C2002/2708, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 2187 (13 June 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114J MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
DX 305 Melbourne Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N VT04281
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER SMITH

C2002/2708

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL,
ELECTRONIC, ENERGY,
INFORMATION, POSTAL,
PLUMBING AND ALLIED
SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
- COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION -
VICTORIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND SERVICES BRANCH

and

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Notification pursuant to Section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re the company's refusal to grant
right of entry at the work site known as
Proactiveone, Burwood, Victoria

MELBOURNE

10.05 AM, FRIDAY, 31 MAY 2002

PN1

MR L. COOPER: Cooper.

PN2

MR C. JONES: I appear on behalf of the company.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Cooper.

PN4

MR COOPER: Commissioner, we currently have a dispute with the management of a section of the Telstra as indicated, known as Proactiveone. This section or area is basically organised around call centre type activities, sales, telemarketing, in-bound customer call traffic, and the building is at level 2, Burwood Highway, Burwood. The dispute is basically about access to the lunchroom in the area for the purposes of consulting with our members and any potential members. We did not require the area for meetings but simply as the most effective access to the largest number of employees during their breaks.

PN5

We are seeking from the Commission, pursuant to the right of entry provisions, section 285C of the Act, to enable the CEPU to utilise the lunchroom for the purpose of those - as I mentioned, talking to members and potential members. The management of the area concerned, Proactiveone, has insisted only since Thursday, 23 May 2002, that any visits to the site need to take place in a conference room known as the concert hall and not the lunchroom.

PN6

The disadvantages to the CEPU members and employees are several: that anyone entering the concert hall during this time are clearly identified as being interested in the union and this is a significant discouragement to attend. The time available to talk to the union is reduced if one has lunch first and then proceeds to the concert hall. Lunchtimes are generally one half hour in length. The lunchroom has considerable use during lunchtime and there is more effective consultation with members and potential members than is created by sending out a notice of a meeting hoping the notice will be widely distributed and then hoping people will remember or be able to attend a meeting in a management-selected room in the very centre of the work area.

PN7

The selected conference room is absolutely central to the work area and is windowed almost all round and is locally known as the fishbowl. This renders it most unsuitable as a union meeting room from the point of view of employees and members. The CEPU has used the lunchroom on many occasions in the past with no protest or complaint from management. Unfortunately, we can't document all of those occasions. However, we have paperwork from some of the most recent occasions. I just table those notices as exhibits if I could, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #CEPU1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS APPEARING TO BE E- MAILS

PN8

MR COOPER: Now, I myself have been using the lunchroom to meet with members and potential members on a number of occasions, for example, as I have demonstrated in those e-mails, 18 April, 11 April and 4 April, and my organisers have used it on many occasions previously. You will note from 17 April notice, if you can turn that up there somewhere, that it went directly to Mr Wooster himself, the manager of the area. I visited that day, as usual, and spent two hours in the lunchroom.

PN9

You will also notice in the e-mail sent to managers about the 17 April 2002 visit, which I have included there, an e-mail from Mr Wooster, that while Mr Wooster comments on many things in the e-mail, he clearly accepts that the union is to be located in the lunchroom; he had been notified of that. We find it necessary here to examine just what it might be that has led to management's sudden change of heart in the last few days and to do that we need to backtrack just a little.

PN10

In arranging the 4 April visit there, which you will see, to a Ms Boothey, who was acting in Mr Wooster's position at the time, our delegate, Ms Butler, was made aware that Mr Wooster had advised Ms Boothey in a telephone conversation which discussed the CEPU visit notification not to agree to the visit by Mr Cooper until he, Mr Wooster, was back on deck. Ms Boothey advised our delegate of Mr Wooster's advice. Our delegate in turn reminded the acting manager of the Workplace Relations Act requirements, which had been met, and the actions that might follow from a refusal.

PN11

Ms Boothey advised Mr Wooster of our delegate's response and the visit went ahead as notified. Now, Ms Boothey continued to act as manager for approximately three weeks, I understand. Mr Wooster, upon his return, received notification of the next CEPU visit, which was to take place on 18 April, and that notice is there. On 17 April, Mr Wooster circulated an e-mail to all sales team managers regarding the visit, as I mentioned earlier, and you have that 17 April e-mail from Mr Wooster.

PN12

You will note that whilst Mr Wooster's e-mail demonstrates a considerable inclination towards discouraging attendance at the meeting, and that is certainly how it was read by at least some of his managers, and it could be said to be belligerent, however, it makes no objection to the use of the lunchroom for the purpose of the visit. On 22 May a conciliation hearing was held in the AIRC relating to an unfair dismissal notification by CEPU. The unfair dismissal related to a member of staff who works under a particular team leader in Mr Wooster's management area.

PN13

I am raising this to try and examine why there has been such a late change of heart by the management regarding the lunchroom. At the conciliation hearing, much information was exchanged, some of which the team leader and Mr Wooster may have taken considerable exception to. That hearing, I repeat, was on 22 May at 1.30 pm. On 22 May at 4.12 pm, about three hours later, Mr Wooster dispatched a fax to my office which asked for another advice of the visit to Burwood and notifying that he had booked the concert hall for the visit, which obviously demonstrates that he had already been notified. I would like to pass up that notice as an exhibit, if I may, Commissioner.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cooper, I am puzzled.

PN15

MR COOPER: Puzzled?

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I am puzzled as to why you make a notification and why you want to constrain your right of entry.

PN17

MR COOPER: I was hoping I didn't.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: You have got right of entry. You can go anywhere in the premises if you comply with the Act. Why are you here? The employer can't refuse it.

PN19

MR COOPER: I guess that was my view too but the problem is - - -

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: They have to make an application if they want to stop you doing something.

PN21

MR COOPER: Okay. I might be wasting my time here. Perhaps if I could just say, Commissioner, the problem was that I turned up to the building - and I intend to raise this question - the notice we got to change the venue was very short and I turned to, in fact, hopefully go to the lunchroom still, but the manager met me there and refused to allow me the security pass arrangements to get in. So in the end I - - -

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let me just check with Mr Jones. Mr Jones, do you disagree with me that if he complies with the Act, he has got right of entry?

PN23

MR JONES: I don't think anyone could argue with that basic proposition. As to what exactly that means, I think that is open for further debate.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: What? That his right of entry can be constrained by the decision of management?

PN25

MR JONES: No. Certainly we acknowledge that if a union is acting in accordance with the provisions of the Act, they are entitled to enter the premises for the purpose of holding discussions.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, as long as they don't interrupt work.

PN27

MR JONES: Yes, correct.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: And that can be any room?

PN29

MR JONES: No.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: No?

PN31

MR JONES: No, Commissioner.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you direct me to the Act where it gives the employer the power to make such a constraint on the right of entry?

PN33

MR JONES: Commissioner, there is a long line of case law, of which I know you are aware because you featured prominently in, which goes to the rights of the union to enter the premises and then concentrates on, once they have that right as per the Act, where exactly they are to meet employees. The Act certainly focuses on the issue of the timing of the visit. That is, it has got to be during meal breaks. However, the case law establishes - and I think it is a direct quote from you, Commissioner - that where an employer and an employee and the union disagree on the location of where a meeting is to be held, then the question is whether the employer's actions are such as to undermine the essential purpose of the right of entry provisions. According to that principle, Commissioner, that is a real debate between the parties in this case.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: But Mr Cooper, does he bear the onus of wanting to constrain his right of entry?

PN35

MR JONES: Under the Act either party has the ability under 285G to seek whatever they like from the Commission. Whether the Commission grants it to us - - -

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Is another matter.

PN37

MR JONES: - - - is another matter and that is for Mr Cooper, not for me, to decide.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thanks, Mr Cooper.

PN39

MR COOPER: Thanks, Commissioner. If I could just hand that up as the next exhibit, thank you.

EXHIBIT #CEPU2 LETTER DATED 22/05/2002 FROM MR WOOSTER TO MR COOPER

PN40

MR COOPER: Commissioner, as I indicated, the notice asked me for an official advice. Well, we had already given advice through our delegate and I assume he believes an official advice is one that comes from the secretary. So he had already been noticed, and he says there that he is making the concert hall available to us. Now, about an hour after this fax, at 5.30, the manager left a message on my mobile to say - to the same effect as the fax. Now, I responded to the telephone message. Because I hadn't been to office to sight the fax, I responded to the telephone message with a fax of my own, which I would like to also table.

EXHIBIT #CEPU3 FACSIMILE FROM MR WOOSTER TO MR COOPER

PN41

MR COOPER: You will see there that I am indicating we have met the requirements of the Act. The manager, incidentally, did ask me and ask our delegate too and has done before, what is the purpose of the visit, which we don't believe we are required to answer but out of courtesy I say here we are visiting to talk to members and potential members, as usual, and look after the employees' ongoing concerns about the workplace. We have said to the manager we hope he, in turn, honours the Workplace Relations Act, particularly section 298M. Now, the relevance of that is that we have been having some argument with the local management about their treatment of CEPU as a union vis-a-vis CPSU in the area.

PN42

That is a matter at the moment which we are negotiating. Basically I say thank you for your offer of the concert hall - keep in m ind it was just an offer at that stage - however, this will not be necessary. We will simply sit in the lunchroom as per our usual arrangements. Mr Wooster responded to my fax message the next day on Messagebank at 9.25 am on Thursday, 23 May, 2-1/2 hours before the visit, notifying that the visit could only go ahead in the concert hall. Again, for the purpose of labouring this, I will submit that transcript of that Messagebank message. We think it is important.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: You had better check that with the author of it just to see whether there are any difficulties before I receive that.

PN44

MR COOPER: I can still let him listen to the recording if he likes. My colleague says that he trusts me. That is good.

EXHIBIT #CEPU4 TRANSCRIPTION OF A MESSAGEBANK MESSAGE FROM MR WOOSTER TO MR COOPER ON 23/05/2002

PN45

MR COOPER: The only point I would like to raise in this is at about the centre of the paragraph there you will see that he has moved from offering the concert hall to insisting that such a visit "and subsequent meetings take place in the concert hall or other appropriate room as provided." So based on those conditions we presume the visit could have gone ahead. That was, as I say, 2-1/2 hours before the visit had been arranged. A point I would like to make in passing here is that there is no way members could be notified of a change of venue in that time. If 24 hours notice is required of the union for a visit, surely it is unreasonable to expect that we would accept a change of arrangements with 2-1/2 hours notice or, even if you be most charitable, to the time that he sent the fax, which is much less than 24 hours.

PN46

If Mr Wooster, as it seems to us, is allowing some hostility to the CEPUs commitment to look after its members and recruit new ones to guide his handling of a legitimate CEPU visit to the site, we don't think that that is very professional at all. On 27 May 2002, four days after refusing the CEPU entry - and this is what led to the dispute, obviously - to the lunchroom, Mr Wooster felt the need to explain his actions to our members, his staff, in an e-mail. Now, I would like to table that e-mail if I may.

EXHIBIT #CEPU5 E-MAIL DATED 24/05/2002

PN47

MR COOPER: Mr Wooster makes the point that he would - he is explaining to staff that he would make the concert hall available to both unions in the area. The CEPU were twice advised in advance of the intended visit but they maintained they would use the lunchroom facilities for their visit. Then he goes on to really make the main point in his e-mails to staff is that:

PN48

You should be free to use the facilities without any interference or business-type activities being conducted.

PN49

I think, essentially, Mr Wooster is telling staff that he was motivated by his concern for their welfare and that they should have well-earned breaks away from business-type activities. I must say there is considerable cynicism about this explanation amongst Mr Wooster's staff, our members. They tell me that the lunchroom has been and is regularly used for meetings and activities during breaks, for organisations as broad as the Australian Postal Institute, which is like a social club within Telstra and other places, the credit union, Harvey World Travel, Pulse Energy promotion, Nutri-Metics, which are beauty products.

PN50

They tell me the lunchroom also hosts the Internet cafe, which it does; I have seen it. It is used by managers to hold team briefs and often during lunchtimes, I might add, these team briefs, and it is used for special management functions and so on. Now, I think as my last exhibit, just a matter of some interest but I think important nevertheless, I table an e-mail from an occ health and safety delegate, which doesn't happen to be a CEPU member, to Mr Wooster responding to his explanation to staff and I think it is worth looking at.

EXHIBIT #CEPU6 E-MAIL DATED 28/05/2002 FROM MR DUNBAR

PN51

MR COOPER: Commissioner, I think the main point about this e-mail is, as I said, the occ health and safety delegate happens to be a member of the CPSU and at this particular point he was working at another site but he had received the e-mail from the centre manager explaining his reasons for locking the unions out of the lunchroom and he says, this delegate:

PN52

I agree that the lunchroom is a good place to have team lunches but when a meeting room is not available some STMs do use the lunchroom for team meetings. This is including my own team and others on occasions.

PN53

I just tabled that to emphasise the fact that apparently it is all right for some activities but not for others. I would point out here again, re-emphasise the CEPU has never used the lunchroom as a meeting room and we have never sought to. We sit at the lunchroom tables like everybody else. We leave union literature on the tables and we speak to people who wish to speak to us. So it seems that the staff cynicism about Mr Wooster's attempts at justifying the unjustifiable is pretty well based. We seek an order from you, Commissioner, to enable the CEPU to continue to use the lunchroom as it has been doing without previous objection by management. Thank you.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Cooper. Yes, Mr Jones.

PN55

MR JONES: I think a couple of preliminary matters, Commissioner. Firstly, I envisage, based on the bar table submissions from my friend that there will be - if this case proceeds to the stage where an order is contemplated, there will certainly be evidence in conflict between that of the employer and that of the union. We would dispute several of those submissions. The first one relates mainly to the fact that employees going to the concert hall are able to be viewed by management. It is quite clear that the concert hall is located three metres away from the lunchroom and that employees can take a left or a right depending on which room they want to go into and that management desks and management presence at the site is a considerable distance away and certainly not in the line of sight.

PN56

This is all part of a broader point, Commissioner, and that is that in line with your earlier authority, provided an employer is not undermining the purpose of the right of entry provisions by a provision of a particular room, then the Commission, in our submission, if the jurisdictional requirements are met - and should this matter go further we will also have some things to say about that but if the jurisdictional requirements are met, then the Commission should not use its discretion to issue an order if the alternative venue is a reasonable one and doesn't expose the union to prejudice.

PN57

I might add also that the Commission being aware of the great range of cases in this area, that this is much unlike most of those cases. There is no attempt here to provide a room which is a management office or clearly requires people to walk past manager's office to get to it. It is quite clear that the room is no great distance from the work area or a considerable distance from the lunchroom. It is clear that employees, if they want to go and visit the union in the concert hall, merely have to open one door and exit it, and then enter into the next one and without any loss of time.

PN58

This is one reason why there is going to be such a dispute in these proceedings in the sense that Mr Cooper from the bar table is alleging that somehow this room exposes the union to prejudice, whereas the fact is employees would lose no time at all if they decide to wander over from the lunchroom and attend the concert hall with Mr Cooper. I think the other thing that needs to be borne in mind in this case is the type of call centre that we are actually dealing with. We are talking about a predominantly outbound call centre, one where employees are required to make between 10 and 15 sales calls an hour.

PN59

We are not dealing with a factory environment here where people are on a line, so to speak, and it is mainly a physical task. We are talking about quite an intellectually taxing job which requires a fair bit of concentration to achieve the sort of sales results required to achieve a satisfactory performance on performance reviews. In those circumstances, it is entirely proper, we would say, that employees be allowed to have their lunch, their half an hour lunch break without any potential interference or disruption from the union.

PN60

Now, I know in a lot of these cases you probably get employees up here saying that what is involved in the case is a major disruption to employees in the lunchroom. I am not saying that the presence of the union in that lunchroom would constitute a catastrophic disruption, but what I am saying is that the lunchroom is about 10 by 10 metres square. At any lunch time there is up to 80 employees who can use that lunchroom; particularly on wet days the lunchroom tends to fill out. In those circumstances, if all 80 used that lunchroom we have a situation, and this will be subject to evidence, we have a situation where they are sitting shoulder to shoulder. Now, surely in those circumstances employees - it is quite fair in the circumstances to allow employees to use visit the union in the concert hall right across the way.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: What has been the catalyst for the change, or hasn't there been a change?

PN62

MR JONES: Well, I guess that is a very important point, Commissioner. The fact is for - there are two unions who claim coverage of employees in this centre. The CPSU has been using the concert hall and other rooms, other than the lunchroom for its meeting for years; and the evidence will bear out exactly what that period of time is. Also the CPSU themselves have used the concert hall on numerous occasions. It is acknowledged, and we are not shy about this, that the practice did change about nine months ago for a brief period of time.

PN63

That was caused by a manager going on leave and another who wasn't quite au fait with the direction of the company and the operation of the Workplace Relations Act being in charge and it was permitted. But what we - we are not seeing here a change to custom, what we are seeing is a change from a temporary practice back to what the proper custom is. And, Commissioner, you would be aware of this that obviously this isn't the first time Telstra has dealt with this issue on a national scale.

PN64

As you would be aware, we have, in fact, had an arbitration on this issue some years ago in relation to a mobiles call centre in Adelaide, where the facts of the situation were frighteningly similar, not identical but frighteningly similar to this one. And the Commission held, and it is probably one of the few decisions where the Commission actually held that the employer had a legitimate case in allocating an alternative room - - -

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: What is the print number of that?

PN66

MR JONES: The print - would you like me to hand up a copy?

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, please. I hope you are not going to terrify me by saying it was one of my decisions.

PN68

MR JONES: No, it is not.

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: Because I cannot recall it.

PN70

MR JONES: I am sure your memory is a little bit better than that, Commissioner. And in that case, Deputy President Duncan - - -

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN72

MR JONES: - - - upheld - or refused to make the order sought by the unions in relation to the alternative venue. It should be of little surprise to you, Commissioner, that following that decision there was an expectation created within the company, and I do not put it higher than that, and I do not want to over-emphasise the point, but it is fair to say that with the decision of a Commission on a particular industrial matter, it creates an expectation of the manner of dealing with things and a view about people's rights.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN74

MR JONES: And it certainly - and the submission is, Commissioner, that in this case having knowledge of that decision and the general approach within the company that has flowed from that decision, a manager has taken a reasonable decision to provide an alternative venue for the union, one which does not disadvantage the union and one which, in many ways, you would say accords with the decision of DP Duncan. Now, we can have a debate about the relevance of the Duncan decision, should this matter go further; I understand that. But I just - I am seeking to bring the Commission's attention to - - -

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, you have said that on a number of occasions, which is - you have said now at least on four occasions "if the matter goes further" and on a couple of those occasions you have mentioned jurisdiction, a couple you have mentioned evidence. I understand your evidentiary matter - - -

PN76

MR JONES: Yes.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - there were assertions from Mr Cooper that you did not challenge while he was making submissions, I understand that. What did you have in mind, given that I thought Mr Cooper stood up, put his case, asked for what he wanted and sat down.

PN78

MR JONES: Yes.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: I did not think he had much further to go.

PN80

MR JONES: Yes, I understand, Commissioner. I had two things in mind.

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN82

MR JONES: And the first was that we would want to - and I have tried to make a brief note of the order that he sought.

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN84

MR JONES: But we would want more time to consider that order, because obviously there is - the nature of that order is limited, or at least regulated by the terms in division 11A of the Act, and we would want some opportunity to consider that order in a little bit more detail than we have had today. I might add, in general, Commissioner, it would be appreciated by the - from the company's perspective if we did get orders in advance of these proceedings, because to some extent it makes it difficult for us when we appear up here at short notice.

PN85

But the other thing is if the matter was to go to arbitration, we would want to have the opportunity to schedule time for witnesses, because obviously we would have evidence about employee objections which have encouraged the change to approach, and those objections have only been raised since the change from the previous custom to the temporary practice occurred. We would want to put evidence to you about the nature of the workplace.

PN86

We would want to put evidence to you about the precise nature of the room, because we have had submissions here that it is known as the fishbowl, but every fishbowl is usually covered in curtains, and I understand the default position for this room is that the curtains are drawn and that no-one can see in if they want. So there is a whole range of assertions made over the other side of the bar table, which simply need to be the subject of proper evidence. And we need to hear that sort of evidence on oath, from their side as well as ours. If I can just - - -

[10.35am]

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: What would your attitude be if I said I don't propose to make an order? Why should I make an order constraining the right of entry of the CEPU? Why don't I just say to them: You go and exercise what you think is your right of entry and if the employer refuses it take the matter to the court?

PN88

MR JONES: That is a path that is open to you, Commissioner, and it is far for me - - -

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: Because you are not seeking to constrain the right of entry.

PN90

MR JONES: That is right. It is far for me to give them advice about which way they play this but certainly I don't quite understand the application we have before us in some respects. Can I just make one final point before we perhaps adjourn into conference or however the Commission wishes to handle this. I might just say that we heard several times from Mr Cooper that the purpose of him wanting the lunch room over the other room was that he wanted to have maximum penetration in terms of the type of employees he could get access to. And far for me to disagree with the union wanting to get access to employees because that is - - -

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: There is a dispute over coverage.

PN92

MR JONES: - - - that is obviously their business. But I will say this, that the Act allows for discussions. That is the right it conveys. It does not convey rights - it does not go to the purpose of those discussions and it does not go to maximising the potential for those discussions, it goes to the ability to have a suitable place where employees can freely visit to have discussions. I would urge the Commission not to be drawn into error in the sense of granting a request based on something beyond the underlying purposes of this Act.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: Say again.

PN94

MR JONES: I would just encourage the Commission to beware of the submissions being made by the other side which, in my view, if acted upon or if used as a basis for any decision would lead the Commission into error because at the end of the day the provisions of the Act are for discussions and do not support the underlying - do not go to what those motivations for the discussions might be.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: To recruit members, you say?

PN96

MR JONES: Yes, absolutely. And there is actually authority to that effect from Deputy President Duncan in his Telstra decision which is fairly short and no doubt the Commission will - - -

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: His authority. Can you direct me to that?

PN98

MR JONES: Yes. If we can go to paragraph 30 and then there are a number of numbered paragraphs:

PN99

3. Significant reason the CPSU advances for wanting the use of the lunch room is to increase its profile while the purpose of the power conferred by 285C is the holding of discussions. Increasing the profile of the union is a consequence of the exercise of the power, not the reason for it, for the purposes of 285G.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I follow.

PN101

MR JONES: I understand that not all Commission decisions are consistent on that point, Commissioner.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: No, but - - -

PN103

MR JONES: But it is a useful guide.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: But I understand it. If the purpose is not to hold discussions, then it is not consistent with the power. But if holding discussions increases the profile, well, that is ancillary to the purpose of - - -

PN105

MR JONES: It is a matter of characterisation, Commissioner.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that is all, yes. Yes, I follow. Now, the jurisdictional point that you mention in passing. Where does that matter go to?

PN107

MR JONES: The one that leads to mind is an issue about the eligibility of the CEPU to represent members in this call centre.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: At all?

PN109

MR JONES: Various - I envisage it will be various designations.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. That one concerns me. I am not going to have demarcation disputes between these two unions. I will pull both their tickets to enter your workplace before I will allow that to happen. And that is not an idle threat. Do you want to go into conference, Mr Cooper?

PN111

MR COOPER: Yes, Commissioner.

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED [10.41am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #CEPU1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS APPEARING TO BE E-MAILS PN8
EXHIBIT #CEPU2 LETTER DATED 22/05/2002 FROM MR WOOSTER TO MR COOPER PN40
EXHIBIT #CEPU3 FACSIMILE FROM MR WOOSTER TO MR COOPER PN41
EXHIBIT #CEPU4 TRANSCRIPTION OF A MESSAGEBANK MESSAGE FROM MR WOOSTER TO MR COOPER ON 23/05/2002 PN45
EXHIBIT #CEPU5 E-MAIL DATED 24/05/2002 PN47
EXHIBIT #CEPU6 E-MAIL DATED 28/05/2002 FROM MR DUNBAR PN51