C2002/1927, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 1879 (30 May 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON

C2002/1927

THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION

and

TOMAGO ALUMINIUM COMPANY PTY LIMITED

Application under section 170LW of the Act
for settlement of dispute (certification of
agreement) re failure to recognise progression
of the Ingot/Chain Operators from Grade 3 to
Grade 4

SYDNEY

10.01 AM, TUESDAY, 14 MAY 2002

PN1

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: May I have appearances in this matter.

PN2

MR J. KEEN: If the Commission pleases, I appear on behalf of the Australian Workers Union, Newcastle branch, and with me is MR A. ROBERTSON, MR H. McFARLANE and MR P. BRYSON.

PN3

MR M. STEVENS: If the Commission pleases, I appear for and on behalf of Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Limited and with me is MR R. WITHERS.

PN4

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Stevens. Mr Keen, this is your application and all I know of it is that which is contained in the notification under the dispute settlement procedure in the EBA. Is there anything more you think I need to know about the background to this dispute and where you have got to today?

PN5

MR KEEN: No, your Honour, what I would ask of the Commission, if the Commission pleases, is that we go into private conference. I have Mr Robertson with me today who initiated the dispute and he has got all the background and the detail which would assist the Commission.

PN6

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Mr Stevens, is there something you want to put on transcript?

PN7

MR STEVENS: Yes, there is, your Honour, if I may, just a preliminary issue. Tomago Aluminium has followed an agreed and internal review process for the revaluation of the Ingot/Chain Operators classification in the cast house. In addition to this agreed and internal process there is an agreement between the company and the AWU for an independent valuation by an external consulting company, and if may hand those documents up for your Honour.

PN8

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I might just identify the documents that you have provided to me. The first is the document dated 24 September 2001, two pages, it is titled, Process for Regrading Review of an Existing Wages Position. I will mark that for the purposes of identification and it will become Tomago 1.

MFI #TOMAGO 1 DOCUMENT DATED 24/09/2001

PN9

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The other document, actually it is a bundle of documents, comprises an agreement between Tomago and the AWU concerning Ingot/Chain Operators Assessment of Grade, it appears to be an email message dated 6 February 2002, and similarly another email message dated 5 February 2002. Each of those documents together will become Tomago 2.

MFI #TOMAGO 2 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS

PN10

MR STEVENS: Thank you, your Honour. As per this agreement, the outcome of this assessment shall be final and binding on both parties.

PN11

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Where is that, which document should I be looking at?

PN12

MR STEVENS: It is the agreement between the company and the AWU, it is in Tomago 2.

PN13

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What date was that entered into?

PN14

MR STEVENS: It is undated but I am led to believe it was on 7 February 2002. An independent valuation was carried out by the Hay Consulting Group and the outcome was presented at a meeting on 28 March 2002. The union representatives raised some concerns with this outcome and it was agreed that a representative from the Hay Consulting group would re-evaluate the position. This re-evaluation was presented to the union representatives on 11 April 2002. The union representatives did not agree with the outcome despite agreement between the company and the AWU. We are advised that the union would be disputing this outcome and would make application to the Commission to have this matter heard.

PN15

We believe that we have an agreed internal process and also an agreement to resolve this classification dispute and this agreement and process should be adhered to. I refer your Honour to a decision by Commissioner Foggo on 2 December 1997, C No 37462 of 1997, STA Components and AFMEPKIU, print K131, where the Commissioner says:

PN16

I do not intend to interfere with the process which has been carried out. I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence and submissions of the parties that a correct evaluation has occurred.

PN17

On the last page:

PN18

The parties have in place an agreed process to resolve classification disputes and these should be adhered to.

PN19

On the basis of this brief submission and documentation presented to the Commission, we would respectfully ask the Commission to dismiss this application, your Honour. Thank you.

PN20

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, tell me this, what do you understand to be the reservation each party has expressed in the agreement to be able to progress to, and I quote, "the next step in the dispute settlement resolution procedure"?

PN21

MR STEVENS: It is our understanding that was during the evaluation process.

PN22

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You say that has come and gone, do you?

PN23

MR STEVENS: It has, not after the process has been evaluated. That is substantiated by the emails signed by Mr Phil Hamilton, the then senior site delegate, who actually signed the document, where he says:

PN24

The review will be carried out by the Hay Group and our members will be represented by two ingot operators ...(reads)... right to withdraw during the process and take the matter to the Commission if they are not satisfied with the way the review is being conducted.

PN25

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. We will go into conference in a minute but Mr Keen, are there any other documents you think I should have that outline what the parties might have agreed as being the process that you were embarking upon?

PN26

MR KEEN: Your Honour, there are some documents here you ought to have, there's a whole array, I would make them available to the Commission during conference if that is appropriate.

PN27

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, well, at some stage later if they need to be identified in transcript and marked, we can do that.

PN28

MR KEEN: Your Honour, just before we go into conference I would like to respond to one of the statements Mr Stevens made. Could I take your Honour to the last paragraph of Tomago 2, Mr Hamilton who Mr Stevens said is no longer with the company was a site delegate, unfortunately I haven't been able to contact him but what the delegates are telling me, and the members, the last paragraph on that document, that if either party believes the assessment is not being conducted in an appropriate manner we could go to the next step of the dispute resolution. That's why I have notified the Commission, your Honour, the delegates have told me they don't believe at the end of the process that it was appropriately addressed and that's why I have notified the Commission.

PN29

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. We will adjourn into conference.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED [10.10am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

MFI #TOMAGO 1 DOCUMENT DATED 24/09/2001 PN9
MFI #TOMAGO 2 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS PN10