C2002/1431, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 1034 (2 April 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Suite 25, Trafalgar Centre 108 Collins St HOBART Tas 7000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 8327
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER HARRISON

C2002/1431
C2002/1444

McCONNELL DOWELL CONSTRUCTORS (AUST) PTY LTD

and

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION - TASMANIA BRANCH and ANOTHER

NACAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

and

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION - TASMANIA BRANCH and ANOTHER

Applications under section 127(2) to stop or prevent
industrial action

HOBART

10.33 AM, THURSDAY, 14 MARCH 2002

PN1

MR W. WADE: I appear for the Australian Mines and Metals Association on behalf of McConnell Dowell Constructors Pty Ltd and Nacap Australia Pty Ltd. Appearing with me is MR W. FITZGERALD, also from the Australian Mines and Metals Association. Also appearing with me is MR M. BUMPSTEAD from McConnell Dowell Constructors Pty Ltd, and MR J. FRITH from Nacap Australia Pty Ltd.

PN2

MR R. FLANAGAN: I appear for the Australian Workers Union - Tasmania Branch. Appearing with me is MR I. WAKEFIELD.

PN3

MR G. COOPER: I appear on behalf of the AMWU and I assume that I am the "Another" in both matters.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you are. Thanks, Mr Cooper. Mr Wade?

PN5

MR WADE: Commissioner, I don't know how you want to proceed with these matters. While the submissions in both matters are substantially the same the industrial action that has occurred in the past in the McConnell Dowell section of the project has not occurred to the same extent on the Nacap section of the project, likewise McConnell Dowell have in fact made an offer to their employees with regards to the issue at the nub of the problem where Nacap haven't. So we do have some differences in there, albeit that the submissions are substantially the same.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I should perhaps indicate at the outset that my view about orders generally is that I like to go to the substance of the issue between the parties and perhaps conciliate rather than going to the question of orders as a primary course of action but I would like to hear an outline, anyway, of what the companies' positions are, hear a response from the unions and then signal that I would be then adjourning into conference.

PN7

MR WADE: As you please, Commissioner. Commissioner, to give you a background of it, of the project, by way of painting a picture of what has occurred I would open my submissions by saying the Tasmanian Natural Gas Pipeline Project is a project of significant economic value to the State of Tasmania. It is bringing a gas pipeline into Tasmania for the first time from the Mainland, it is being constructed onshore by both McConnell Dowell and Nacap and being an onshore pipeline it is being done in three basic stage.

PN8

Stage 1 is from Five Mile Bluff, north of George Town - or north east of George Town to Rosevale, which is south west of Launceston; stage 2 is from Rosevale to Port Latta, which is across on the Western side of the island up the north, both stages 1 and 2 are being constructed by McConnell Dowell; the third stage is from Rosevale down to Claremont and Boyer, north of Hobart, that is being constructed by Nacap Australia. Currently construction is being done on the McConnell Dowell stages 1 and 2 in four spreads, so there are four crews, in fact, on the job building those two stages.

PN9

The Nacap stage 3 is being done, as I understand it, currently only with one spread, heading south.

PN10

Between the two companies is approximately 300 employees engaged under the terms and conditions of two certified agreements. Those certified agreements are the McConnell Dowell Constructors Pty Ltd Tasmanian Gas Pipeline Project Agreement 2001 and the Nacap Australia Pty Ltd Tasmanian Gas Pipeline Project Agreement 2001.

PN11

Both are current agreements, they were certified by DP Leary in Sydney on 20 December 2001. They were both certified as section 170LL greenfield agreements. Commissioner, if I could, I would hand those up, if I may. I presume that you are not going to mark these as exhibits, Commissioner, on the basis that they are Commission prints?

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. No. Yes, I mean, yes, as in I won't mark them.

PN13

MR WADE: Of the 300 approximate employees engaged under the terms and conditions of these agreements approximately half are local Tasmanian labour. I think that needs to be stated up front. It does have a significant impact on the project itself on the local labour resources. It is in fact bringing jobs back into Tasmania.

PN14

The service of the applications, Commissioner, was effected on March 12th by facsimile, March 12th being, of course, the McConnell Dowell applications, and on March 13th for the Nacap applications. I would seek to admit, if I may, just a facsimile confirmation sheet indicating that the faxes were in fact sent to the relevant parties.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you want this marked?

PN16

MR WADE: It is up to yourself, Commissioner.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: No, right.

PN18

MR WADE: The service was effected by facsimile, as I said. You will notice on both of those there is a handwritten notation of McConnell and a handwritten notation of Nacap. The top number that is underlined, 62313501 is the AMWU's fax number. The number underneath, 62345712 is in fact the AWU's fax number. You will find that those numbers are repeated on the 13th for the Nacap service.

PN19

As you are aware, Commissioner, the application before the Commission comes in the context of employees on the McConnell Dowell spreads having undertaken non-protected industrial action and we believe that a further continuance of that action will occur.

PN20

The unions also have initiated bargaining periods and verbally informed myself that notices of protected action in the form of an indefinite strike would be served on both McConnell Dowell and Nacap. That action, I have been informed by the union - by the AWU, is to commence at 0700 on Monday, 18 March 2002. Commissioner, if I may, I would seek to admit copies of those bargaining notices. The first bundle, Commissioner, is the McConnell Dowell notices, the second bundle is the Nacap Australia notices of initiation of bargaining period.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: I will mark the first document - oh, they are both dated 1 March - the first document in relation to McConnell Dowell as exhibit W1; and the notice in respect of Nacap as exhibit W2.

EXHIBIT W1 BARGAINING NOTICES RE McCONNELL DOWELL

EXHIBIT W2 BARGAINING NOTICES RE NACAP

PN22

MR WADE: Commissioner, if I may take you just briefly to a point of inconsistencies in the AWU notifications? You will find with both the McConnell Dowell and Nacap notifications the first notification dated 1 March cites three matters to be dealt with, and I will come back to these in detail later, if I may, I just wish to point out this inconsistency, and that is the cost of flights to attend work at point of engagement, rostering of start and finish time dates for work cycles and early completion bonus.

PN23

On the notification dated 4 March it has gone down to two issues to be dealt with in the agreement, that is a regional isolation allowance and an early completion bonus. As I said, Commissioner, I will take you back to those later. Industrial action has occurred now on four separate occasions on the McConnell Dowell spread. That was on 25 February, a mass meeting that delayed the commencement of work by approximately an hour; 27 February where a mass meeting turned into a 24-hour strike; 3 March where a mass meeting delayed the commencement of work by in excess of two hours; and 12 March where a mass meeting again culminated in a 24-hour strike.

PN24

We were informed following the 12th March mass meeting that an indefinite strike would be called, probably from Monday, 18 March. Therefore the catalyst for listing this application is the past industrial action coupled with the threat of impending or probable industrial action in the form of an indefinite strike as from 18 March. Following a meeting at Nacap two days ago up at Launceston we were again informed that we should expect by close of business that day a notification of protected action, that being in the form of an indefinite strike starting from Monday the 18th. We were given that information by Mr Flanagan who sits at the bar table today in both cases.

PN25

On that basis we had, we believe, no alternative other than to lodge section 127 applications on the basis that there is a certified agreement in place that is very comprehensive and that the certified agreements in the case of both companies contained no extra claims commitments. When this job was proposed, Commissioner, negotiations were entered into and a comprehensive MOU was signed off by all parties. That also went to the fact that there would be no additional claims.

PN26

Now, you may be aware, Commissioner, that DP Leary heard an application by McConnell Dowell on the 27th of the second for 127 orders, refused to grant the application for orders but recommended that the unions advise their members of their obligations under the Act. My understanding is that the AWU have complied with that recommendation of DP Leary's but it still resulted in a further 24-hour strike. By way of background, if I may, Commissioner, I would like to try and give the Commission an understanding of how a pipeline operates when it is being constructed and the impact that these mass meetings and 24 hour stoppages are having on the project itself.

PN27

Pipeline workers traditionally, Commissioner, work 10 hours a day, 28 days on, 7 days off. That time off is in fact paid at 38 ordinary hours. Typically, the hours are 7 in the morning until 5 at night. Pipelines, though, Commissioner, unlike the typical construction project are not confined to a designated area. They are not discrete, rather they are spread out over miles. You have only got to drive up to Launceston or across to Devonport to see a swathe cut through the ground where the pipeline will be going in.

PN28

If any part of the spread is not fully staffed, Commissioner, it tends to hold up the other part of that spread. We are only allowed a limited open trench at the present time. Well, at the present time we are only allowed a limited open trench. That means that if, for example, one group of employees is not on the job or is delayed getting to the right of way it can in fact stop the trenches up in front. The spaces aren't spacing the pipe, that is stopping the welders coming behind. That then in turn stops the trenches up in front, and so it goes all the way down.

PN29

It is in effect, Commissioner, a production line covering a huge geographic area, albeit a very narrow area on the size but rather lengthy. If you couple with this, Commissioner, the fact that pipelines tend to be built in the warmer months, especially in places like Tasmania. The reason for that is that there is a limited weather window. Any lost time in production that occurs at this end of the job has a knock-on effect when it comes to the back end of the project due to that weather window.

PN30

If we lose one day now it may, in effect, delay us five days, seven days at the other end of the job, depending on what the weather patters at that time are. By the unions holding mass meetings at 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning as has occurred on the McConnell Dowell spreads it adversely affects the project by delaying it more than 10 minutes if that is how long it runs over past 7, you then have to get people out to the right of way. In some cases that can take a couple of hours to drive out there. So that means that that spread is delayed. There may be people out there working but they cannot - or prepared to work but they cannot work because the other people in the crew aren't there.

PN31

As I said earlier, Commissioner, this project does have significant economic potential for Tasmania. It is bringing a cheaper fuel source here that the Governments say will create more jobs, hopefully bring more industry back to Tasmania and maybe stop some of the exodus. They also talk about things such as lessening pollution from domestic wood heaters, not to mention that eventually after these pipelines are in there will be reticulation taken to Launceston, Hobart and, I believe, the larger cities across the top of Tasmania. That of course will then create further jobs.

PN32

Having done my trade as a fitter and turner I think I would have preferred to have been a gas fitter if I knew then what I know now. Evidently there aren't too many of them down here. Now, given the scope of the project to the State of Tasmania, Commissioner, prior to the job commencing a comprehensive MOU and draft model agreement were negotiated between the AWU, the AMWU and AMMA. I would seek to hand that up, if I may at the present time.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: I will mark this exhibit W3.

EXHIBIT #W3 COMPREHENSIVE MOU AND DRAFT MODEL AGREEMENT

PN34

MR WADE: Thank you, Commissioner. It was the clear intent - understanding of the parties, when the MOU was negotiated that all issues and claims had been dealt with and the purpose was to ensure that the job was delivered on time and on budget without recourse to industrial action thereby maximising the benefits to the State of Tasmania. The MOU clearly shows the intent of the parties that resulted in the finalisation of the model agreement - that model agreement is attached to the back of the MOU as attachment 2 - and it was agreed that wherever possible agreements would be certified pursuant to section 170LL of the Act as greenfield.

PN35

Obviously in some cases people have had pre-existing work forces and that hasn't been possible. It was hoped, and I tend to believe, that by all parties the approach that was taken would stop additional claims, stop recourse to industrial action and ensure a smooth project. The majority of contractors on the project at present, Commissioner, do in fact have agreements in identical terms to attachment 2 of the MOU, that being the model agreement.

PN36

Now, in serving bargaining periods and the threat of serving notification of protected action the AWU has stated that they are relying on the Emwest decision to institute the bargaining periods and to pursue protected industrial action. As you are aware, Commissioner, the Emwest decision is currently under appeal. Now, I would submit that until that appeal is heard its precedent value is somewhat questionable. The current industrial action and the continuing threats I would submit are clearly distinguishable and different than those found in the Emwest decision.

PN37

The Federal Court in Emwest decided that unions and employees were able to take industrial action for the purpose of supporting a claim made in respect of matters which were not subject to an existing certified agreement. In the current circumstances, Commissioner, the certified agreement reinforced by the project MOU, which was signed by the unions, are in stark contrast to the Emwest agreement and specifically covers the matters, I would submit, that have been cited in the bargaining notices that have been served upon the companies.

PN38

In Emwest, as I understand it, the redundancy agreement that was found to be able to be pursued was a certified agreement which in fact had lapsed at the time. We don't have that situation here. The redundancy provisions were not included in a comprehensive certified agreement, that was the catalyst, I believe, the Court found for the union to be able to take protected industrial action in that matter as the agreement didn't cover the field.

PN39

I would submit, Commissioner, that the circumstances with the agreements in place, coupled with the MOU, clearly indicate that that is not the case. In the current circumstances, Commissioner, the certified agreement not only covers the field, if I can use that term, in the context of no extra claims, but specifically covers the areas that the unions have indicated on their notice of initiating of bargaining period which would be the issues to be discussed. Those being regional isolation allowance, and further in my submissions, Commissioner, I will suggest to you probably that a rose by any other name may smell like an air fare and an early completion bonus.

PN40

If I may go to the couple of points, and I would seek to hand up now, Commissioner, a recommendation by DP Leary. The matter in fact, was heard in this courtroom, I believe, in November of last year. It went to the issue of an early completion bonus on this project. Commissioner, at that time the parties had one outstanding issue from some three months of negotiation. That was in fact an early completion bonus. It was agreed between the parties that we would seek the assistance of DP Leary in sorting out the differences between the parties.

PN41

The parties agreed to a section 111AA, private arbitration. If I may take you to a couple of points in DP Leary's recommendation, Commissioner. On point 2, first paragraph:

PN42

Each party has recorded its intention to abide by the recommendation of the Commission as settlement of the matters in dispute.

PN43

At point 5 on the fourth line:

PN44

The proposed EBA was attached to an interim MOU which provides comprehensive detail and description of the on-shore pipeline project.

PN45

The matter was, as I said, arbitrated by DP Leary. The parties agreed to abide by the outcome and DP Leary quite rightly, in her recommendation at page 3 at point 7, makes the comment:

PN46

The parties are agreed on all issues other than those to be determined by this recommendation.

PN47

The only issue to be determined by the recommendation was in fact a completion bonus. For the unions to now serve bargaining notices claiming to rely on Emwest with regards to a completion bonus would seem to fly right in the face of the Emwest decision. If I may, just to reinforce the point, Commissioner, I would seek to hand up now, if I may, an interim MOU. This is the document that DP Leary referred to at page 2 of her recommendation and just to make the point, Commissioner, I would take you, if I may, to page 3 under introduction. I am sorry, Commissioner, do you wish to mark that as an exhibit?

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: I will mark that exhibit W4.

EXHIBIT #W4 INTERIM MOU

PN49

MR WADE: If I may, Commissioner, I take you to page 3 of that interim MOU marked as W4, to the second paragraph. Commencing on the second line it states:

PN50

The issue of the application of an early completion bonus is the only matter outstanding between the parties.

PN51

But the following paragraph, paragraph 3:

PN52

Following determination of the outstanding matter by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission the parties agree that the AIRCs decision will be reflected in the final MOU and model agreement that will be signed by the parties in resolution of all matters and shall replace this MOU.

PN53

At the following paragraph, the fourth paragraph:

PN54

The parties acknowledge and agree that the issue of an early completion bonus is the only provision contained in the interim MOU and model agreement that will be varied in the final MOU and agreement.

PN55

Commissioner, again it reinforces the fact that the claim by the union with regards to relying on Emwest for an early completion bonus is, I would submit, nothing but a furphy. If I might take you to one other page in the interim MOU, Commissioner, that is page 6, under 6.1 length of pipeline. It goes through basically what the position of AMMA and the unions were at the second and third paragraph. At the fifth paragraph it states:

PN56

The parties agree to have the matter arbitrated pursuant to section 111AA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and to accept the decision of the AIRC in the matter as final and binding.

PN57

Therefore we would submit that the claims contained in the bargaining notices have in fact been dealt with during the negotiations. Likewise, if I may take you back to exhibit - well, either of the agreements or exhibit W3, Commissioner. I draw your attention to the final page which is the page marked as schedule 1 in attachment 1, that being the model agreement and remembering that both McConnell Dowell and Nacap have agreements in identical terms.

PN58

If you have a look at the last paragraph you will see schedule 1 deals with rostered working week and a calculation of day rate but there is a paragraph down the bottom and it states:

PN59

In developing these aggregate wage rates specific consideration has been given to, amongst other things, base rate; allowances for disability and work conditions; tool allowance; locality payments, isolation.

PN60

As I stated earlier, Commissioner, the bargaining notices changed from 1 March to 4 March and I will take you to a few points late that I believe will indicate that the claim is not so much for an isolation allowance but for a paid air fare. Excuse me, Commissioner. Unfortunately there is a rampant flu floating around Tasmania, I just happen to be lucky enough to get it. With the compliments of McConnell Dowell employees I might also add.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: I think I will chair the conference from up here.

PN62

MR WADE: Probably wise, Commissioner, probably wise. Commissioner, the action as threatened impending or probable we would submit is in direct breach of a number of the clauses in both the certified agreement and the MOU. Given that there is a grievance procedure in place, there is no claims commitment that is in full and final settlement of all claims, we would submit that the Commission should weigh that very, very heavily when it comes time to exercise the discretion available to the Commission under section 127(2).

PN63

As I have stated the position advanced, shall I say, by the unions with regards to a reliance on the Emwest decision, in my submission it is a furphy. The circumstances do not exist. In the context of that, Commissioner, and also in the context of the exhibits that have been tabled, I would seek to take the Commission to a number of commitments, agreements, that were made in both the model agreement and the MOU. That model agreement, of course, has transferred into a McConnell Dowell agreement and a Nacap agreement.

PN64

Section 6.10 of the final MOU, which is marked as exhibit W3, gives a commitment by the parties to utilise the grievance procedure contained in the model agreement at appendix 2 of the MOU. It also gives a commitment that the parties - by the parties to ensuring that the job proceeded with no time lost due to employer relations issues. McConnell Dowell have already lost time, there have, I would submit, been attempts to get the Nacap people also out on the grass. However, that doesn't appear to have occurred yet.

PN65

If you then go to attachment 2, that being the model agreement, the disputes settlement procedure, at - I believe it is clause 28, Commissioner, states at (f):

PN66

Work shall continue normally without restriction. Neither party shall be prejudiced to final resolution.

PN67

Commissioner, work hasn't proceeded normally. We have, in fact, had stoppages. Clause 11 of the MOU recognises that the parties see this project as having a vital significance to the State of Tasmania. It is in fact the first major infrastructure project for almost two decades to occur in this State. It is critical, we would submit, to the generation of growth and economy that is flagging. Further, at clause 11 of the MOU, which is on page 13 - it is a continuity of supply provision, it states that:

PN68

The parties recognise the importance of the project, therefore there is a need for continuity of work in order to complete it on time and budget.

PN69

It goes on further at the second paragraph to say that:

PN70

No industrial action will be undertaken for the life of the project.

PN71

We have a situation where that commitment, if I can use that term, hasn't been adhered to. Clause 12 of that MOU also, in light of the Emwest decision which is on page 14 of W3, is headed No Additional Claims, and it states:

PN72

It is agreed that the union parties to this MOU will not seek to advance any additional claims from the date of the execution of this MOU.

PN73

If you then go, Commissioner, to clause 36 of the project agreement, which is appended as appendix 2, clause 36 is titled Final Settlement, No Further Claims:

PN74

In consideration of the benefits conferred under this agreement the unions and the members of the union covered by this agreement undertake that no further claims will be made upon the employer in respect of any employment rates and conditions during the period of the agreement.

PN75

By serving these bargaining notices, trying to legitimize unprotected action, again we have additional claims that were dealt with during the negotiation. As I have stated, Commissioner, the early completion bonus has been done to death before this Commission. I doubt anybody could argue, short of starting submissions with, "Once upon a time", that it is - was not dealt with during the negotiations.

PN76

Likewise, the isolation - regional isolation allowance as it now being called - on the reading of the agreement states that the wage rates cover isolation. If it is a claim for air fares it is an additional claim that was dealt with during the negotiations. If I could just at this point, Commissioner, make a statement of occurrences that have occurred with regards to McConnell Dowell. As a result of the first 24 hour stoppage a meeting was held here in Hobart last Friday with McConnell Dowell, myself, the AWU and the AMWU when McConnell Dowell put an offer to the unions that they would in fact pay air fares for Mainland labour that the company had approached to see if they wished to work on the project.

PN77

That was subsequently taken back to the mass meeting earlier this week. The AWU subsequently came back to us and said, "What about people that brought their own cars over?" Okay, we will pay the boat fare. Then it came back to retrospectivity. What about those who have flown themselves down here once? Okay, we can live with that. Then the final one came back, what about a kilometre rate for those that drove to Melbourne to jump on a ferry, irrespective of where they came from. Well, we had gone so far. I think we have gone a fair bit of the way.

PN78

The employees, as a result of that mass meeting, as I have already stated, then decided that it might have been a nice day to go fishing or something because they went on strike. We have stated from day one, Commissioner, that clause 14 of the agreement specifies that there are various points of engagement and that the issue of paid travel is also covered in the memorandum of understanding. It was covered at page 7 of the MOU at 6.2, Point of Engagement, Mobilisation and De-mobilisation. That is, of course, at exhibit W3. The clause under 6.2 states:

PN79

Further to clause 14 of the model agreement it is agreed that for employees whose place of residence ...(reads)... as it relates to the employee.

PN80

My notes of those negotiations indicate, Commissioner, that - I stated at that point and I actually have a recollection of it - that that would have to be with the employer. Mr Flanagan's position was, however, it had to be with the industry. Now, that can't work because some companies fly people, others don't. It has to be with the employer. If you then go to clause 14 of the agreement it states, under the heading of, Point of Engagement and Transport:

PN81

It is agreed that the point of engagement, mobilisation, de-mobilisation, shall be as follows ...(reads)... stage 3 southern section, Hobart.

PN82

At (b) it then states:

PN83

For the purpose of all work on the project the point of engagement shall be ...(reads)... prior to the commencement of employment.

PN84

Now, I think that is fairly clearly in its statement and its intent, Commissioner. If somebody was engaged on their application form out of Devonport, Launceston, that is the point of engagement. These people came down of their own volition seeking work. The union put an additional claim on us, we then sought to - McConnell Dowell then sought to redress that in some way. Now, the changing of the - if I may - the bargaining notices from a paid airfare to a regional isolation allowance in discussions with Mr Flanagan two days ago I finally found out what the regional isolation - sorry, I retract that, it was actually yesterday, I have been working rather long hours myself and I am sure the union officials at the bar table have as well.

PN85

It was in fact yesterday Mr Flanagan clarified for me what a regional isolation allowance was, and it was a paid airfare to and from the project to the place of normal residency. The regional isolation allowance also went to the fact that there should be a retrospective payment for any airfares incurred by employees since they commenced on the project and that the price of a ferry trip for car and body should be reimbursed and that a kilometre rate should be paid from the place of normal residency to Melbourne where you can grab the ferry.

PN86

Now, as I said earlier, Commissioner, the bargaining notices state - or change from a paid airfare to a regional isolation allowance, the regional isolation allowance, well, I would submit a rose by any other name may swell as sweet, but I can't see much difference. I am not going to go to, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck", Commissioner, I think that one has been done to death. Therefore, we would submit again on the basis of the contention of the unions that Emwest should be viewed as precedent, that that was dealt with at some length during negotiation of the agreement.

PN87

I can in fact produce today, if necessary, my day book from those negotiations where I have actually dug up where it was discussed. I can give you dates. Therefore, I would submit that the unions cannot rely on Emwest in any way, shape or form, firstly on the basis that the issues they seek to pursue have in fact been dealt with comprehensibly during the negotiations, and secondly, that the no extra claims commitment in both the MOU and certified agreements preclude any additional claims being made by the unions or the members or persons eligible to be their members.

PN88

Therefore, Commissioner, we would submit that the Emwest decision firstly being questionable in my submissions with regards to precedent value has no apparent relevance to these proceedings. Therefore we would submit that the action undertaken by the McConnell Dowell employees and the further threat of an indefinite strike as stated to myself, to Mr Bumpstead who is with us today and to Mr Frith I believe was at the meeting yesterday when it was stated, is therefore industrial action as defined under section 4.1 of the Act. Further, a current certified agreement is in place with a nominal expiry date at the end of the project or 31 December 2002, whichever is the earlier.

PN89

As I have stated earlier, and done to death, probably, Commissioner, Emwest has little or no relevance in these proceedings and therefore, having been notified verbally by the AWU that an indefinite strike is to commence at 0700 on Monday 18 March we would submit very strongly that that is in fact threatened, pending or probable non-protective industrial action as stated in section 127. That is clearly in breach of section 170MM of the Act with section 170MM being breached. We would submit that there is a trigger for the Commission to use the power conferred on them, albeit it discretionary, to issue an order to stop industrial action, and as the Act says, either happening, threatened, impending or probable.

PN90

We would say that threatened has already been made, impending, and we believe probable. As I said, Commissioner, just to sum up, while accepting that the exercise of that power is discretionary commitments have been given by the unions during negotiation of the MOU and the model agreement and we would submit they have not been adhered to. This project is significant to the State of Tasmania. We have weather windows that we are reliant on. We would therefore press the Commission to use its discretionary powers and issue orders pursuant to section 127(2) of the Act. Commissioner, I do have amended draft orders here if you wish to see them?

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: They are amended from those which were attached to the application, were they?

PN92

MR WADE: They are in fact, Commissioner.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, can you hand them up?

PN94

MR WADE: I have amended orders for both McConnell Dowell and Nacap. The amendments, Commissioner, basically go to the date of operation at point 6, and we seek the order to come into effect from 12 noon today and remain in force for a period of six months. If the Commission pleases.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. I will mark those draft orders, the first one in respect of McConnell Dowell as exhibit W5 and the draft in respect of Nacap as exhibit W6.

EXHIBIT W5 AMENDED DRAFT AGREEMENT RE McCONNELL DOWELL

EXHIBIT W6 AMENDED DRAFT AGREEMENT RE NACAP

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Flanagan?

PN97

MR FLANAGAN: Thank you, Commissioner. Firstly Commissioner can I say that we support the proposal that, having heard an outline, the parties should enter into conciliation rather than responding on a blow by blow basis to the submissions that Mr Wade has put to you today, Commissioner. He has used the adage "A rose by any other name is still a rose." Well, we think there are two expressions which are at the heart of the submissions that have been made by the employer. Firstly, never let the facts interfere with a good story; and secondly, that he who comes for equity come with clean hands.

PN98

We completely reject the assertion by Mr Wade that the union has participated in industrial action, that there is impending, probable or threatened industrial action which is not protected, or that we have unilaterally walked away from the memorandum of understanding between the parties. The history of the matter in brief is that, yes, there were discussions, a part of which was a memorandum of understanding between the parties to deal with the industrial matters for the project.

PN99

There was a difference of view about what the requirements were and the employees moved a resolution seeking assistance from the Commission to arbitrate the matter. The employer informed both the unions and the Commission that they were not prepared to have an arbitration in relation to the issue where we could not agree on the meaning of the EBA and MOU. As a consequence of that, the union and the employees have been compelled by the employer to further consider what alternative options are available under the Act and we have considered that and consistent with that it may well be that we will pursue protected industrial action.

PN100

The proposition that we have threatened industrial action in relation to McConnell Dowell I don't recall such an occasion. What I recall is an offer which was made by McConnell Dowell which was communicated to its employees, the employees did not accept or reject that offer but sought to be addressed by an official from the Mainland who is more experienced in pipeline construction than those of us in Tasmania. So there is no acceptance or rejection of the McConnell's offer at this point in time.

PN101

THE COMMISSIONER: Did they go on strike on 12th?

PN102

MR FLANAGAN: No, in our view they did not. What in fact occurred is that the employees attended a mass meeting at 8 o'clock that morning, we gave a report to the employees about the discussions. That meeting probably would have concluded around 10, 10.30 that morning. There are strict requirements on vehicles which may enter the work site or spreads, as they are called, and each of those vehicles must carry a triangle, if you like, a yellow triangle sticker which indicates the vehicle is authorised to enter that work site.

PN103

My understanding is that the position of the company, even though it was a meeting to report back the company's offer, was that it would be an unpaid meeting and that the company would not facilitate the attendance of the employees to that meeting by making vehicles available. In that situation the employees were unable to travel from where the meeting was to the workplace to enter the spread. So there was no work on that day but the resolution of the employees was to return to work as normal the following day when they would have access to the vehicles to attend the site.

PN104

And indeed, it is a requirement on the employer under the agreement, the enterprise agreement - and I will take you to the relevant clause, if I can take you to W3 you will see in clause 14(c):

PN105

Each employee shall be offered transport by the employer from the point of engagement to the site.

PN106

That is the relevant words. Now, that was not the case. It appears that - and it is not unprecedented but it appears the employer was not prepared to facilitate employees having a meeting to discuss this issue. So was it a strike in the sense that the employees decided not to go to work and they did that with a view to compelling the employer to accept a position? No, it was not.

PN107

So there has been a lot of complaint by Mr Wade about industrial action which has occurred and it is detailed in the application which is before you which is simply in our view a nonsense. It suggests that work has been delayed by times which, in our view, would be impossible. Our view, Commissioner, is that the application which is before you is quite spurious and in fact what is contained within the application is baseless. If I can illustrate that by taking you to the application in respect of McConnell Dowell, if I can take you to point 10 of the grounds and reasons in that application. It states that:

PN108

McConnell Dowell Constructors Australia Pty Limited was contracted to construct stages one and two of the Tasmanian Gas Pipeline Project.

PN109

We accept that that in fact is correct. It then continues:

PN110

Continuation of the industrial action is likely to impact on the provisions of those services which may then have a serious and detrimental impact on the Tasmanian economy.

PN111

There is no industrial action happening at all. Clause 9 states that industrial action which is continuing is unprotected industrial action. Again, there is no industrial action and any industrial action which was taken in pursuit of the claims identified in the bargaining notice, as I understand it, would be in accordance with the Act. At point 8 it states:

PN112

A meeting involving the unions and McConnell Dowell took place in Hobart on 8 March 2002. An agreement was reached in respect of the issue of paid air fares which the parties acknowledged was in full and final settlement of all current and future additional claims.

PN113

Yes, there were discussions. Those discussions reached an in-principle position which we took back to the employees. The employees at this stage have neither accepted nor rejected the offer and have sought, as I have indicated previously, that they be addressed by a pipeline organiser. At point 7 it states:

PN114

The industrial action relates to claims for paid air fares, early completion bonus paid kilometres rates -

PN115

which we submit were all claims dealt with during the negotiation of the certified agreement. Again, there is no industrial action and in any event, if we were pursuing industrial action consistent with what we believe the requirements of Emwest are, then the industrial action would deal with matters not regulated by the current certified agreement. In point 5 the grounds and reasons state that the agreement is the McConnell Dowell agreement which was certified under division 2, section 170LL of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and on 20 December 2001.

PN116

It then identifies the parties. We accept that that ground or reason, if you like, is actually correct, we have actually got one right, which is a tick for them. They then say the industrial action is in breach of the certified agreement currently in force and operative until the completion of the work, whichever is the earlier. There is no industrial action taking place in breach of the agreement. I have to reinforce that, there is actually nothing happening at the moment. They say in point 3:

PN117

Those McConnell Dowell Constructors Pty Limited employees participating in industrial action, are AWU and AMWU members.

PN118

Again, there is nobody participating in industrial action. At point 2 they say the refusal of those employees to engage in normal working duties means that those employees are not undertaking work activities as required and as such their action constitutes non-protected industrial action. Again, there is absolutely nothing happening, there is no industrial action, there is no stoppage of work. They complain in point 1 that on 12 March a further mass meeting was held which resulted in a 24-hour strike.

PN119

You are aware of the purpose of that meeting. The purpose of that meeting was to report back to the employees of McConnell Dowell the form of the discussions which we had had with the company on the previous Friday and your are aware already from the previous submissions that I have made to you, of the difficulties which we encountered in going to the spreads so there was no strike, as they put it.

PN120

So I think that illustrates what we would see as the lack of bona fides of the application which is currently before you and gives you a flavour for our view of the submissions in a general sense that have been made by the employer, so in our view, whilst we reserve the opportunity to respond to the points that have been raised by Mr Wade in detail, in our view the most constructive way forward would be to take the position advanced by the Commission to enter into conciliation and see if the matters which are at the heart of all of this can be worked through.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: I read with some interest my press clippings, yesterday afternoon and one was from the Hobart Mercury quoting yourself, I think. Was that an accurate report?

PN122

MR FLANAGAN: I haven't seen it, Commissioner. The situation is that journalists will report that part of interviews that suit their stories.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: What do you say about the pending industrial action?

PN124

MR FLANAGAN: We have said to Nacap that it is our intention to file notices of protected industrial action and that the operative date for that protected industrial action would be Monday at 7 am but that action, I am advised by our national office which is more familiar with this process, the Tasmanian branch not having a long history with section 127 applications, that the course of action which they propose in respect of this matter is consistent with the requirements of the Act.

PN125

We have not made such a suggestion to McConnell Dowell. In respect of McConnell Dowell we are simply trying to put into place some arrangements so that the employees can be addressed by an experienced pipeline official which is what they have requested in considering whether to accept or reject the offer which the company has made as referred to last Friday.

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Cooper?

PN127

MR COOPER: Commissioner, if I may, with respect to this application I take some comfort in your initial comments about the substance of the issue is what should be trying to be dealt with and we also submit that it would be appropriate to have some conciliation so I will reserve, you know, substantial submissions on the basis that we will be adjourning at the conclusion of these submissions, into some type of conciliation to try and resolve the issues because I think, you know, you have heard a lot of information today but I don't know whether it helps because the unions have undertaken to serve a number of notices of initiations of bargaining, that is a fact, right, and the orders that are sought here today don't cover all those and I don't know that there was one submission made about my role in all this but I am certainly named in both orders.

PN128

Unfortunately other industrial matters have prevented me from attending all the meetings and I have only attended one which was held on a Sunday morning and that meeting went for about an hour and saw a resumption of work and it was delayed a little bit, but the communication process on this job is a difficult one and the workers dictate to us that they want to be met at 6 o'clock in the morning, an hour before they start work, so you meet them in the dark. It is dark when you meet, you can't see them, and you talk - you are just talking to a group of people that are just shadows and we have done that, we have done that once and that wasn't easy but anyway we did that, and we try and communicate the issues and the issues are that air fares, it is definitely an issue, Mr Wade has touched on that, and as Mr Flanagan said, if you come to this Commission and you want to throw stones well then give you the full picture and you know, he has relied on an MOU which is a document with no standing in this Commission other than it forms an exhibit, he has relied on that for the purposes of his argument, but he hasn't told you the full story about where they walked away from it for the purposes of defending our claims either and clearly in that MOU it says that air fares will be paid to employees on the basis of if an employee has them before.

PN129

Never mentioned that to you. Neither did he mention in that too that all contractors that come onto this job would have an agreement with the unions. Now, I can name several contractors that are on that job now that don't have agreements. Now, we can tit for tat here all day, that is not going to solve the problem. The problem is we do have an issue that needs to be resolved and we can have a technical argument about the validity or otherwise of Emwest, I don't know that that takes us anywhere because at the end of the day that is the subject matter that has to be tried.

PN130

Now, we are here today with orders that have been presented to me on the day, not substantially different to the ones that were presented the other day to achieve stoppage of work and to last for six months and they specifically name me, yet do not have any submissions in terms of my union's role in terms of this dispute nor have we heard any accusations levelled against my union, it has all been word of mouth from what Mr Flanagan has said. So I would suggest rather than go tit for tat on them, because if they want to do that then we can trouble you for an hour or so in terms of little issues that aren't fixed and little issues that are substantial issues in the scheme of things in terms of amenities, in terms of health and safety, in terms of issues on the job, so as Mr Flanagan said if you come here, come here with all the facts because I am sure if I was to provide you with substantial argument and evidence of that then I may very well get a supportive decision from you.

PN131

So why we are here today, I think, is to fix an issue and the issue is an industrial one and the issue comes about because there are a lot of people that are working on this pipeline that have worked on pipelines before. They know what they get and they know what they should get and what they shouldn't get and what they have asked for is what they normally get and I understand in part that has been agreed to. There was a meeting held last Friday between ourselves, representatives from McConnell Dowell, representatives of AMMA, my union and the AWU and there was also some presentations made by some other contractors and there are another lot of contractors that have been served on this basis that AMMA will be totally watching brief or they will support the position taken by McConnell Dowell as the principal contractor for this spread.

PN132

So we haven't finished those dialogues. In terms of Nacap, we have written to Nacap, they have written back to us that they are happy to meet with us. We haven't had that opportunity yet to meet with Nacap, and that is not their fault, because we have been tied up with an industrial situation in Hobart of some significance so we haven't had the chance to talk to them.

PN133

So in terms of dialogue it hasn't been exhausted yet but the stick has been held at my head to fix this and the stick has been held, but it is going to be a definite stick that you won't do anything. Well, you know, there is always a two-way street in these games. So rather than, you know, bore you with all the W4s, all the MOUs, all those sorts of arguments I think we need to get to the guts of the problem, the guts of the problem we have, a disagreement between the unions and the companies that are on that pipeline as to the conditions.

PN134

And in terms of the submissions made about the notices of bargainings, the AMWU notice of bargaining has always been a two-point notice of bargaining in terms of initiation of the new one; it always only had two points in it, regional isolation and the other. So, you know, there was no mention made of that, we have not confused the issue here at all. We served one notice and we have from the Commission eight bargaining periods were lodged on 4 March and they were for Pipeline Drillers, which is a contractor; Senvin Welding, which is a contractor; A.J. Lucas; McConnell Dowell which is a principal; Colin Phillips; Nacap; Co Drilling; Steel Test.

PN135

Now, the issue that we have with those hasn't been properly explored yet. We have had some preliminary discussions and yet prior to those discussions being exhausted you are now being asked to consider an application for orders to say, well, look, it's all over Red Rover, that's the deal. I think that is unfair and I think if you are to exercise some discretion here it should be to exercise discretion into an adjournment so we can try and sort through the issue.

PN136

And as Mr Flanagan has said, the issue of conciliation on this in forms of, you know, 111AA, was offered; it was rejected. For whatever reasons it was rejected. So it is really a difficult ask to then come here to the Commission and say, look, we've got an industrial problem, the normal protocols that we observe for fixing we are not going to take up, in fact, we're just going to use a big stick. I think it is totally inappropriate. In terms of other forms of process, I reject the submissions of Mr Wade made earlier in the piece: there is no other options than a 127.

PN137

In terms of my role as official, I have been an official in Tasmania since 1988, I have had to deal with three 127 applications, two have been by AMMA, in terms of the onshore component of this pipeline in the last week and one was for the offshore component based on unions seeking right of entry on the boat. My history of these, it is non existent until this job came up and it is unfortunate that in terms of how you do things in Tasmania they can't resort to the normal protocols that the unions have observed and this is always an opportunity to lodge a section 99 to have the dispute heard and that would give the Commission opportunities to do other things if the parties are willing.

PN138

So if the parties are willing to resolve this dispute I believe it can be resolved. There are a few issues between us and I am sure we can sort them out with a level head guiding both the parties, because there does seem to be some intransigence on that side of the table to fix this issue, although I must say discussions with the contractors have been positive and hopefully will realise a result. As Mr Flanagan said, though, my union hasn't been afforded the opportunity to report to our members and in terms of the McConnell Dowell spread we do have a list from the company suggesting that there a minimum 4 AMWU members employed in that spread. That spread employs, I think, some 120-odd people.

PN139

So when you look at the list that was provided, one, two, yes, four mechanics, four mechanics on that spread. So of a total of 156 people the AMWU has four classifications that are covered and they are Mainland people. I haven't had a chance to talk to them about whether their issues have been resolved and I wasn't in attendance at the last meeting. And I will confirm to you the issue of meeting and then not having a vehicle to get to the job is a fact, if you don't have the vehicles supplied by the company. There are some 80 vehicles, I understand being used on the McConnell Dowell spread, they are all 4-wheel drive hire vehicles and they are coded so you just can't access their site willy-nilly.

PN140

So if those vehicles are gone, then you are stuck, you can't walk on the job. So that is a relevant factor. I would suggest that notwithstanding all of that the submission of some of them, I think, were a little bit spurious, a little bit down the wrong track, notwithstanding any of that I reserve my right to make substantial submissions or indeed to obtain counsel to make submissions for me in this regard. This is a serious application, it is very serious and it is one that I think in my experience of previous Commissioners and the way the Commission runs, it is as you have outlined earlier, let us try and sort the problem now because issuing of orders is a substantial thing that needs to be taken on board.

PN141

So I would request an adjournment, explore the options open to us and hopefully we would settle the matter. In any event, if we were to come back on then I would be making substantial submissions, that is not appropriate to issue orders and probably seeking leave to have someone represent my union on it. If the Commission pleases.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Wade?

PN143

MR WADE: Thank you, Commissioner. If I could just take the Commission to a few points in the submissions of both Mr Flanagan and Mr Cooper. Mr Flanagan rejects that industrial action has occurred, he rejects that action is impending, threatened or probable. The situation is that - I will refer to my day book, if I may, Commissioner, I tend to write everything in this and it happens to follow me around like a lost puppy dog. If I can refer to a conversation that occurred on 12th March in the office of Mr Ric Boreham at McConnell Dowell's depot in Devonport.

PN144

Meeting commenced at 7.55, one hour after informal commencement of work. Meeting broke up at 9.40. Report-back occurred at 10.05. Statement by Mr Flanagan: Will give -

PN145

obviously you -

PN146

notice of indefinite industrial action, possibly Monday.

PN147

Sorry, Commissioner, 13th - oh, this damn day book, it always comes back to haunt me.

PN148

At a meeting at the Nacap offices, Launceston Airport, Mr Flanagan stated that a notice of protected industrial action will be served this afternoon.

PN149

I asked what the protected industrial action would be, he stated:

PN150

A withdrawal of labour from 0700 Monday -

PN151

that being 18th -

PN152

for an indefinite period.

PN153

Now, in reply to a question of yours, Commissioner, and that was with regards to a report in the Mercury and as to whether it was accurate, let me say that I have been living in beautiful down-town Launceston for the last 10 weeks so I don't see too much of the Mercury or any other newspaper.

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: I could see it in Sydney.

PN155

MR WADE: I am not going to go there, Commissioner. I do not know what was in that report. I don't know what Mr Flanagan was created as saying but I do know that in response to a question he did state that he had notified Nacap of protected action but not McConnell Dowells. It was done in exactly the same form. It was done verbally as a result of meetings. Is industrial action impending or probable or is it industrial action? If one refers to the good book, Commissioner, under section 4:

PN156

Industrial action is defined -

PN157

and you know the definition as well as I do -

PN158

performance of work in a manner different from that which is customarily performed ...(reads)... or a delay in the performance of work.

PN159

That is what the Act says. We have a situation where we have had two - no, where are they - didn't go to meetings but they have resulted in industrial action, I submit, within the definition of section 4(1) of the Act. As for Mr Flanagan's claim that as a result of the meeting on Monday that there were no vehicles available for people to get back out on the spreads, I reject that. There were cars parked everywhere. Sorry, there were 4-wheel drive vehicles, tagged with a yellow triangle, they were everywhere.

PN160

Some of the employees drive to the depot and pick up a lift from there. Those vehicles were at the depot. There was 80, 100 of them, could have started a Toyota auction up them - probably make more money than I make in this game, Commissioner. So again, I reject the claim by Mr Flanagan that his people couldn't get out on the right of way because those vehicles were there. And he is correct in what he says, there is a strict requirement that vehicles have to be environmentally checked, etcetera, and only vehicles that are marked with a yellow triangle can get on the right of way, but they were there.

PN161

As for his submission that the application is spurious, he stated that no industrial action is taking place. The Act, under section 127 contemplates threatened, pending or probable. We say it is threatened, pending or probable. Mr Flanagan refers to the fact that he wants to have another meeting with a pipeline specialist. Well, that is going to cause another delay to work if it does not cause again another strike. That is pending, that is probable.

PN162

Now, with regards to Mr Cooper's submissions, he states that the orders sought had not come from all the companies served. Quite frankly, Commissioner, most of the companies served and their employees couldn't care less; they will not go out on strike. Simple as that. Now, I would never presume that a union would just go out to a workforce and say, "You're on the grass, boys." I am sure that would never happen, however, the workforce of most of the contractors don't care, they will work through and they have continued to work through.

PN163

So in our opinion, there is no threat of industrial action - or very little threat of industrial action being threatened, impending or probable with those contractors. As for Mr Cooper's statement that he doesn't know why he is noted, we had a hearing here a few weeks ago before DP Leary, Commissioner, and Mr Cooper made the statement, he wasn't named in those proceedings, that he would support the AWU and if there was any - I think he used the term "attack" on the AWU, well, he'd better be incorporated in it as well.

PN164

So I have just simply done what Mr Cooper requested of me, Commissioner. As for statements that all contractors would have EBAs on the project, yes, at the present time, though both unions are refusing to sign off agreements. Now, I don't know where that leaves us, quite frankly. With regards to Mr Cooper's statement that all employees get paid airfares, no they don't. Some companies pay airfares, some don't. Some pay airfares in certain circumstances, such as in isolated areas - Cooper Basin in South Australia, isolated.

PN165

We went through a list of where McConnell Dowell had paid airfares and where they had not and it always came down to the basis of isolation. Mr Cooper also made the statement about we should only come here with clean hands with regards to the offer of section 111AA offer that had been rejected by the company for private arbitration. As of last Friday McConnell Dowell had sought to settle the matter and we got hit with another day's strike on Monday.

PN166

Mr Cooper also makes the point that the parties were willing to resolve the issue. Well, we sought to, on Friday. Now, again, on Monday we had a strike. I reject again the claims by Mr Flanagan that there were no vehicles there because it looked like a Toyota showroom - either that or the 4-wheel drive exhibition. That is my responses to the submissions of both Mr Flanagan and Mr Cooper, if the Commission pleases.

PN167

MR FLANAGAN: Commissioner, we hadn't anticipated there would be a response, as we indicated, we were only giving a general response to the comments made by Mr Wade and we continue to reserve our right to respond to those comments in detail. I think it is now coming on to 5 to 12, what we would be seeking is the opportunity to have a five minute adjournment to re-fuel the parking meters, as it were, and then if possible to proceed into conciliation.

PN168

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN169

MR COOPER: I support that.

PN170

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Mr Wade, are you happy with that?

PN171

MR WADE: Commissioner, I am not on a parking meter so I really - I do oppose the adjournment. I am only joking, Commissioner.

PN172

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Look, I will adjourn for a short time and resume in private conference.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.55am]

RESUMED [1.58pm]

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: In this matter, Australian Mines and Metals Association have sought orders pursuant to section 127 of the Workplace Relations Act to stop and prevent industrial action by employees of McConnell Dowell Constructors Pty Limited and Nacap Australia Pty Limited employed on the Tasmanian gas pipeline project.

PN174

Having heard formal submissions on behalf of the companies and the unions earlier today and met with the parties in private conference I make the following recommendations:

PN175

(1) that Nacap and the unions meet as soon as practicable to confer on the issue of a regional isolation allowance. I note that the company has committed to resolve all issues in relation to this matter;

PN176

(2) that the unions meet with their members employed by McConnell Dowell Constructors (Australia) Pty Limited as early as practicable to report back the outcome of negotiations and of today's proceedings in the Commission. I expect that the company will facilitate the conduct of this meeting.

PN177

(3) The Commission will re-list the matter for report-back in Launceston next Wednesday, 20 March, at 10 am.

PN178

(4) In making this recommendation I place on record that the issue of a completion bonus is addressed in clause 2 of the certified agreements applying to both companies and binding upon their employees in the following terms:

PN179

There is not and will not be any consideration by the parties of an early completion bonus.

PN180

Furthermore, Deputy President Leary, in consent arbitration proceedings before the Commission, and in a resultant recommendation arising from those proceedings, stated on 22 November 2001:

PN181

I have considered the submissions presented by the parties and have formed the view that employees engaged on the TNGP, the subject of this recommendation, should not receive a completion bonus.

PN182

(5) I am not persuaded that section 127 orders are appropriate at this time, however, I will re-list the applications lodged by AMMA at short notice if requested.

PN183

(6) Finally, the Commission directs that work will proceed as normal whilst the terms of this recommendation are carried out.

PN184

These proceedings will stand adjourned until 10 am, Wednesday, 20 March in Launceston.

ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 20 MARCH 2002 [2.03pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #W3 COMPREHENSIVE MOU AND DRAFT MODEL AGREEMENT PN34
EXHIBIT #W4 INTERIM MOU PN49