed to the mounted scanners, in your own words, how would you describe that as being different? And how would you describe the impact that it has on you as an operator?---Well, there's more things to worry about now, Commissioner. You have got a small confined space, you have a camera that you have to look at to retrieve the slipsheet and also you have a VDU that you have got to make sure it's read the right barcode. So you have got a quite - plus the pedestrians and other forklift drivers in the area, you are required - there's a substantial amount of pressure on you as a forklift driver now.
PN112
But how is that different to when you used a hand held scanner? What's the real difference?---The forklift driver didn't have to do it, it was senior storemen who had the hand held.
PN113
So it's a completely new job from - - -?---Yes.
PN114
In terms of the forklift driver?---That's right, yes.
PN115
Okay?---So the forklift driver does it all basically now.
PN116
In terms of the procedure that you were taken through just a moment ago, in terms of the examination of your evidence, you outlined some of the procedures and how you had to check off lists and the like. In terms of the responsibility that you have in performing your role, do you believe your job is as responsible as it always was, more responsible, less responsible?---I think it is more responsible now.
PN117
In what way?---In what way, because you have got to be able to read the screen, there's no only reading the screen you have got a keyboard to operate as well as worrying about operating the actual forklift itself. There is a lot more that the driver has to do now compared to the old system before we were - with this computer system of now.
PN118
Now, in terms of the time it takes to perform the role that you have, has that changed in any way? Does it take longer to do the job, is it shorter now to eventually load the trucks? What's your judgment about that?---I might just have - depending on the forklift driver it - it depends on the actual person but it's a little bit longer now because sometimes the slipsheets will rip, they will tear and then you have got to call maintenance.
PN119
Well, I guess you can only really speak about yourself, that would be the only fair question to put to you. In terms of you as an experienced forklift driver, what do you say has been the impact on you? Have you found it takes longer to do the job now?---Yes, some days, yes.
PN120
Okay. In point 11 on your statement you talk about - that you have to manoeuvre the forklift to ensure that you can read the barcode, and that this may take a number of attempts. When you say it may take a number of attempts does that happen often or infrequently?---No, it happens often because sometimes not only the barcode label which you are to scan certain cartons have barcodes on them as well and it can pick up the wrong one. So in actual - the screen will tell you, "Wrong SEM", which is your label, sort of it will tell you: wrong scan. So you got to keep looking at that VDU on the side to make sure you have scanned that pallet correctly.
PN121
That happens reasonably often?---Yes, reasonably often, yes. It does.
PN122
All right. I have got no further questions. Is there anything arising from what I raised there?
PN123
PN124
PN125
MR BURKE: Mr Seychell, have you prepared a witness statement for this matter?---Yes. I have got it here.
PN126
PN127
MR BURKE: Thank you. Mr Seychell, you were present in the dispatch area when the Commission came out and observed Ian operating the forklift in the dispatch area?---That's correct.
PN128
So you noticed the work that he did to retrieve the slipsheet and place it into the truck?---That's correct.
PN129
And it's your evidence that you also do similar work from time to time as - on the forklift?---That's correct.
PN130
And do you confirm that when you operate the forklift you do it in a similar manner to Ian?---Yes. That's correct.
PN131
There would be nothing different really, would there, in the way you would collect the slipsheet and place it into the truck?---Not particularly, no.
PN132
Okay. You also in your statement talk about being - you have been a recognised Health and Safety representative with the company for some 11 years?---Somewhere in that - yeah, 10, 11, yeah.
PN133
And you have been involved in a number of health and safety matters in the dispatch area concerning forklifts over the last three years?---Quite a number.
PN134
Quite a number, okay. And so you have some knowledge of the scanners being mounted onto the forklift?---Yes.
PN135
I will just take you to point 10 of your statement:
PN136
In July of last year the company decided to trial a mounted scanner on the forklift. This was a company initiative.
PN137
That's your belief, the company decided to initiate that?---Yes.
PN138
And was your primary concern in relation to the mounted scanners Health and Safety issues, not industrial issues?---My concerns were Health and Safety, yes.
PN139
You do state though, in your statement at point 11 that you regularly notified the delegates of the trial and had them aware of what was happening so that they could deal with any issues themselves, that they come up with?---Yes.
PN140
Yes. You dealt mainly with the Health and Safety issues with scanners, that was your area?---Yes.
PN141
If I could ask the witness to be shown SDA2, please? Have you seen this document before: Forklift Mounted Scanners?---Yes. I have seen it.
PN142
Yes. Could you tell us how the document was given to you in the workplace?---Well, once the forklifts were to be operated in the - with the scanners on a "ends" basis, like the trial was no longer in motion. People were told to operate the scanners and I wasn't aware of - there wasn't a procedure for a safety way and I asked the company to make a procedure so that everyone knew of the proper way or the way that was expected to operate the scanner.
PN143
So this is a procedure from the company telling forklift drivers in dispatch how to use the scanners?---That's correct.
PN144
I would like to ask you about the point in the procedure if you could tell us if they are new procedures, I will go through them one by one. If you can tell us if they are new procedures because of the mounted scanners or, in fact, they were old procedures. So just looking for the difference?---Yes.
PN145
If I explain, if we got to the first one: Dock Selection:
PN146
The senior storeperson selects the correct dock ID for the load.
PN147
Now, is that new because of the scanner being mounted or was that always done?---For the senior storemen that is actually new because the barrel wasn't there before.
PN148
Okay, if we go to the second one:
PN149
A crew member will rotate the overhead bar with the door barcode label using the pole hook provided.
PN150
Is that new because of the scanners being mounted?---That's actually new.
PN151
Yes.
PN152
Required dock ID barcode should be facing down towards the door.
PN153
Is that a new procedure because of the mounted scanner?---Yes, that's new.
PN154
Yes.
PN155
A forklift operator will then press the button located on the forklift to activate the camera and light.
PN156
Is that new?---That's new.
PN157
Yes.
PN158
The forklift driver will then drive under the bar.
PN159
Is that a new procedure because of the mounted scanner?---And "press the scanner under the bar".
PN160
Well, I am just dealing with the words that are here?---Yes. Yes.
PN161
An audible beep will be heard and the light will go off.
PN162
Is that a new procedure because of the mounted scanners?---Yes.
PN163
There wasn't an audible beep prior to the mounted scanner being - - -?---There was an audible beep on the hand gun.
PN164
Right, okay. If we got to: Retrieval of Slipsheet?---Yes.
PN165
Well, before we do that, if we go to the note:
PN166
The dock ID can be entered using the keyboard located on the forklift. You must not drive while looking at your RF screen. The recommended times to check your screen are when the slipsheet has been scanned and once the overhead bar has been scanned.
PN167
Were they introduced because of Health and Safety concerns about the mounted screens?---Definitely.
PN168
Yes:
PN169
Retrieval of Slipsheet forklift operator will approach the Slipsheet in the normal manner with the `Gripper Bar' in the retracted position.
PN170
Is that a new procedure because of the mounted scanners on the forklift, retrieval of Slipsheet?---Yes.
PN171
Yes? The next point:
PN172
Forklift operator rests the platens on the orange stop bar
PN173
Was that done previously?---Yes.
PN174
The Forklift operator will then press the button to operate the camera and light
PN175
Is that a new procedure?---That's new.
PN176
The Forklift operator will then extend the `Gripper Bar' as normal.
PN177
Was that done previously?---Yes.
PN178
As the camera moves forward, it will scan the barcode
PN179
Is that a new procedure or an old procedure?---Yes.
PN180
That's a new procedure, yes?---Yes.
PN181
An audible `beep' will be heard and the light will go off
PN182
Is that a new procedure?---Yes.
PN183
THE COMMISSIONER: Just before you move on, on the first dot point of that area, is it the evidence that that is a new procedure?
PN184
MR BURKE: I might get the witness to just think about that again.
PN185
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN186
MR BURKE: If we go back to retrieval of Slipsheet, "Forklift operator" -the first point:
PN187
will approach the Slipsheet in the normal manner with the `Gripper Bar' in the retracted position.
PN188
That was done previously, or that's new, have they always done that?---No, that's actually new because before we didn't have it retracted, we would just go up with the gripper bar back.
PN189
Okay. So, they - - -?---Retracted it's back.
PN190
Right, okay - - -?---Yes, it is back.
PN191
So that's your - your view is that that's new, it's not new, if I put it to you this way, it's not new that you pull Slipsheets out of the rack, you have been doing that for three years?---No, no and also - - -
PN192
But the retracted position of the gripper bar is new?
PN193
THE COMMISSIONER: Is a new procedure, yes.
PN194
MR BURKE: Is new, yes?---Being retracted means you have - you can't - you scan it on the way in, whereas some drivers often approach the rack with it detracted or pushed out without - because they didn't have to scan, that's how they use to approach.
PN195
Right.
PN196
THE COMMISSIONER: Whereas it has to be retracted now in order for the scan to take place?---That's correct.
PN197
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I follow that.
PN198
MR BURKE: Yes, okay, I thought it worthwhile clarifying that Commissioner.
PN199
If we go to the note:
PN200
If no scan is achieved forklift operator retracts the gripper bar.
PN201
Is that a new procedure because of the mounted scanner?---If it's not scanned, yes, it is new.
PN202
Yes:
PN203
Forklift operator presses the button to activate the light again.
PN204
Is that a new procedure because of the mounted scanner?---Yes.
PN205
Forklift operator extends the Gripper bar again to obtain a scan.
PN206
Is that new?---Yes.
PN207
Loading into the vehicle: Forklift operator presses the button to activate the camera and light
PN208
Is that a new procedure?---Yes.
PN209
Forklift operator drives under the overhead bar at the door.
PN210
Is that a new procedure because of the mounted scanner?---Driving under the overhead, yes.
PN211
Yes:
PN212
An audible `beep' will be heard and the light will go off
PN213
Is that a new procedure because of the mounted scanner?---For a forklift driver yes.
PN214
And then again:
PN215
Note. If no scan is achieved, load the pallet into the vehicle
PN216
You would have done that in the past, but it's still an issue now.
PN217
Forklift operator presses the button to activate the camera
PN218
Is that a new procedure because of the mounted scanner?---Yes.
PN219
Yes:
PN220
Forklift operator drives under the bar as you exit the vehicle
PN221
Is that a new procedure because of the mounted scanner?---Under the bar, yes.
PN222
Yes.
PN223
Or enter Dock ID using the keyboard located on the forklift.
PN224
Is that a new procedure because of the scanner?---Yes.
PN225
I have no further questions of the witness.
PN226
PN227
MR HOWELL: Mr Seychell the reason for the company issuing this procedure was to explain to employees how to use the mounted scanner, wasn't it?---It was so they would use it in the proper manner.
PN228
Yes. Mr Burke has just taken you through a number of things in here that you keep saying these are new procedures, these are new procedures, what's the differences between the way that the mounted scanners operate and the things that the employees have to do and the way the employees use the tethered scanners to scan product and to scan a Dock door?---The difference? Well I - to be honest with you I - I don't know whether there would be a great deal of difference because we didn't do the tethered scanners for too long a period to even get use to it.
PN229
Okay, so, all right. When the tethered scanners were attached to the forklift and a forklift driver went and retrieved a pallet from the rack, they were required to scan the pallet with the tethered scanner?---That is what they were supposed to do, yes.
PN230
And then when they then took it to the Dock Door they were then required to scan the door with the tethered scanner?---Yes, but sometimes they would probably get the - sometimes they couldn't get the stock one so they would pass the tethered scanner to the senior storeman who would manoeuvre to get the label because it wasn't in grazer spots.
PN231
And was that one of the reasons that the safety issues came up? That the positioning of the barcodes and the tethered scanner being able to read it were causing us safety issues?---Well the forklift driver had to lean forward, sometimes almost between the mask, which was a safety issue yes.
PN232
When you were using the tethered scanner did, I think as you said to Mr Burke, it gave an audible beep as well to indicate that the scan was successful?---That's a good question sir.
PN233
I think you said to Mr Burke that there was an audible beep with the tethered scanner as well?---No, a hand gun. I said that we hardly used the tethered scanners, the hand gun had the audible beep and to be quite honest with you I - I really can't remember.
PN234
So the hand gun used by the store person on the floor?---Senior store man.
PN235
No worries. No further questions Commissioner.
PN236
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Burke?
PN237
MR BURKE: No Commissioner.
PN238
THE COMMISSIONER: Just so I am clear in relation to all of this Mr Seychell. Now I take it that the union has sought evidence from you from an occ health and safety perspective, which was the area of your expertise over and above your forklift capacities?---That's correct. I believe so.
PN239
Right, okay. Now in terms of the operation that's involved now, all of this evolves from the introduction slipsheets I take it and the fact that the fork has to grip the sheet and remove the goods from the rack. The introduction of the camera that we now have to scan the barcodes has been done to assist from an occ health and safety point of view?---That's correct.
PN240
Your evidence, I think, was that with the tethered scanners you didn't have much experience in relation to it and that it was only there for a little while?---That's correct.
PN241
All right now if we can take the comparison between operating as a forklift driver in the warehouse down there, prior to the introduction of the camera. In terms of occ health and safety, what do you see is the big difference that's occurred in relation to the way people work now compared to the way they use to work?---As a forklift driver?
PN242
Yes?---Right, as a forklift driver, the forklift driver has got as most people are aware it's not an easy task to operate a forklift driver in a safe manner especially while there's pedestrians around and the added pressure, I believe, from the health and safety point of view?
PN243
Yes?---I am not talking about work-wise I am talking about to operate in a safe manner, is quite immense, to be able to operate the forklift, scan and make sure you don't hit anyone or anything, go to the right rack, it makes it very difficult.
PN244
What is it that makes it so difficult from your point of view?---Because you have to concentrate on driving the fork to begin with. You have to concentrate on scanning, whether you scan the right one, whether you get the scan to begin with, whether you scan - whether it gets a scan gun through the bar, checking your read. Sometimes people still don't stop because it becomes habit, they look while they are driving and the congestion around and it puts them right under the pump, that's why as a grade 4 I tend to relieve them because it makes their day a lot easier. I give them a chop out.
PN245
Why do you say that?---Because on an eight or a 10-hour day to be under that added - well constant pressure, you know, watching this, watching that, watching reverse because they are constantly reversing, looking in reverse, I believe - and I recommend it to 4's that don't mind swapping, because it helps the area operate in a safer manner. There's less chance of that person getting stressed, or being under a pump, or being a bit slow, or forgetting something and causing an accident.
PN246
If there were any accidents emerging, would you be likely to know about them as the occ health and safety officer?---If they are serious or - or if they are reasonably serious - if they are serious or someone is hurt, or something's damaged, yes. Otherwise not likely.
PN247
Okay. Are you aware of any incidents that have emerged since the introduction of the cameras?---Since the introduction of the cameras?
PN248
Yes?---The screen cameras or the scanner ones?
PN249
No the screen cameras?---The cameras have helped immensely.
PN250
They have?---Yes, definitely.
PN251
What's the difference?---They can see what they are grabbing. Before they were guessing and getting very frustrated and tearing them and then stock was falling from the racks as well.
PN252
So there would have been damage to goods as a result of that?---Yes, yes.
PN253
And that's significantly less now as a result of this operation would you say?---Probably 80 per cent less, compared to - we had - there was occasions where we would have 10 get - for lift out, or have to be pulled out by hand out of the racks, now lucky if - 10 a week I would say, that's - and now we are lucky if we have got one or two.
PN254
PN255
MR BURKE: Yes Commissioner, just a couple of things.
PN256
Just in relation to what the Commissioner was asking you then about the cameras. We are talking about two different things, cameras and scanners, aren't we, so the cameras are the visual looking at things and scanners are scanning the barcodes, is that correct?---That's correct, that's why I clarified.
PN257
Right, now whilst there were some health and safety issues in relation to both cameras being introduced and then scanners being introduced, when the scanners were being trialled, in your view, that was a health and safety issue was it, there were health and safety issues for you to look at during the trial?---The only thing I had to look at with the health and safety and I was asked by the company, we are going to trial this do you have any problems with the health and safety wise. I would like, I would say, no but if some - if any arise while the trial is in progress I will let you know.
PN258
When the cameras - sorry when the scanners were then going to be put onto all forklifts and then used throughout the whole of dispatch, do you believe then there may have been industrial issues that came up, that may have not been taken up by you but perhaps by the delegates?---Yes and I mentioned to the union reps a couple of times, I think, you know, by the looks of it, that that's the way they are going to go and I was informed by the union reps well when they go - when they decide to go full bore well then we will - we will look at it.
PN259
Did the issue then become an industrial issue and not a health and safety issue as much for yourself?---Yes, I believe so. The only thing I wanted was a procedure put in place so that people didn't reverse back and forth.
PN260
And just on those procedures, those are the procedures you believe that people do follow, or should be following so that they properly use the scanners?---Should, yes.
PN261
Yes, good, I have nothing further Commissioner.
PN262
PN263
MR HOWELL: Just one thing.
PN264
In terms of the VDU screen and the forklift drivers driving the forklifts at the same time. Forklift drivers are told to not read the screen and drive the forklift at the same time aren't they?---That's correct.
PN265
So they - and this is your point again, it's the safety aspect, not everything else?---That's correct.
PN266
The safe way to operate the forklifts is to do the scan and both before and after loading the truck, that you perform the function, you then stop the forklift and check your screen to determine whether the scan has been effective or not, that's the safe way of - and that's the way people are instructed to perform it, despite the fact there might be people who, for whatever reason - - -?---That's the way they are told, but I don't believe it's the way it's policed.
PN267
Okay, but - yes, the safe way and the way people are taught to use the equipment is to scan and you don't drive the forklift while you are reading the VDU screen?---We are told not to, but if we do we are not told not to.
PN268
Okay, but you are told not to?---We are told initially not to.
PN269
Thanks?---But no one watches whether we do or not.
PN270
That's it, thanks.
PN271
PN272
MR BURKE: Commissioner, those were our two witnesses, so if the company are ready for their two witnesses as well?
PN273
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Howell?
PN274
PN275
MR HOWELL: Ms Burnell can you explain to the Commission what your role is for Target and particularly what your role was when the distribution centres were being consolidated at the end of `97 early `98?---Okay, my role currently now is I am Training and Procedure Officer. Back then I was actually just the Training Officer. I did assist in writing procedures though.
PN276
So in terms of the consolidation and distribution centres, what was it that you were required to do as part of that process?---I was required to put together training manuals and training schedules and actually run the training programs for all the staff.
PN277
What training programs did you run?---I ran the whole process from receiving right through to dispatch. I ran it in separate modules for all the staff so that I could actually bring them up and teach them how to use the new system we were going to have in the new DC.
PN278
And did those training modules include the forklift drivers and the scanning technology that was being introduced?---Yes it was.
PN279
When did you start to train the forklift drivers?---The training actually commenced in December `97, early December `97. I actually ran an introduction to the RF unit. Everyone came up so they actually knew how to use that and then the forklift drivers were actually called up when it was their turn, when I actually had them scheduled.
PN280
The RF unit that they were training wasn't the same as the RF unit that is currently mounted on the forklift?---That's right.
PN281
Why were they trained on a different - sorry what were they trained on?---They were trained on the hand-held RF unit, the terminal. It was easier, it was more portable, which didn't actually have one fixed on the forklift at the time.
PN282
And does the hand-held RF unit perform the same function as the mounted RF unit on the forklift?---It certainly does.
PN283
Can you take us just quickly through the tasks that that training involved?---For the forklift drivers?
PN284
For the forklift driver?---Yes, they would log into the RF unit. They actually have to drive up to the dispatch location and scan the pallet label on the slipsheet and take it out and scan the Dock Door to say that they are actually confirming putting the slipsheet into the back of the truck.
PN285
Was it your belief that this - that you were training the forklift drivers in this task as an ongoing function that they would perform?---Yes.
PN286
Were all the forklift drivers trained in this process?---Yes, they were.
PN287
When was the training completed for the forklift, for the scan technology for the forklift drivers?---I actually completed training - I didn't finish all my training until July `98, because the way the training was set up, but all the forklift drivers would have gone through that two or three times.
PN288
Thank you. No further questions Commissioner.
PN289
PN290
MR BURKE: Thank you Commissioner.
PN291
Ms Burnell, you are employed at Taras Avenue, are you?---I certainly am.
PN292
Yes, you are currently at Taras Avenue?---Yes.
PN293
So back in - well starting in December of `97 there was training in relation to RF units and that the scanners that were used then were the hand-held ones?---That's right.
PN294
And that they were not fixed to the forks at that time?---No.
PN295
No, okay. Those hand-helds were what were used in the DC after people were trained, people were scanning with hand-helds in dispatch?---In dispatch?
PN296
Yes?---They were using the ones that mount on the forklift I think.
PN297
For the whole three years before the fixed scanners were put on?---I - I am not sure about that.
PN298
You are not sure? Well so you - is it your belief that the tethered scanners were there for up to three years?---I don't know.
PN299
You are not sure how long they were there for. Do you know if people in dispatch were using hand-helds?---They were at one stage, yes.
PN300
At one stage? For how long do you think?---I don't know, I wasn't involved in that it wasn't my area.
PN301
Right, so you were involved in the training, you weren't involved in the day-to-day running of dispatch, you weren't aware who might be using tethered scanners, or hand-held scanners in dispatch?---I only know - I only know the forklift drivers were supposed to use the ones mounted on the fork and - but I don't know what happened.
PN302
These being the tethered scanners, right. So you are not sure how long they were used?---No.
PN303
You believe they were used, but you are not sure for how long?---Yes.
PN304
Right. Do you know why they weren't fixed to the forklift when you came in `97?---Yes, we only had the training environment actually set up, production wasn't actually working at the time.
PN305
Right, it took a few months before the production was up and running?---That's right, yes.
PN306
So do you know why the scanners were attached to the forklifts?---It was to perform their daily function in dispatch.
PN307
The ones that are now mounted, do you know why they were mounted?---No, I am not - - -
PN308
You are not - - -?---I was not involved in the daily running.
PN309
You are not involved?---No.
PN310
Okay, so really your evidence is that the training that you first gave and the only training that you gave to forklift dispatch people was using the hand-held RF units, that was the only training you gave them?---That's right.
PN311
Right. Nothing further.
PN312
PN313
MR HOWELL: Just a couple of questions Commissioner.
PN314
The training - there's a distinction being made between a hand-held and a tethered scanner at the moment and the position is that you were training people in the hand-held scanners. Why was it that we were training in the hand-held scanners and not the tethered scanners?---Well I did the training in a - just in a normal training room and you certainly can't have a forklift brought up into the training room to actually have people actually operating it.
PN315
So for the same reason that we were using a hand-held RF unit as opposed to a forklift mounted RF unit for the training?---Hm.
PN316
Thank you.
PN317
PN318
THE COMMISSIONER: One thing I should clarify for the record though gentlemen is that we ought to indicate what an RF unit is.
PN319
MR BURKE: I believe it's radio frequency Commissioner.
PN320
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN321
PN322
MR HOWELL: Mr Girvan, can you explain to the Commission what your current function is Taras Avenue?---I am currently the Facilities Manager at the Taras Avenue Distribution Centre.
PN323
What was your role in the consolidation of the distribution centres?---It was my position to assist with the installation of the new equipment into the new Distribution Centre and to dispose of the old equipment from the old distribution centre.
PN324
Can you explain for us the technical basis on which the Taras Avenue Distribution Centre was built?---The Distribution Centre was designed around the function of scanning and the warehouse management system which actually drives the Distribution Centre depends upon scanning of barcodes both into the Distribution Centre and back out of the Distribution Centre again, as a method of being able to track the merchandise in and out and to the stores.
PN325
When the Distribution Centre was set up and - actually I will take you through - if we can work through the time frames of setting up of the Distribution Centre. When was the equipment, the tethered scanner and the RF unit, installed into the Distribution Centre?---We commenced installing them, fitting up the forklifts with the RF equipment which included the tethered scanner, in early March of 1998. There was as change-over period between the old distribution centre and the new Distribution Centre and there was some staff members moved across to the new DC in early March and we commenced using the new equipment early to mid March 1998.
PN326
PN327
MR HOWELL: Approximately when was it that you made aware of issues with the performance of the tethered scanners?---Some time in - around mid July of 1998. I was made aware of a problem, an occupational health and safety problem, with the use of the hand-held tethered scanner mounted onto the forklift.
PN328
What were the issues that were being raised at the time?---The basis of the issue was the necessity to reach into the mast of the forklift to try and scan the barcode on the pallet and the necessity when driving through the door to reach outside of the side of the forklift to scan the barcode on the side of the door.
PN329
Did we look - what did we look at to try and rectify that at that point?---I commenced searching through with suppliers and documentation to try and find an alternative to using the tethered scanner or the hand-held scanner on the forklift and some time in - about mid 1999 I became aware of a fixed mounted scanner that was available. The - - -
PN330
I will just - sorry, I will just hold you there for a moment. We will get to that in a second. I just want to hand up some documentation from July 1998 that explains that at that point discussions were taking place with the contractor about ways of alleviating some of the safety concerns that existed with the scanners.
EXHIBIT #T2 DOCUMENT DISCUSSING THE ALLEVIATION OF SAFETY CONCERNS
PN331
MR HOWELL: This document talks about placing the barcodes differently on the product. Also it talks about extending the distance of scanning to allow - to stop drivers having to lean out of the truck, for want of a better term. Were we still using the tethered scanner?---Yes, we were.
PN332
Is it unusual for forklift drivers in industry to be using scanners?---No, it is quite common. The - one of the manufacturers that supplies forklift mounted scanners has in fact got 100 sites in Australia with forklift mounted scanning on it - with tethered scanners.
PN333
Why was it that we seemed to have so many problems with them, do you think?---Because we are using slip sheet attachments and most - where most industries do not use slip sheet attachments. They use the forks to pick up pallets. The slip sheet attachment has got a lot of metal as part of its configuration in front of the driver, between the driver and the pallet, and it made it extremely difficult to see the barcode label on the pallet. We also use a lower pallet height in our Distribution Centre. The standard is around 5 - 5 and a half feet. We are currently using about a 4 foot high pallet which also made it difficult to see the barcode label.
PN334
So when these safety issues were raised with the tethered scanner, what was the - what was your role from that point to the next 12 months?---To try and locate an alternative to the tethered hand-held scanner.
PN335
And what were the considerations in terms that alternative - did that - what - yeah, what were the alternatives that you were looking at?---I had to find something that would allow us to scan but not put your hand outside the forklift or to try and reach through the master forklift. And also to allow us to continue the operation as far as the driver went, to keep his operation as close to the same role as he currently had.
PN336
Was part of your - was it ever part of your brief that the forklift driver wouldn't perform the scanning function?---That is not an option because the DC depends upon the warehouse management system and the warehouse management system depends upon scanning of the barcodes in and out.
PN337
We will move forward to June of 1999. Can you explain for the Commission want went - what transpired in June 1999?---That was when I became aware of a fixed mounted - that a fixed mounted scanner was available within the industry. I asked the supplier to demonstrate it to us. I asked the supplier to fit up one forklift for us. And we trialled that piece of equipment on - and we trialled that on the dispatch east side for a period of approximately six weeks.
PN338
I would like to hand up to the Commission now a copy of a memo again from a contractor. The contractor who ultimately provided the technology discussing the trial. And some of the things that were learned coming out of that trial. Also, hand up another document - - -
PN339
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I will mark this one first.
PN340
PN341
MR HOWELL: Also a second document explaining that the trial that was performed with the equipment went for approximately six weeks. I have got those around the wrong way.
PN342
PN343
MR HOWELL: How long did the trial last?---Approximately six weeks.
PN344
And who was involved in that trial?---Health and safety reps from Dispatch and at least one forklift driver in Dispatch.
PN345
And what was the outcome of the trial?---That trial showed us that the fixed mounted scanning was possible. That it worked. That it was quite easy to scan the barcode and quite easy to scan the barcode as you drove through the doorway.
PN346
Commissioner, I will now hand up a document which does actually say the trial in Dispatch went for approximately six weeks and was ultimately successful. And there are quotes. There is an estimate of cost to upgrade all 14 forklifts in the Dispatch area.
EXHIBIT #T5 DOCUMENT CONFIRMING TRIAL PERIOD TOGETHER WITH QUOTES FOR UPGRADING FORKLIFTS
PN347
MR HOWELL: So the trial was done in June/July 1999. June 1999. What was - I guess, for the Commission's purposes, why - what took place for the next 12 months to finally get to a point where we could install this technology?---I forwarded my submission to my senior managers and I was - I then waited for direction from them as to whether or not they wanted me to install the new equipment. In - early in the year 2000 I again submitted - I had the contractor again resubmit his prices to take into account GST and I again submitted to my senior managers again a submission to install the scanning equipment onto the forklifts.
PN348
Commissioner, I have a document now that is the - it is the proposal from Mr Girvan to the management within the Distribution Centre outlining the reasons and the cost for the upgrade. This document, part of the process that it goes through, is also signed by the line manager and by the OHS reps at the time.
EXHIBIT #T6 PROPOSAL FROM MR DARREL EDGAR GIRVAN TO DISTRIBUTION CENTRE MANAGEMENT RE. UPGRADE
PN349
MR HOWELL: Once approval was given for the upgrade of the forklifts, what process did we then follow to implement them throughout the warehouse?---Once I received the goa-ahead to install the equipment, I then again had the contract written in such a way as that we could trial one forklift first to make - because it had been about 12 months since we did the trial. To ensure that we hadn't missed anything and that we got it going properly. So we again fitted up one forklift and did some testing with that forklift and in particular in relation to scanning of the door because we had changed the door identifications and we now had additional identifications. So we did that trial with one forklift to once again prove that it was right. Having done that, I - and we were happy with it, I then had sign off approval done, both from occupational health and safety reps in Dispatch, the line managers in Dispatch, and then senior management.
PN350
So we had to - one forklift was trialled for a second time and it was successful?---Yes, it was.
PN351
What then occurred?---I - as I say, I gained sign off and we then went ahead and fitted up all 14 forklifts.
PN352
Now the - my understanding of the implementation was that it was staggered between the two sides of - - - ?---Yes, it was. We - because the implementation, the fitting up the forklifts, each one, took some time to fit up, I had the contractors fit up the first seven. Those seven went onto the east side of Dispatch and were put into operation first. And they were in operation approximately two months before we went onto the west side. So there was about a two month period when they were working on the east side while we continued to fit up the others.
PN353
And there were no issues raised while it was in operation on the east side?---No, I am not aware of any issues that were raised. We in fact had some meetings with the supplier. We had the supplier come on site and do some training and the supplier actually - one of the representatives of the supplier spent three or four days on the site working with the forklift drivers up and down the east side.
PN354
And following the east side and it running successfully, it was then implemented onto the west side?---That is correct.
PN355
Can you explain to the Commission the difference between the scanning function using the tethered scanner and the scanning function now using the mounted scanner and what is different that the forklift driver is now required to do?---The - with using the tethered scanner, the driver had to pull the pallet out of the rack, come down to ground level, try to scan, using the hand-held scanner, try to reach through and scan the barcode that was fitted on through the mast, and then drive to the truck. Drive in the door, through the doorway, into the back of the truck. Stop in the doorway and scan the barcode which was located on the side of the doorway and then drive into the truck. With the new method the forklift driver went up to the height - the level of the slip sheet to be pulled out, pressed the button on the forklift to activate the scanner, the scanner scanned the barcode, come down to ground, drive towards the door, press the button again and drive into the truck and it scans as you drive through underneath the doorway.
PN356
Would you say there are any fundamental differences in the way - in the task that the forklift driver is now being asked to do as against previously?---No, other than it is - other than you are not trying to reach outside of the truck or reach through the mast, there are no fundamental differences. You have just got to press a button to do the scan.
PN357
That is all, Commissioner.
PN358
PN359
MR BURKE: You say the warehouse was designed around new technology. Technology being introduced that allowed barcodes to track stock and so on, is that what you say?---Yes, that is correct.
PN360
And it involved rollers and conveyors or a conveyor system, if you like?---That is correct.
PN361
Yes. Would you say that the system has worked well from day one?---Certainly the system, the software system, has worked, yes. There have been a number of issues with getting the equipment to run but no more so than any other new system that you put in. There is always a bedding in period of - until you get it running properly.
PN362
Can you - are you aware of the expectations of how many cartons per day or per hour the system was supposed to do when it was first introduced?---Yes, we - when we first started up in March we expected the through-put to be about 25 per cent of expected through-put and we made close to that. It was fairly slow. And it was a bit slower than what we had envisaged but in general terms we were making the numbers.
PN363
What were the numbers that you were supposed to make?---We needed to - in those early days we needed to be making around 25 to 30,000 a day.
PN364
What was the system designed to actually achieve? How much more than 25 to 30,000 was it designed to achieve?---The system can in fact do around 40,000 a day.
PN365
Are you sure it wasn't a few more than that it was designed to achieve?---With the equipment that is currently fitted, because we have still - there is still space to fit two more in-feed lines. With the equipment that is fitted, the Receiving would be able to handle around the 40,000 a day mark.
PN366
I am not trying to trick you and I am not trying to trick with the question but it is true that the company expected that the system would probably do double the amount that you are talking about. The system was designed to do up to 80,000 cartons, wasn't it?---No, that is not correct.
PN367
It was never thought to bring that?---No, that is not correct.
PN368
No. Okay?---No, 50,000 would be the absolute maximum but to do 50,000 a day we would have to install the additional two receiving lines.
PN369
But certainly it did take a long time for the system to bed down, as you said?---It took a bit longer than expected, yes.
PN370
How much longer than expected?---12 months.
PN371
Only 12 months? It is now working at is optimum three years later?---Certainly the equipment is working as expected at the moment, yes.
PN372
Is it working at its optimum?---
PN373
You should know as someone involved with the equipment. I have no idea if it is or isn't, nor the Commission. If you say it is, we believe you. If you say it isn't, we believe you as well?---We are currently - - -
PN374
I am not - - - ?---We are currently - have achieved in excess of 30,000 cartons a day. And that is as expected.
PN375
What are the things that have stopped you reaching the 50,000? What technological problems have stopped you? Was it barcodes?---No, I am not aware of any barcode technology that has stopped us.
PN376
ASN numbers were introduced later on, though, weren't they?---No, the DC was designed around ASN. And in fact the whole premise of that Distribution Centre is designed around advanced ship notice documentation, yes.
PN377
Was all stock coming in to begin with, did it have ASNs?---No, it didn't.
PN378
No. So in those days you didn't have the technology working as you thought you would. You didn't have ASNs on anything, did you?---The technology on site was working but that technology is related to suppliers.
PN379
And you have had a lot of problems with suppliers implementing ASNs - - - ?---That is correct.
PN380
- - - and other things that you wish them to do?---That is correct.
PN381
For example, are there non-conveyables that don't come to the warehouse?---That is correct.
PN382
Yes. Is there a reason why some material is not conveyed, doesn't go round the sorter?---If it is too large to go round the sorter, it won't be conveyed, no.
PN383
Yes. Are there other reasons why it wouldn't go round the sorter?---I am not aware of any other reasons.
PN384
So there would be no other technical reason - - - ?---Other than - - -
PN385
There would be no other dangerous goods that couldn't go on the sorter, for example but would be conveyable?---Dangerous goods are not part of the Taras Avenue Distribution Centre.
PN386
Never were or they are not at the moment?---No, never have been.
PN387
Never were. Okay.
PN388
MR HOWELL: Commissioner, if I may, just to try and speed the process, I am not - I fail to see where this is relevant to the scanning argument. There are a number of issues at the Distribution Centre about off-site processing, conveyables, non-conveyables, but I don't see how this is relevant to the issue of the scanning technology on the forklift.
PN389
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. If it is perhaps you can come to it, Mr Burke.
PN390
MR BURKE: Commissioner, I was really asking because it was the first thing that the witness discussed which was that the system was designed around barcodes so I wondered if the system was working properly, if the rest of the technology wasn't working and I think it is quite clear from the evidence that it wasn't and probably still isn't. We don't wish to make a big deal about it. I am just really wishing to get the witness to clarify the statement that he has made.
PN391
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, if you caught some fish perhaps we can put them in the creel and move on.
PN392
MR BURKE: No, no, I haven't got any fish caught I don't think.
PN393
Now, your belief then was that when the system was up and running that scanners, tethered scanners, would be attached to all forklifts?---That is correct.
PN394
Right. Was that the case from day one?---No, it wasn't the case from day one, no.
PN395
And that is what your - one of your first statements says - your first exhibit, T1. It is saying that in March of 1998 only 8 hand scanners had been installed to date?---That is correct.
PN396
Right. Your view is that those are 8 tethered scanners?---That is correct.
PN397
Right. And from that date on the system was live, was on line in March of 1998?---Yes, it was.
PN398
Right, okay. Are you aware of the training that employees received to use hand-held scanners?---I don't have direct knowledge of the - of exactly what training was given though.
PN399
Right. Is it your observation that the tethered scanners were on those 8 forklifts in March of 1998?---They were because I had to sign off to the supplier.
PN400
Is this the sign off? T1, is that the sign off?---That was part of the documentation for the sign-offs, yes.
PN401
So there is other documentation?---For the sign-off, yes.
PN402
For the sign-off. Right. Did you ever find the missing hand scanner?---Yes, we did.
PN403
Yes. It was at the site?---Yes.
PN404
It was. That is good. Your belief then is in three - less than three months later or 3 months later there is a problem with the tethered scanners?---About four months later, yes.
PN405
Well, is it March to - July is your memo but you came to it - you came to the - it came to your attention, you said, in mid 1999, that there was a problem with the mounted scanner?---No, I believe my - I believe I said it was in July 1999.
PN406
I believe you said - - - ?---'98, I am sorry.
PN407
I am not going to quibble about a month, however, you did say mid - how did it come to your attention that there was a problem with these scanners?---I believe I was informed by the Health and Safety Manager.
PN408
And his name is?---It would have been - at that time it would have been Mr Wayne Ford.
PN409
If Mr Ford hadn't have brought this problem to your attention, would you have left the tethered scanners on the forklifts?---Yes.
PN410
So you have no involvement with finding out about problems, health and safety problems, with the tethered scanners?---No, not in the finding out about it. No, it was brought to my attention that we had an issue, an occupational health and safety issue, and as I have previously said, that I was - we asked the supplier to investigate being able to scan from a longer distance to stop putting their arm outside the side and to be able to change -maybe change the location of the barcode on the pallet. But that - - -
PN411
So you were trying to address the health and safety issue or you were just trying to address the issue of having tethered scanners still on the - - - ?---No, trying to address the health and safety issue.
PN412
Now you say the tethered scanners are on other forklift, you say, with this other - with your supplier of the scanners on some 100 sites. Do any of those other 100 sites have slip sheets?---Not that I am aware of.
PN413
Okay. Is it the case that Taras Avenue is quite unique with its technology in relation to slip sheets?---Yes, it is.
PN414
Yes. And certainly unique within the Coles Myer company?---Yes, it is, in the way we use it, yes. There are other slip sheets within the Coles Myer organisation but they don't use them in the same method that we do.
PN415
Yes. So in fact the only site that you are aware of that has these slip sheets and has these problems is Taras Avenue?---That is correct.
PN416
Why are the pallets only 4-foot high?---When we - when the - when we started the distribution centre we were double loading in - in the truck - within the truck; one load above the other, and to fit two loads in with the mechanism for supporting them you could only fit 1.2 metre high pallets.
PN417
After you say the tethered scanners were withdrawn from the forklifts, who was doing the scanning of the barcodes?---Other members of the dispatch groups.
PN418
Right. So the forklifts did not scan for the last two years, in your evidence?---The equipment on the forklifts was not used, no.
PN419
Was it withdrawn from - - -?---It was - - -
PN420
The tethered scanner was taken off?---No, it wasn't, no. They were still - all equipment was still fitted to the forklifts until such time as we fitted up the new fixed mounted scanners and then - then I had the tethered scanners removed at that time.
PN421
So is it your evidence the tethered scanners were on all forklifts for the last two years?---To my knowledge, they were still on all of the forklifts until -till the fixed scanners were - were fitted.
PN422
But they weren't connected and they weren't being used?---They were connected but they were not being used.
PN423
Now you believe back in '99 there was a trial of some sort in relation to fixing the scanners - mounting the scanners?---That's correct.
PN424
And that's in relation to your letter of T3, is that correct?---Yes. T3 was a response from the supplier following on - following that trial, yes.
PN425
And I note that the letter is early June, June 5, 1999, is that correct?---Yes.
PN426
Do you say this letter says that there was a trial undertaken as you suggested?---I am - yes, I - yes it is. It - it's a letter from the supplier to me following directly on from that trial.
PN427
So it was installed by 5 June 1999?---Yes.
PN428
Right. On how many forklifts?---On that occasion, just one.
PN429
Just one?---Yep, as a trial.
PN430
So it took quite a while because the letter says:
PN431
The installation process was protracted due to the nature of the forklifts but we now have the experience to complete the job in a timely and professional manner.
PN432
?---"Protracted," in that sense indicated, just to get it into context, the supplier originally indicated to me that it would only take one day to fit up each forklift but in fact it turned out to be a three-day - three-day job, not a one-day job.
PN433
And why do they mean, "...due to the nature of the forklifts," what was the issue there?---It was difficult to run the additional cabling and to - to allow for the scanning.
PN434
Was that because of the gripper?---No.
PN435
No. There was no issue in relation to all the other mechanical equipment that's on the forklifts in dispatch?---Well certainly that was part of the problem, it was difficult to run the extra cabling.
PN436
Yes?---It took - it was more difficult than he envisaged.
PN437
But the forklifts in dispatch are unique, they are not conventional forklifts, are they, they have a lot more equipment on them?---No, they are conventional forklifts but they have been fitted with a slip sheet attachment.
PN438
But they are not your conventional forklift if you went to look for one in a warehouse, are they? With the attachment on the front?---No, because it is an attachment to a conventional forklift.
PN439
That's right. Now, in relation to T4, this is merely a quotation, isn't it, for identifying the cost of including the attachments on further forklifts?---Yes, that's correct.
PN440
So nothing more was being done between 5 June '99 and 18 August '99 other than you received a quote?---Not that I am aware of, no.
PN441
And then with T5, this is your memo, did you see this memo before it was sent to R. Baker, A. North and V. Frintzilas?---Yes.
PN442
Why didn't you sign it then?---I don't recall why I didn't sign it.
PN443
Are you sure then that it was given to those 3 people?---Oh, certainly, yes.
PN444
Who is G. Knight?---A - a member of the facilities department.
PN445
Well, do you say this was a memo that you did write or was it written by G. Knight?---No. Certainly it was - it was drafted by me.
PN446
Right, but not sent by you it was sent by somebody else?---It was actually sent by her.
PN447
Right. Were you aware of that before now?---Yes, yes.
PN448
Yes, okay. Now - can I just have a moment? Thank you.
PN449
Are any of the four people that it was sent to, are they forklift operators in Dispatch?---No.
PN450
Therefore this was a memo that was sent to, if you like, four management employees, is that correct?---That is correct.
PN451
Right, okay. So it is telling management employees about the original design which was to use a hand-held scanner to scan through the mast then the current situation, highlighting that it is difficult to do as you wanted to do. It was stopped because of safety issues:
PN452
Staff are currently employed to stand at the dispatch door. Not only does this require additional staff but creates an additional safety hazard.
PN453
Were additional staff put on to do this work?---No, they weren't. The additional staff related to in that memo from me was in relation to overtime because whenever we worked overtime it required additional staff under those circumstances to operate the hand scanner.
PN454
So was it - so it didn't - you are saying it doesn't refer then to additional staff being employed during ordinary hours?---No, it doesn't.
PN455
Okay. Why doesn't it say that then?---Well, I didn't need to say that. I was writing to the Distribution Centre Manager at the time, Mr Baker. And I didn't need to say any more than that to him. That was my explanation to him and that is all I needed to say.
PN456
Could it have been Mr Baker's view if he had this hand - that these scanners mounted that he wouldn't need those additional staff reading - - -
PN457
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't know that the witness can answer for someone else.
PN458
MR BURKE: I will ask this way.
PN459
In your view, if the mounted scanners were put onto forklifts would there not be the need for those additional staff?---I think I have indicated in my statement that that is correct, yes.
PN460
What have you indicated?---That if we had fixed mounted scanners we would not need those additional staff members.
PN461
So the job that someone was doing wouldn't need to be done any more. Is that what you are saying? It would be done by somebody else. In other words, the forklift operator?---That is correct.
PN462
And that would be during ordinary hours?---No, during overtime hours.
PN463
You said earlier that you didn't believe it was in - during ordinary hours then, if the forklift operator has the mounted scanner, would that take away the need for these additional staff?---I am sorry, could you repeat that.
PN464
Up until - I will do it this way. Up until 3 pm each day, if there is the fixed scanner on the forklift, would that allow the Dispatch to have less staff?---Yes.
PN465
So was there some design do you believe by the company to have less staff by having fixed mounted scanners on forklifts from day one?---No, no.
PN466
When did it become the view that the company would have less staff because of hand - of mounted scanners on forklifts? Was it after your memo?---No. Because I - no. Because the option of not having - there was not an option of not having scanning. We had to have scanning. That was not an option, to take away the scanning. What we had to do was find a way of scanning those barcodes and not reaching outside of the forklift or trying to reach through the mast of the forklift.
PN467
Why have you discussed here then that there would not be the need for additional staff? Why have you given that evidence now?---It was a discussion between myself and my senior manager.
PN468
But it was your evidence that the fixed mounted scanners would lead to less staff in Dispatch?---On overtime hours it would, yes.
PN469
THE COMMISSIONER: Why would it be different on overtime as opposed to ordinary time?---Because the staff members, if there were additional staff required in Dispatch during the ordinary hours or if they weren't required, they would go to other duties. So instead of being located in the Dispatch, they could be located in another part of the DC. Whereas on overtime, they would be required to have the additional people in there for overtime hours.
PN470
I follow that.
PN471
MR BURKE: They would still have the same number of people in each crew even during overtime though wouldn't they?---That is correct.
PN472
So where is the saving? Where is the less staff?---Because you require the additional people. They can't be located anywhere else during overtime hours. So you need additional people to be employed on overtime to do those duties.
PN473
Does the company employ additional people to do overtime?---No. I am sorry, yes. In this circumstance, you would have to, yes.
PN474
Are you saying then - - -
PN475
MR HOWELL: Sorry, Commissioner, again - - -
PN476
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Howell?
PN477
MR HOWELL: Crew sizes and the size of the crews in Dispatch is an issue that we have discussed with the delegates previous to this hearing and we will discuss again. Again, I don't see how that is to do with the rate of pay which is my understanding of the union's argument that a forklift driver should receive for performing what they are claiming is a new scanning task. And - yes.
PN478
MR BURKE: Commissioner, I am only seeking to take the witness to his evidence today. It is something that he has introduced. If the memo hadn't appeared I wouldn't have been able to ask him those questions. It would be out of order for me. I am merely following up on what he has asked - what he has answered. I am a bit confused about the answers. However, it is quite clear that the company in an official memo has looked at the mounted scanners not requiring additional staff. It is a statement the company has made. We are entitled to follow it up. And we have done so.
PN479
Now, just with T5 again, in September of '99 or thereabouts, you still didn't put mounted scanners on every forklift though did you?---We didn't any forklifts in '99. There were none fitted with fixed mounted scanners in 1999.
PN480
In fact that wasn't done until this year, was it?---No, year 2000.
PN481
All forklifts were only fitted this year though, weren't they?---No, year 2000.
PN482
So all forklifts had the mounted scanners on last year?---Yes, they did.
PN483
Okay. And is that following your memo of - that is T6?---That is correct.
PN484
And again in relation to the current situation you state again that not only does this require additional but creates an additional safety hazard. You basically reprinted your previous memo from the year earlier, didn't you?---I did and that was - the reason for that was I had had a change of manager who I was reporting to. I was now reporting to Mr Leahy and I had to outline the requirements to him again.
PN485
And so it did look at the issue of additional staff 12 months later?---In that circumstance, yes, I did.
PN486
Under that circumstance. Right, okay. So can you explain again why nothing was done between September of '99 and June of 2000?---I was waiting for approval.
PN487
From whom?---My manager.
PN488
Who was your manager at the time in September of '99?---Mr Baker.
PN489
Did you follow up Mr Baker at all?---Yes.
PN490
Why wasn't a decision made?
PN491
MR HOWELL: Again, Commissioner, similar to the last point you raise, I am not sure Mr Girvan is able to say why Mr Baker took 12 months to make a call.
PN492
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.
PN493
MR BURKE: Can you tell me then when a decision was finally made and by whom?---The business, Target, made a decision and I was informed by Mr Leahy in mid 2000.
PN494
Was it after 11 July for example 2000?---I can't remember.
PN495
Was it after June of 2000? July of 2000?---It was certainly after June because I wrote to him on 22 June.
PN496
Was it after the current enterprise agreement was voted upon?---I don't know when that was voted on.
PN497
Was it after the current agreement was issued to the Commission which was on 11 July 2000?---I can't remember.
PN498
It may have been?---I can't remember. I have really got no knowledge of that.
PN499
It is around about that time though, in your view? Mid 2000, be in June or July?---Well, I wrote to Mr Leahy on 22 June and that is the only evidence that I have got. I don't remember any other dates.
PN500
What did you get back from Mr Leahy in writing?---I don't remember what I got back in writing.
PN501
How did you get approval then? How do you know it was approved?---He would have informed me.
PN502
Do you recall if it was in writing or it was verbal or - - - ?---No, I don't recall.
PN503
How do you know to go ahead and ask the company to spend $287,000?---Because the - having got verbal or even written approval to go ahead, I then still have to produce the correct documentation and that then has to go, because of an expenditure of that nature, has got to go to the Chief Executive of Target and so I then - I raise that documentation, pass it through to my manager who then has it signed off by the Chief Executive of Target.
PN504
So I assume it would have been some reasonable time after 22 June 2000? I don't think, for example, it was 23 or 24 June 2000?---No, it wouldn't have been the 23rd or 24th.
PN505
Okay. All right. If I can take you back to T2. I would just like to know -obviously a post-it note was attached to this memo Could you tell me who signed that note?---You mean the writing that is - - -
PN506
The post-it note. Yes, the writing on the right hand side?---I believe that is Mr Wayne Ford's signature.
PN507
All right. So he found this memo did he in his pigeon hole?---I am only reading the same as what you are reading there.
PN508
Well, can you tell me why that post-it note is on your memo?---He was asking me for the current status.
PN509
Well, the first time you saw this memo was on 28 July and Mr Ford has noted the date?---No, because the memo was written to me.
PN510
Yes?---So I would have seen the memo prior to the 28th.
PN511
Right. Is there any reason why that post-it note is still there? Is it because Mr Ford was actually following it up and not yourself?---I don't know about that.
PN512
Can't recall. You were at the DC on 9 April when there was a demonstration of the slip sheet being taken out of the rack and put into the truck?---That is this year?
PN513
Yes?---Yes, I was.
PN514
Yes, you were present. You noticed - did you notice the demonstration at all?---Yes, I did.
PN515
Yes. Would you say that that is the way that slip sheets are taken out of the rack and put into the truck?---In general terms, yes.
PN516
The procedure was followed?---Yes.
PN517
Yes?---In general terms, yes.
PN518
And it is your view, is it, that it would be just as easy to use a tethered scanner in that process than using the mounted scanner?---I believe it is easier to use the mounted scanner than the tethered scanner.
PN519
It is easier?---Yes.
PN520
Yes, okay. But there is less involved in using the mounted scanner than the tethered scanner?---There certainly is.
PN521
There are less functions involved?---There certainly is.
PN522
There are less buttons to push in using the mounted scanner than the - - - ?---Same number. With a mounted - with a tethered scanner you have got one button on the trigger, the trigger button. On the mounted scanner you have got one button. So it is the same.
PN523
Yes. So you believe it is easier. Have you driven one yourself?---No.
PN524
Are you a qualified forklift driver?---No.
PN525
You have never driven one of those forklifts?---No.
PN526
So it is not your personal observation that it is easier?---It is my personal observation, yes.
PN527
Okay. I have no further questions, if the Commission please.
PN528
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Howell, anything arising?
PN529
PN530
MR HOWELL: Mr Girvan, in March of '98 when - and the memo states that eight forklifts were installed with the tethered scanner in the RF units. How many in total were eventually installed with the equipment?---14.
PN531
And why was it at that point that there was only 8 installed?---It was a process over a few weeks to install all 14 and at start up we didn't need all 14 because of the lower through-put in March. We didn't need all 14 at that stage anyway. So we had a running fit-up program. We had a run-up going to fit them all up.
PN532
Part of your evidence to Mr Burke was that the tethered scanners and the mounted RF units were never removed from the forklifts. Were there any reasons why they were never removed?---There was no need to remove them.
PN533
Why were they - well, if we were never going to use that technology, were there reasons why that was still left there or was it that you were - - - ?---Well, there was - until such time as we found an alternative, there was no indication that we weren't going to use that technology. As I have said a little bit earlier, we actually tried working with the supplier to find a way around the occupational health and safety problem. We still believe that there may be a possibility of finding a way around it if we couldn't find an alternative to them as in the fixed mounted. So we just left everything fitted up as - in case we needed it.
PN534
And in terms of the discussion about the impact on employee numbers because of this change, are you aware of any changes in crew sizes because of the change in technology?---No.
PN535
Your role as Facilities Manager, do you have direct involvement in the size of the crews anyway?---No.
PN536
Who would have direct involvement in those - - - ?---The Distribution Centre Manager or - and the Human Resources Manager.
PN537
So that the technology that you would introduce and the impact on crews sizes is not your responsibility?---No, it is not.
PN538
That is all, Commissioner.
PN539
PN540
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Is this a convenient time to take a short break? And perhaps I can query with you - I take it now we are going to move to submissions. How long are they likely to take? The only reason I ask is that we can a luncheon break at this stage and come back after lunch or if we wasn't going to be all that involved, keep going. I am quite comfortable with either approach.
PN541
MR BURKE: If this was a little bit more air in here, Commissioner, it might speed things up. It is stuffy.
PN542
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I apologise for the size of the Court. I had hoped it might have been a bigger Court that we got. It is a matter I will take up with the Registrar in due course.
PN543
MR BURKE: My submission is not very long, Commissioner. I am not sure about Mr Howell but - - -
PN544
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, perhaps if we take a short break anyway and resume and see how we go. We will adjourn on that basis.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.44am]
RESUMED [12.00pm]
PN545
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Burke?
PN546
MR BURKE: Thank you, Commissioner. Our claim is that the work done by forklift drivers in the Dispatch area of the Target Distribution Centre should be classified as grade 3A under the current enterprise agreement and that has come about because of a dispute where the mounted scanners were placed on to all forklifts and at that time, delegates took up the issue as to a number of issues there, but in particular what would be the proper classification for these employees. However, some employees who also do the work of a forklift driver in Dispatch are graded as 4 or 5, but we are not seeking to disadvantage them.
PN547
They are classified at a higher grade because they have been promoted to recognised positions or filled vacancies and we just want to put that on the record again. We are not arguing the work is higher than 3A, at least as part of the work of a 4 or 5, in particular the two witnesses we have seen today. Also arguing this point because we are not making an extra claim. The 3A is already a classification in the enterprise agreement and therefore we are not upsetting the existing classification structure of the agreement or the existing relativities.
PN548
If we have a history, some history of the 3As is in the agreed statement of facts, but also there's no definition in the agreement for the last six years or more. SDA3 shows that in 1995 the classification of grade 3 showed the wage rates for a grade 3 and a 3A. By the 1997 and the 2000 agreements, all that has changed is that the wage rates move from the classification clause and were moved into a wages table with all other rates of pay, and that's the case if you look at SDA3 and then you look at the new agreements. The rate has disappeared and there's just a word appears of grade 3A in brackets.
PN549
In other words, the grade 3A classification has existed in successive agreements, has continued to have relevance to employees under the agreement and that's shown by the agreed statement of facts. And most importantly, the 3A rate of pay has increased in each successive agreement. It's therefore a classification that is in operation. The question now is who is a grade 3A. There are some already. There's three listed in the agreed statement. There are clear definitions of how other classifications are reached. You go from being a 1 to a 2 after six months.
PN550
You go to the higher grades by promotion, but 3A is within classification 3 and therefore someone going to 3 could go to also being a 3A without there being any vacancy. There doesn't have to be a vacancy or a new position created. They can be classified as a 3A. It's an all encompassing classification. If we consider the grade 2 and grade 3 and there's some wording about that in the agreed statement, that clause 6.2(iv):
PN551
Grade 2 storepersons have minimal exposure to electronic equipment. VDUs, scanning equipment, portable data entry units.
PN552
And clause 6.3:
PN553
Grade 3 is a higher grade that can cover work of a 1 or 2. It also covers forklift drivers.
PN554
The company argued grade 3 is appropriate, or in some cases 2, because 3 can do the minimal exposure to electronic equipment that's found in a grade 2. But we say that Dispatch forklifts have maximum exposure to electronic equipment and we say that's the case from the evidence as well. They are operating it on every occasion they collect stock from the rack. They scan every slipsheet when they pass under the bar as they enter the truck. They also refer to the VDU on the forklift. They do that all day, every day now, and in some ways the company's own evidence justifies that as well.
PN555
If the company's intention was that the mounted scanners were to be there from day one, we would probably have the same argument back then. We say that they weren't, that if they were, they certainly weren't used for the period of time that's quoted by Mr Girvan. The evidence, we say, is it's roughly two weeks. But even if we take the company's evidence, we say that that would prove our case as well. The employees do not have minimal exposure now to the VDU equipment, they are using it all day, every day, every time they use the forklift in Dispatch. It would be different, perhaps, if they were in other areas using a forklift, but they now don't have minimal exposure.
PN556
It's all pervasive and it's all the time. Therefore it's not minimal exposure. This is not the work done previously with a hand held scanner. Previously minimal activity was done to scan, either with the hand held scanner or the tethered scanner. The barcode was read once and that was it. It was not done by the forklift operator. He or she merely loaded into the truck. And it's also different from work that's done by conventional forklift drivers as well, and as we have also heard, there's evidence that there's a second forklift that people use, a much taller one, as well, which is in Dispatch, so it is a completely different situation now compared to the previous warehouses.
PN557
People did rotate. They did go from one department to another. Now they are set in either Dispatch or Receiving or wherever it may be. The company have made those changes as Mr Girvan has said, if we accept his evidence that the system is based around barcodes. It's based around technology. It would therefore mean that some people had more than minimal exposure and we say those people are these 12 or so forklift operators in Dispatch. Therefore there has been a dramatic change to the work done by Dispatch forklift drivers. They in effect are doing two jobs now, but are only recognised for one.
PN558
These comments are made and based on the evidence of our two witnesses, long-standing forklift drivers who have worked in Dispatch at the warehouse since it opened. They clearly highlight the changes in Dispatch from the old warehouse and then the major changes in the last three years alone. Commissioner, you asked us to consider the word value principles and I was going to just refer to the current principles, which are the new principles. I am not sure whether the Commission has a copy of those. I have one.
PN559
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, in fact I meant to have got them while I was down in my Chambers during the break. I conveniently got sidetracked.
PN560
MR BURKE: I think this principle hasn't changed very much over the years except for more up to date references to the Act and so forth and it's the current principle 6. I might read some of it. If we start with 6(a):
PN561
Changes in work value may arise from changes in the nature of work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions ...(reads)... the nature of the work should constitute such an additional net addition -
PN562
sorry -
PN563
should constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification or ...(reads)... must be no likelihood of wage leapfrogging arising out of changes in relative position.
PN564
I just make the point; we are dealing with an agreement here and not an award.
PN565
These are the only circumstances in which rates may be altered on the ground of work value and the altered rates may be applied only to employees whose work has changed in accordance with this principle.
PN566
So we have taken into account that and we would make submissions in relation to (a) and some of the other points as well. The changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which work is performed, we say we have addressed. There have been changes in the nature of the work. We say it is more complex, certainly from the evidence that we have presented. They have gone from one scan with the hand held by a separate employee to multiple scans by the employee operating all of the mechanical equipment, driving the forklift, operating the gripper, the camera, the scanner, checking the VDU.
PN567
The introduction of the scanner on board has added to the work that the forklift driver does. Extra work for forklift, the Dispatch forklift, includes doing the work of another employee plus what they are also doing. We say there is more skill involved. They must manoeuvre, for example, the scanner, to ensure it reads the barcode. It may take many goes as was the evidence today. The hand held is a simple swipe. There's no messing around for the person who comes up and just points the scanner at the barcode. We say there is also more responsibility. Scanning done previously by grade 4s, in our evidence.
PN568
The Dispatch forklift has his or her responsibility to drive and now must be sure the barcode is read and recorded to ensure the right stock is sent to the right store; made even more important because the hand helds have been removed. They are given no extra compensation when anyone else doing a second job permanently would expect to be rewarded appropriately. The company are getting the work done now with potentially less staff but not passing on any of the benefits to the workers who now have the extra burden, and we believe there is, well, there's some suggestion by the company today in its evidence about looking at this as a way of not having additional staff.
PN569
The strict test is: would change in nature of the work warrant a new classification or upgrade to a higher classification? We say in this case it's the latter, the higher classification. Significant net addition to work requirements mean there is a need to upgrade to higher classification, but one that already exists and is being utilised. We also say there is no potential to leapfrog. This is work done only in Dispatch. These forklifts are only used in Dispatch. They are not used in many other sites. That's certainly the evidence of the company as well. There is no similar technology in other Target warehouses or other Coles Myer warehouses. That's also the evidence of the company. It is a unique site and it's confined to a small number of employees, approximately 12.
PN570
There are others who are at a higher grade but we are not seeking anything for them. If we look at some of the other parts of the principle, (c) talks about whether or not an allowance should be used or implemented. If in fact the work is not being done all the time by all the same people, we say there is no need for an allowance. Scanning is now done at all times by the forklift operator because hand helds have been removed. They are the only ones who can do it. It's not relative. There's a classification of a grade 3 already and it may be difficult to amend an agreement that's already in operation. That's the other thing. Unless of course the matter was agreed, which I don't believe it is.
PN571
In relation to (d), looking at how far back to consider the change, we say the change has only occurred this year in February of 2001 when the company introduced the procedure across the board and there is the procedure manual of 21 February that's been referred to today. So it's really only in the last few months. Certainly not for a great period of time that this has happened. It has recently occurred. It's now going to continue on. It's not a trial. It has been implemented.
PN572
On the other hand, if you accept the company's position that it was always to occur, it was to occur from day one, then that means that it's gone as far back as three years that this has been a change, that it's a duty and responsibility that employees should have been doing for the last three years, which they haven't been, and so that would lead more to our case, to prove the change has occurred for a longer period of time and should be considered in our claim.
PN573
In relation to (e), we don't believe there's any need to consider previous increases or adjustments to wages. Certainly that's not come up in past negotiations. The current agreement has another 12 months to run. The technology is quite new. However, there is a need to address the issue now. If the company in fact knew the scanners were to be introduced last year around about the time the last agreement was introduced, the company should have perhaps raised the matter with us. It could have been dealt with during those negotiations.
PN574
The company could have said at the time: we are not sure how this will operate, how it's going to work. It could have been dealt with as a reserve matter. They didn't. We are now in the position where we have to deal with it whilst the agreement's in operation. The other thing to point out is that memos that have been provided by the company today, T5 and 6, I think, they are company memos. They are memos that I don't believe employees have seen. They certainly weren't put to the two witnesses for them to attest as to their authenticity or their existence. If the company had this intention all along, it's not clear to us that that was the case.
PN575
It certainly wasn't put to employees, so it can only be taken as the evidence of the employer. It certainly wasn't put to employees for them to agree or disagree that it was always the case that scanners were to be on the forks from day one and part of their duties. If we look then at (f), considering the monetary terms of what should occur and how it should be calculated, we say it's easy in this case. The 3A is roughly $10 ahead of a 3. Aren't claiming any more because we accept that this is the agreed rate for someone higher than a 3 but not a grade 4 senior storeperson. We couldn't go any higher than the current 30 rate without affecting relativity, especially in regard to the grade 4s.
PN576
In relation to (h), guarding against contrived classifications or over-classification. Nothing contrived when the company made the change to mount the scanners. The company gave additional functions and responsibilities to forklift drivers. The employees didn't contrive to have the work transferred from one worker to another. They are not over-classified, otherwise we would run into the risk of upsetting grade 4s. If I take you back to the start in concluding. The dispute was created when the company introduced scanners on to the Dispatch forks and expected drivers to do the new function without adequate compensation.
PN577
We have sought minimal compensation for the recognition that Dispatch forklifts are now doing more and now doing someone else's work. There have been inspections of the work. We have heard employee witnesses explain the work and the significant changes over the last three years. If we look at the evidence of, in fact, Mr Stubberfield, talking about the changes in relation to your questions, Commissioner. The witness believed that there was more pressure now, that the forklift does it all now, basically. So all of the functions in the crew that involve exposure to electronic equipment fall upon the forklift driver.
PN578
We say that would take them out of the grade of grade 2 and above what a normal grade 3 does. He also believed that they were more responsible and that it took longer to load trucks these days and that there would often be more than one attempt to scan the barcodes. We believe we have made a modest and sensible claim to utilise the current classification system and the current grade that already covers forklift drivers. By staying within grade 3, we are also not making an extra claim, not seeking to diminish the standing of grade 4s and 5s. These are positions that already exist and are not affected by our claim. Our claim is for any forklift driver in Dispatch who is not graded 4 or 5 to be graded as 3A and we seek a decision of the Commission to that effect.
PN579
Perhaps before I finish I would go on to say in relation to the evidence we have seen today that you should consider the evidence of the employees in relation to this matter. These are the people who use the forklifts, the other two witnesses did not, no disrespect to them but they are not forklift operators, they don't handle the equipment they can only give us their view from afar as it would be for me as well to say whether it is easier or not to use a forklift now with a mounted scanner. I think we should rely upon them as qualified witnesses. They are there doing it every day, they certainly haven't seen the correspondence or any of the exhibits that were put to Mr Girvan so if the company seeks to rely upon those they haven't been cross-examined or put to the two employees.
PN580
We say there has been an industrial issue raised after the Health and Safety issue was addressed. That's when the industrial issue raised itself when the cameras were introduced to all forks. If we look at the evidence of the company witnesses. Ms Burnell stated that she gave training only in relation to hand held scanners not the tethered ones, she wasn't aware how long the tethered scanners would be on the forklifts or how long they were not on. In relation to Mr Girvan as I have said, his memos were not put to the employees, they would not be aware then of the authenticity of those or not.
PN581
We say that if you do accept that, then if the scanners were in place or to be in place from day one, it would still trigger employees going up to grade 3A because they do not have minimal exposure, they are doing a lot more than a grade 3 as well. There's also the question of the intention of the company, why in the memo was - why in two memos was there reference to the issue of additional staff. Obviously the company recognised that, the forklift driver was going to do more work, would do the work of some employees and take that work away from them as well. In relation to how you should deal with this matter, Commissioner, as we have notified of a dispute under section 99, we say it's open to you make an award.
PN582
We would propose, as one suggestion, we would propose that you make an award that would classify employees working in the Dispatch area as forklift drivers to classify them as grade 3As unless the employee is already classified at a higher grade 4 or 5 and that the rest of the agreement would apply to employees, we are not seeking to do anything else. We have a proposed draft order which I can provide. It's merely a draft and a suggestion if there is any other suggestion we are happy to discuss that as well, this is merely a proposal.
PN583
MR BURKE: We say it is an allowable matter that you can make an order, an award in relation to classifications. The company can have a specific award to classify certain employees, however we are prepared to discuss the form of any decision or recommendation or order. We are basically seeking though a decision about these employees being classified as 3As. We haven't any other proposal from the company to consider, theirs has been merely to say no, they are properly classified which we dispute. We say the evidence that we have presented shows that these people should be at a higher classification, that it's not diminished by the employer's evidence and, in fact, we say it may be strengthened by the company's position as well. If you have any questions in relation to the proposed order I am happy to answer those. If the Commission pleases.
PN584
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, I will follow all of that. Yes, Mr Howell?
PN585
MR HOWELL: Commissioner, this dispute has arisen over the way in which a specific task is performed at the Taras Avenue Distribution Centre. The change is the way in which the forklift driver scans the product he's loading onto the truck for dispatch and picking off the wrapping. The change from the initial process occurs as a result of a safety issue, raised by employees in mid-98. Sir, our position and the position of the witness that at no time was it ever considered that anyone other than the forklift driver would scan the product on an ongoing basis.
PN586
The union contends that the change which was recently finalised as late as December last year, constituted a new task for the forklift driver and warrants a reclassification. This is not in fact correct. To explain and to just summarise what the witnesses have said, I propose to take the Commission through a number of areas. Firstly a brief history of the site and the scanning function. The distribution centre consolidated three other distribution centres. It was built based on the premise of new technology.
PN587
This technology and there have been a number of side issues thrown up during this hearing. The new technology ranged from the new conveyor system, to the use of slipsheets. Since the distribution centre was established there have been things such as the installation of a camera on the forklift to assist with picking pallets from a high level. They are all separate issues to what is being raised here today. Today's issue is about the way in which scanning is conducted at the distribution centre.
PN588
When the company moved to the new distribution centre, technology was introduced to enable the forklift drivers to perform the scanning function. It was intended and in fact the practice at the time, for a number of months, was that a forklift driver would scan the product when it was selected from the racking and then scan the loading bay when placing the product onto the forklift for delivery. This was done with a hand-held tethered scanner. Initially we had eight forklifts fitted. By the time the installation was completed we had 14 fitted out.
PN589
This installation included the placing of a mounted RF unit, radio-frequency unit, onto each forklift and attaching a tethered scanner to each of the RF units and mounting that on the forklift. You heard Mr Girvan say that at no stage during the two-and-a-half years of finding alternatives to the method, were the RF units removed from the forklift. The reason being it was always the intention that the forklift drivers would again perform the scanning task. It was simply a question of which method would be used, whether it would be an adapted method of the tethered scanner, or a completely different method, which is how it has not turned out.
PN590
When employees moved to the new DC in March `98 and in fact for the four months leading up to that point, all forklift drivers were put through extensive training in the use of the RF units and the use of scanners and you heard Ms Burnell say that, due to the logistics of getting a forklift into the training room, the tethered scanners themselves weren't used, but rather hand-held RF units which perform the same function. In the place of the forklift driver performing the scanning function since July/August 1998, a number of other employees have performed the task, including the grade 2 employees. It is not a task that is limited to the senior people within the distribution centre and I will take you to the classification structure in a moment.
PN591
THE COMMISSIONER: This is the hand-held scanning function you are talking about?
PN592
MR HOWELL: Yes. Over the course of the 12 months from mid-98 to mid-99 the company looked at a number of options to resolve the safety issue, all based on the forklift driver performing the scanning function. In June `99 a trial was performed in conjunction with the RHF units of the system that has now been implemented. The report from that trial was that the system was working well and that the operators were comfortable with the concept.
PN593
During the next 12 months a proposal was put to upgrade the forklifts and it took a full 12 months, which included as, I think, some of the notes indicate the changing of the distribution centre manager in that time, to have that proposal signed off. The proposal was put up twice, the second time in June 2000 and the document is signed by the OHS reps. The technology was implemented in the east side of dispatch in approximately December 2000 and was implemented without incident. It was not until implementation progressed to the west side that we had an issue and at that particular time we had a single employee refusing to perform the task and it is our belief that that's the reason we are here today.
PN594
To take you through the classification structure briefly and this is also outlined in the agreed statement of facts that you have before you. The relevant parts of the classification for the purposes of today, are grades 2 and 3. Grade 2 employees perform scanning as part of their role and currently perform it in areas such as the sortation area of the distribution centre. A grade 3 employee is expected to perform all the tasks for grade 1 and 2, in addition to those contained in grade 3.
PN595
To put this into order. A forklift driver is an additional skill on top of the range of tasks that are included in grades 1 and 2 and scanning falls into those classifications. The classification structure grade 3 even states that at this level the employee's considered to be an advanced store person. The union contends that due to the new technology associated with the scanning task, the forklift drivers should receive a higher rate of pay. It is our contention that there is nothing in what they are being asked to do that is beyond what is already expected of a grade 2 classified employee, there's simply a different method in which the same scanning function is performed.
PN596
In fact and Mr Girvan who, yes, does not drive a forklift but was responsible for replacing the previous system, argues that the task is simpler for a driver than it is for using a hand-held scanner. The Enterprise Agreement clearly establishes what classification the forklift driver fits into and what the appropriate rate of pay for that classification is and since there has been and Mr Burke pointed out, the middle of last year, a renegotiation of that agreement and the forklift driver classification is still a grade 3, as it was through the negotiations before that.
PN597
If the union and the employees are unhappy with where the forklift driver sits in the classification structure, then it is our contention that it should, at most, become a point of negotiation next year when the agreement is re-done. In terms of the current Enterprise Agreement there are a number of clauses that clearly contemplate changes to technology occurring during the life of the agreement and it is important that the word agreement - these clauses while some would argue are not, they form part of an agreed document between the parties.
PN598
5.3.2:
PN599
PN600
Both parties agree on the need to ensure the distribution centres are operated in a manner which will promote to the fullest extent possible, economy of operation and to make these changes to technology and work practices as will maintain this position.
PN601
5.3.5:
PN602
Both parties agree on the need to train, re-train and develop employees to broaden their skills, develop their potential and meet the needs of changing technology.
PN603
There is also clause 4.2, it states:
PN604
It is agreed that there shall be no extra claims during the life of the agreement.
PN605
It is our position that it is clearly an extra claim which is what the union are asking here. They are asking that an agreement that clearly establishes a classification structure, effectively be re-written during the life of its term. In terms of the grade 3A, that is the rate of pay that is at the heart of the claim, the union's claim is that the Commission has at its disposal to provide the higher rate of pay because it sits in the structure at the moment. We disagree. If it was the intention of the parties that forklift drivers receive the rate, then the agreement would have been written in that way.
PN606
The grade 3A rate applies to three employees, which are listed on the statement of facts we have provided, two of which continue to receive the rate due to the duties they performed prior to moving to the Taras Avenue distribution centre, not because of functions they currently perform. The third employee, who is a pallet-pull driver receives the rate and there are specific reasons for this. A pallet-pull driver has a greater level of responsibility than the normal forklift driver.
PN607
He is expected to produce reports, check dockets to ensure the correct number of pallets are being delivered and signs for this on behalf of the company. He is effectively responsible for managing assets that belong to the company and he's held accountable for this. The reason he is not classified as a grade 4 is because he does not perform any leading-hand functions. This position has always received a higher rate than the forklift driver, going back as far as the early `90s.
PN608
It is our position that the grade 3A rate is not there to enable employees to be re-classified during the life of the agreement. It is there to specifically cater for a small number of employees. It is our contention that to suggest it is there to enable employees to be re-classified during the life of the agreement is flawed and one that I think could be defined as opportunism. In terms of what the union is asking the Commission to do, it is our position that the Commission's being asked to re-write an Enterprise Agreement. We are not talking about an award where a position is being incorrectly classified with an award structure, we are talking about an Enterprise Agreement which sits above an Award, which has been recently negotiated and which pays wages considerably higher than any award.
PN609
We are also talking about an Enterprise Agreement that has remained unchanged, except for wage rises when negotiated only 12 months ago. We do not believe that the Commission can be asked to re-write an agreement during its life, simply because one of the parties is unhappy with the term or terms contained within it. It is certainly open for either party to bring the dispute to the Commission over the way in which the agreement is being applied, but I do not believe that that's what the union's asking for.
PN610
The union is asking for the Commission to change the rate of pay that applies to a small part of one grade contained within the classification structure. It is our position that the work value argument is not appropriate because we are not dealing with an award, we are dealing with an Enterprise Agreement between two parties. The parties have already agreed on where the role of the forklift driver sits and what the appropriate rate of a forklift driver is. By virtue of the way in which the classification structure is worded, the parties have agreed that the grade 3, the forklift driver, must be able to perform the work of a grade 2, which is scanning, which includes scanning and to perform that work at an advanced level by reference to them being called an advanced store person.
PN611
In terms of the number of employees, or the reduction in employees as a result of this technology. There is and there will not be any reduction in overall numbers to the distribution centre as a result of this change. This premise and a number of other premises that the union are making in comparisons, are comparisons between what is an interim position, which is a separate employee performing a hand-held scanning function and the current role, not a comparison between what was initially done at the distribution centre, which was the forklift driver performing the scanning with the tethered scanner and a mounted RF unit and what they currently do, which is still performing the scanning function with a mounted RF unit.
PN612
It is our position that there is no net addition to the work that is now being performed. Yes, the technology is new, the task itself is not. With regards to the issue being raised, or not being raised during the last set of negotiations for the Enterprise Agreement, the O H and S reps were aware of what was being done in the trial and I think Mr Burke, when questioning Mr Girvan, established that the memo came out certainly before the agreement was certified, if not before voted on.
PN613
We heard that the employees were trained in the task of scanning and that the distribution centre was set up on this premise. Mr Burke's position that the documents provided have not been cross-examined is wrong, it has been cross-examined and he himself performed that task with Mr Girvan. In terms of the employees being able to justify - justify's not the right word - the authenticity of those documents, the documents weren't written to the employees in the first place. They were written by Mr Girvan to the management staff. Presenting them to the employees would not have served any purpose whatsoever, they were there to establish a time-frame of what occurred and when and the employees were not part of that internal memo function.
PN614
Mr Burke stated that there is no risk in upsetting the grade 4's as a part of this claim, because they will continue to receive a rate higher, regardless of the outcome of this hearing. There is, however, a considerable risk of upsetting our grade 2 employees who currently perform the scanning function which is no different than what the forklift drivers perform. If the forklift drivers or a small part of the forklift driving classification received a higher rate of pay, we would then have the issue to deal with of what our grade 2 employees should receive, because they are performing a scanning role, however are classified lower than a forklift driver who does not. They will be classified at a lower role than a forklift driver who will not be performing this role.
PN615
To summarise it was and continues to be the intention that forklift drivers performing the scanning task. This is evidenced by the fact that up until the safety issue was raised the forklift drivers were performing the scanning. With the amount of money and time put into train and equip forklift drivers and the forklifts when the distribution centre was established, is evidence of this. The only reason the forklift drivers stopped performing the scanning function was due to safety issues. That due to the particulars of the site and you heard evidence to this as well, it took significant time and money to rectify. But the current classification structure fully allows for the scanning function as it currently exists within grade 3.
PN616
But we do not believe the Commission has the power to re-write an Enterprise Agreement, only to rule on its application and in this case the application of the agreement is consistent with its intention in the way it is written and it is not open, in any event, for the union to make a claim of this nature as defined in clause 4 of the agreement. If the Commission pleases.
PN617
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Burke.
PN618
MR BURKE: We think it is important that the various memos were not put to employees or evidence about that, because there is now a dispute about dates. There's no agreement on the dates as to when things were introduced and when things finished and so on. The evidence of our witnesses is that the tethered scanners were used for only two weeks. The evidence of Mr Girvan is that it's nearly four months. So there is a disagreement about those dates and none of the exhibits were put to those two employees, so whilst talking about their authenticity, because they were not seen before, there's also a question about their relevance or their weight as that issue has not been put to employees. It's a question then of who do you believe, but I think it's clear that both sides agree that they were used for a period of time, then they were withdrawn.
PN619
Also it wasn't put to employees, it wasn't their understanding that from day one they would be using hand-held scanners on the forklift, they were in fact only trained in using the hand-helds that they would keep in their hand and that were not attached to forklifts.
PN620
THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just ask you about that? I take it from the submission that you put earlier, that if one looks at the grade 2 store person, I think you made an issue, if I can put it in those terms, that those people have minimal exposure to video display units, scanning equipment and the like. Whereas the forklift drivers that are involved in this application, you would say, have significantly more involvement. Is it really a question of the amount of use of the equipment or do you see that there is a difference between the equipment that's used?
PN621
MR BURKE: I think there's a difference with the equipment that's used and that's the evidence, plus they are using it all the time, they don't escape it when they are on the forklift, unless it's not working.
PN622
THE COMMISSIONER: The scanning equipment that's used by the grade 2 people, I take it that's a hand-held scanning function, or am I incorrect about that?
PN623
MR BURKE: That would be my understanding Commissioner. There's been no evidence put about that.
PN624
THE COMMISSIONER: In fact it only occurred to me after we had concluded the witness evidence that it was perhaps something that I should have asked.
PN625
MS FRINTAILAS: I am sorry Commissioner, you actually did see the hand-held scanner, you know it's when you came to the site and we went up to the sortation area. You were with Mr Burke, there was a small RF unit. In fact that unit is exactly the same and works in exactly the same way as the tethered unit on the forklift. The only difference is that the tethered unit, what you scan with, actually moves with you, the hand-held unit you actually take the keys with you when you scan.
PN626
THE COMMISSIONER: And the units that were used by the grade 2 store persons are those units to which you have just made reference.
PN627
MS FRINTAILAS: They are the hand-held units and the RF units that they were trained with on the initial training, the hand-held ones because you can't take a forklift in.
PN628
THE COMMISSIONER: Followed, thank you, that's helpful.
PN629
MR BURKE: Well yes, Commissioner, that would be the understanding of the hand-helds. But we do say there is a difference that it's on the forklift the whole time. The responsibility falls back on them. Previously someone else could do it. They didn't have to do anything. If they did it was only for two weeks or so and it would have been an option for employees with the hand-helds that were fitted to eventually say we are doing extra work and there could have been an issue in the Enterprise Agreement. Now, it didn't come up because they were only using the hand-helds at the time and we say there is more than minimal exposure.
PN630
In relation to there not being a forklift to show in the training room, it would have been easy for the company to have a forklift that's on the floor, if they were going to give that training, but that wasn't done. In relation to there being a trial in 1999 and reps being involved, no questions were asked of Mr Seychell at that time, by the company, if that was going to be their evidence, they could have asked him about that. They didn't. His evidence is that it happened after that.
PN631
If in fact any H and S reps did sign any documents in relation to the trial, it was in relation to health and safety issues, we are dealing with an industrial issue here today. In relation to grade 3's doing the work of grades 1 and 2, if you look at the agreement, grades 4 and 5 can do the same, they can do the work of 1s and 2s to some extent. If employees are unhappy the company says they could have raised it. They can raise it in the new agreement. We had the opportunity to do that last year if we had have known that this issue was coming up. The company didn't tell us about it, if in fact it had been going on for three years, we could have dealt with it earlier. We weren't aware of it until the issue came up when they were introduced onto all the forks.
PN632
THE COMMISSIONER: Well just taking that point. Mr Howell, in his final submission, has indicated that from the company's point of view, the claim before the Commission is an extra claim. What's your response to that?
PN633
MR BURKE: We say it would be an extra claim if we were asking you to introduce a new classification, 3X, 3Y, 7, any number, any letter. We are not asking you to do that, we are not asking you to re-write anything in the agreement. We are merely asking you to say that the current agreement and the current classification structure allows these people to be properly classified as 3A, which is a classification in the agreement. We are not making any extra claim. There are 3As already, so it's not as if it's a new claim. If there wasn't a 3A, the three people that are mentioned wouldn't be a 3A, they might have a saved rate, that would be higher, but they wouldn't still be classified as 3A's.
PN634
THE COMMISSIONER: You don't dispute I take it that the three people that are currently classified as 3A got there through different circumstances to what others might be reclassified as?
PN635
MR BURKE: They obviously got to be a 3A because they fall within the definition of the agreement and we are not taking anything away from them, nor are the company. It's merely a case now of saying, here are another 10 or 12 people who should be 3As. It's different too if we said these people should be 4s, because then there would have to be a vacancy, they do have to be appointed, we are not making that point, that would be an extra claim. You would be asking the company to employ people at a higher grade that they can't do in accordance with the agreement. There wouldn't be vacancies. They wouldn't be appointing them to those positions, you would be doing that.
PN636
In relation to the grade 3A as well, previously when there were more containers at the other sites, there was a container forklift that was used and some people were employed as 3As as well. So there have been people higher than grade 3A within the classification structure, for a period of time. In relation to the company mentioning 5.3.5 of the agreement in relation to training and changing technology, we are not here disputing that. We are not here disputing that technology should be introduced. We are saying yes it has. These people have been trained and as a result of that they are classification may have altered and that they should now be on a higher classification and we say that also for work value reasons.
PN637
As I have said we are not asking you to change anything in the agreement. We are not asking you to re-write anything at all. We say that these people are now responsible, like other 3As. They have a lot more responsibility. They are a lot more accountable as those other people are. We certainly say that our claim is not flawed, we do not accept that there is opportunism by us in making this claim. If these people weren't doing this work we wouldn't be able to make a claim at all. The technology is new, I think Mr Howell said, but the task is not, but there is now work for the forklift driver who does that work and that has increased their work value.
PN638
I think I would have to dispute with Mr Howell that he said that Mr Girvan said that the memo was, I think it's T5, sorry. T5 was put out before there was a vote on the agreement. Mr Girvan couldn't remember when it was put out and I don't think he would remember when the vote was either. It might have been around about the same time but he couldn't recall if it was before. We say that there is no evidence in relation to grade 3s - sorry, grade 2s being upset if forklift drivers can be regraded to 3A in Dispatch.
PN639
The hand-helds that they are using are using different technology. It is more portable. This technology is with the forklift operator all the time and he must use it. There would be cases where the grade 2 doesn't have to use a forklift. There is no opportunity for a grade 3 for a forklift operator in Dispatch to not use the mounted scanner. The only way they can do that is if it is not functioning. A grade 2 may not scan at all, all day. They may not have that opportunity. We say that you can rule on our application. You are able to make an award, a recommendation order. We believe the best way of doing that is what we have proposed. If the Commission has some other suggestion, we are happy to consider that. As to - - -
PN640
THE COMMISSIONER: What do you of the submission that the work value principles only apply to awards and not in the same way to enterprise agreements?
PN641
MR BURKE: I would say, firstly, Commissioner, we were asked to put submissions in relation to that. We would say it is the only way that you could consider how these people can be properly classified. Otherwise it is not - there is no proper test. There is no proper industrial test. This is an industrial test that has been used in awards and I assume in agreements as well. To look at the work that is being done, properly assess it, give it some consideration against relativities as well. So it is the proper test to use in this case, be it an agreement, be it an award or whatever. Those would be our submissions, if the Commission please.
PN642
THE COMMISSIONER: Very good. I intend to reserve my decision in relation to this matter. There are obviously aspects of the witness evidence that I want to review as part of arriving at my decision. But I will indicate to the parties that I will get that decision handed down as expeditiously as possible. On that basis the Commission will adjourn.
ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [12.55pm]
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
EXHIBIT #SDA4 AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS PN9
EXHIBIT #SDA1 TARGET AGREEMENT PN11
EXHIBIT #SDA2 DOCUMENT HEADED: FORKLIFT MOUNTED SCANNERS PN11
EXHIBIT #SDA3 1995 AGREEMENT PN11
IAN LESLIE STUBBERFIELD, SWORN PN15
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR BURKE PN15
EXHIBIT #SDA5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF IAN LESLIE STUBBERFIELD PN18
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HOWELL PN99
WITNESS WITHDREW PN124
JAMES LAURENCE SEYCHELL, SWORN PN125
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR BOURKE PN125
EXHIBIT #SDA6 WITNESS STATEMENT OF JAMES LAURENCE SEYCHELL PN127
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HOWELL PN227
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BURKE PN255
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HOWELL PN263
WITNESS WITHDREW PN272
DEBRA ANNE BURNELL, SWORN PN275
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HOWELL PN275
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BURKE PN290
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HOWELL PN313
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HOWELL PN313
WITNESS WITHDREW PN318
DARREL EDGAR GIRVAN, SWORN PN322
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HOWELL PN322
EXHIBIT #T1 DOCUMENT FROM SUPPLIER OF EQUIPMENT PN327
EXHIBIT #T2 DOCUMENT DISCUSSING THE ALLEVIATION OF SAFETY CONCERNS PN331
EXHIBIT #T3 MEMORANDUM FROM CODEWAY DISCUSSING TRIAL PN341
EXHIBIT #T4 DOCUMENT FROM CODEWAY DISCUSSING TRIAL PERIOD PN343
EXHIBIT #T5 DOCUMENT CONFIRMING TRIAL PERIOD TOGETHER WITH QUOTES FOR UPGRADING FORKLIFTS PN347
EXHIBIT #T6 PROPOSAL FROM MR DARREL EDGAR GIRVAN TO DISTRIBUTION CENTRE MANAGEMENT RE. UPGRADE PN349
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BURKE PN359
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HOWELL PN530
WITNESS WITHDREW PN540
EXHIBIT #SDA7 DRAFT ORDER PN583
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2001/983.html