C2002/2802, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 2227 (17 June 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 10, MLC Court 15 Adelaide St BRISBANE Qld 4000
(PO Box 38 Roma St Brisbane Qld 4003) Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER HODDER

C2002/2802

TEXTILE CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR UNION OF AUSTRALIA

and

BIGGIE RAT PTY LTD and AUSTYLES PTY LTD

Notification pursuant to Section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re entering of premises for
proposed inspection of time and wages books

BRISBANE

11.35 AM, TUESDAY, 4 JUNE 2002

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Could I have the appearances, please.

PN2

MR M. JALOUSSIS: If the Commission pleases, my name is Jaloussis, spelt J-a-l-o-u-s-s-i-s, initial M. I seek leave to appear for the TCFUA, Queensland Branch. With me I have MR JACK MOREL, the Secretary of the Union, and MR DAVID PRIOR.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN4

MS H.T. NGUYEN: Good morning, Commissioner. My name is Nguyen, N-g-u-y-e-n, initials H.T., of Nguyen Lawyers.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN6

MS NGUYEN: I appear on behalf of the respondent.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: You are also seeking leave, Ms Nguyen, are you?

PN8

MS NGUYEN: Yes, I seek leave to appear on behalf of Biggie Rat.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well, thank you. I will grant leave to both parties under the circumstances. Thank you. Mr Jaloussis?

PN10

MR JALOUSSIS: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. This matter is being brought before the Commission this morning as a result of actions of the company in refusing authorised officers of the union: firstly, to inspect the wage records of the company; and also, obstructing the union officials in talking to employees of the company about various matters. The union has reason to believe, Commissioner, that there are a number of breaches of the Textile Industry Award and the Clothing Industry Award that have taken place at the premises of this company.

PN11

It had advised the company on 21 May of its intention to carry out an inspection; that proposed inspection was to take place on 22 May, it was postponed because of the alleged unavailability of the Factory Manager, Mr Townsend, who was away on a business trip. That postponement was as a result of a facsimile transmission that the union received on 21 May. On the basis of that postponement the union then notified the company, on the same day again, by facsimile transmission, that it would inspect the premises of the company on 28 May, given them a full seven days' notice of their intention to visit the premises.

PN12

On 28 May, Commissioner, the three officials from the union attended the company's premises. Mr Morel was one of those officials. They showed their rights of entry and began to interview some of the employees against the - - -

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: This was at lunch-time?

PN14

MR JALOUSSIS: No, it wasn't at lunch-time, Commissioner, it was early in the day, and the officials present asked to ask Mr Townsend, who is the Factory Manager, to allow them to inspect the wages records. They weren't given access to the wages records. They were told to leave the premises. The union officials indicated they had a right to be there, based on their notice and the rights of entry that they had produced. The officials attempted to speak to some of the employees, but were again told to leave, and were hindered in their attempts to speak to the employees by Mr Townsend and another person who appeared, whom we understand is the Managing Director of the company, a Mr Ha, and I understand it is spelt H-a.

PN15

The situation deteriorated to the extent where the police were called by the company, and the police attended. The union officials concerned showed their authorities to the police and showed them the relevant sections of the Act. The police were satisfied that the union officials were entitled to be there. They spoke to Mr Townsend and they indicated to him that the union officials had a right to be there and to speak to the employees. The union officials indicated that if the wages records were produced to them that they would refrain from speaking to the employees about various matters that they understood constituted breaches of the awards.

PN16

The police indicated to Mr Townsend that the union was being reasonable in this respect, and that they should co-operate; that the attitude of Mr Townsend was not one of co-operation, Commissioner, and in fact one of confrontation. The gentlemen whom we understand is the Director, Mr Ha, then became involved in discussions. The police decided that they could not do anything further and they left; they were satisfied that nothing improper was being done by the union officials. I am instructed that the person's name is a Mr Ho in fact, H-o; sorry about that. I am sorry, Commissioner, I have misunderstood. There is a Mr Ha and a Mr Ho.

PN17

One of the union officials present was a Vietnamese-speaking gentleman who was confronted by Mr Ha, H-a, and a threat was made to him in the Vietnamese language that he was going to have him hurt, or going to hurt him.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: This threat was made to whom?

PN19

MR JALOUSSIS: To one of the union officials who is a Vietnamese gentleman. The union officials again requested that the time and wages books be presented for inspection, and were told by Mr Townsend to go and get a court order; that is the only time he is going to produce it. Needless to say, Commissioner, there was no co-operation whatsoever from this company on this occasion, and in fact, and it was only because of the common sense of the union officials present prevailing that the matter didn't deteriorate further into a physical confrontation. The union was able to take a number of photographs of the premises, and the - - -

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't want to cut you off, Mr Jaloussis, but what is it that the union seeks from the Commission?

PN21

MR JALOUSSIS: Commissioner, we seek an order from the Commission that the union be provided with access to the employees, and that the wages records be allowed to be inspected by the union officials, as they are entitled to under the Act, and that the inspection be unhindered and unobstructed by officers or supervisors of the company, and we seek the Commission's assistance in that regard.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN23

MR JALOUSSIS: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Nguyen?

PN25

MS NGUYEN: Commissioner, in respect of the applicant's two requests, my client has no problem with that. My client has no problem in the union entering the premises and speaking to the staff, provided of course, that is it at lunch-time, not during working hours, because it can be disruptive. My client has indicated at the scene, and my learned friend here has admitted that the union did try to speak to staff early in the morning and not lunch-hour; it is quite disruptive. It is a big factory. My client has no problems with the union inspecting the wage records, my client denies hindering and obstruction.

PN26

There has been a lot of misunderstanding, and it could have been dealt with, and it could have not been unnecessary - the hindering and the obstruction is denied, but the unpleasant scenes could have been, you know, not present, if the union had been more co-operative, and less obstructive and less, you know, with aggression, the way they handle things. I am instructed that at approximately 9 am that morning Mr Jack Morel of the union arrived with two associates, Mr David Triton from the Sydney branch, and an unidentified Vietnamese interpreter.

PN27

They informed my client that they were going to do an inspection of the factory and interview the workers. As the notice given was that they would be conducting discussion with staff during the lunch-break, my client then told them that they would be interfering with production and that was not what they had informed my client they would be doing.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Who informed them of that?

PN29

MS NGUYEN: The notice that they faxed to my client on the - - -

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. Insofar as the company is concerned, who did the union confer with when they arrived at 9 am?

PN31

MS NGUYEN: Mr Barry Townsend.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. That is the gentleman sitting beside you, is it?

PN33

MS NGUYEN: Yes, yes.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: I just noticed, though, that on 21 May your client advised that Mr Townsend wouldn't be at the plant at the time that the union wanted to visit, but he was.

PN35

MS NGUYEN: That was the first visit, which was postponed, as confirmed by my learned friend here.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN37

MS NGUYEN: It was postponed until 28 May, when Mr Barry Townsend returned.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: That's just not the way I read this, the notification. It seems to suggest that at point 3 on 21 May a letter was sent to the company by the union, by facsimile, informing them of the intention to enter the company's premises on 28 May 2002 in order to attend to the matter set out in paragraph 1.

PN39

MS NGUYEN: That they would inspect the time and wage records, and the monthly group tax.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN41

MS NGUYEN: And the monthly superannuation records.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: That's right.

PN43

MS NGUYEN: But they insist on speaking to the staff.

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, they said they were going to do that during the lunch break.

PN45

MS NGUYEN: Yes, but they did it early in the morning.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: But in that sense, then, when was Mr Townsend going to be away on the business trip?

PN47

MS NGUYEN: Sorry? When - - -

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: So far as point 2 of the notification is concerned, when was Mr Townsend to be away on the business trip?

PN49

MS NGUYEN: The first meeting scheduled for 22 May was postponed.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN51

MS NGUYEN: Yes.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: And then re-arranged for 28 May?

PN53

MS NGUYEN: 28th, yes.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: And that was to carry out those matters which were outlined in point 1 under A and B?

PN55

MS NGUYEN: Yes. Yes.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. Yes.

PN57

MS NGUYEN: So instead of carrying on, you know, inspections, they have asked to speak to the staff first during working hours, which interfered with production.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN59

MS NGUYEN: And Mr David Tritton replied that he could not - that they were investigating a suspected breach. They went to the factory floor without further discussion or consideration. My client then called the police. The union then went to the staff and asked the machinists a question. One of the machinists felt confused, and intimidated. My client simply told the lady, "Look, you have a right to speak, or remain silent; do whatever you want," but Mr David Tritton accused my client of impeding with his investigation, which is denied.

PN60

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, is your position - is your client's position then that they are willing to allow an inspection of the common wage records?

PN61

MS NGUYEN: Yes, they are willing to provided that it's conducted in an orderly fashion.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well - - -

PN63

MS NGUYEN: Not just to intimidate - - -

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what do you call - - -

PN65

MS NGUYEN: - - - staff.

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: What do they call an orderly fashion?

PN67

MS NGUYEN: Well, not to come and just harass the staff during - not during lunch-time, but early, you know, during production, interfering. There was a result of, you know, altercation - well, not altercation, but there was unpleasant exchange in front of staff. I mean, that's simply not on. You don't do these sort of things.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, do I take it then that your client is willing to make the time and wage records available to the union?

PN69

MS NGUYEN: Yes.

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: When?

PN71

MS NGUYEN: When it suits.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: When did you want to do that, Mr - - -

PN73

MR MOREL: I will do it next week, Commissioner.

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Jaloussis?

PN75

MR TOWNSEND: Could we ask that it be a Tuesday or a Friday?

PN76

MR JALOUSSIS: Commissioner, I will leave that to Mr Morel to make contact with Mr Townsend.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I want something on the record now.

PN78

MR JALOUSSIS: Yes.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: So that the other side knows when you intend to arrive there.

PN80

MS NGUYEN: Yes.

PN81

MR JALOUSSIS: The union proposes to attend next Wednesday, Commissioner.

PN82

MS NGUYEN: If possible, it can be Tuesday or Friday.

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: Tuesday.

PN84

MR JALOUSSIS: Tuesday, Commissioner.

PN85

THE COMMISSIONER: What time Tuesday?

PN86

MR JALOUSSIS: Commissioner, can I just indicate that the visit that was carried out by the union on the 28th, was not only for the purposes of inspecting the wages records, but to - - -

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but Mr - - -

PN88

MR JALOUSSIS: - - - inspect the premises.

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - Jaloussis, you know and I know, that the union is not entitled to confer - have conversations with employees during working hours unless they have gained the prior approval of the employer to do that. They are restricted in terms of access to conferring with employees during their non-work periods.

PN90

MR JALOUSSIS: Well, Commissioner, if there is - - -

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, if you are going to investigate complaints, I would have thought the investigation was carried out prior to getting there, and you were taking up directly with the company the issues that have been raised, not going to the workshop floor in front of the employer and endeavouring to find some evidence, or whatever it was they were seeking. There's a right way and a wrong way to do this.

PN92

MR JALOUSSIS: Yes.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: And that wasn't the right way.

PN94

MR JALOUSSIS: There was information that had been provided to the union, Commissioner, that indicated - - -

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, well, that should have been taken up directly with the employer, not with the workforce.

PN96

MR JALOUSSIS: I think the situation was one that the response of the employer, and the attitude of the employer when the union arrived was one of belligerence, and it all went downhill from there.

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: It's a funny thing. I always find both sides get pretty belligerent pretty quick when they think they have got a problem, so whether it went downhill or not, I am trying to resurrect the situation where your client can go there, inspect the time and wage records on Tuesday. At what time?

PN98

MR MOREL: 9.30 am.

PN99

THE COMMISSIONER: 9.30 am.

PN100

MR JALOUSSIS: 9.30 am, Commissioner.

PN101

THE COMMISSIONER: That convenient, Ms Nguyen?

PN102

MR TOWNSEND: Yes, that's fine.

PN103

THE COMMISSIONER: 9.30 am. Okay. Now, what other issues do you want to take up with the company?

PN104

MR JALOUSSIS: Yes, the union wants also records to be made available which are required to be kept in respect of contractors and outworkers. We also - - -

PN105

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, just a sec. Ms Nguyen, what does your client say about that?

PN106

MS NGUYEN: Well, it's not set out in the application.

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it's on the record now. I want a response to that.

PN108

MS NGUYEN: Yes, my client is happy to do that - - -

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN110

MS NGUYEN: - - - regardless.

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So that will be on Tuesday at 9.30 as well?

PN112

MS NGUYEN: Yes, Tuesday 9.30.

PN113

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. All right. Mr Jaloussis, is there anything else?

PN114

MR JALOUSSIS: Yes, Commissioner. We want to have a discussion with the employees during their lunch break in an area which is not one where the supervisors will attend, or any members of management.

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: Are the supervisors members of the union?

PN116

MR MOREL: Yes, one is.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, they have got the right to attend.

PN118

MR JALOUSSIS: I understand one is, Commissioner.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, they have got the right to attend.

PN120

MR JALOUSSIS: Yes, I wasn't aware of that.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: But, I mean, at the end of the day, I would have thought that in the interests of both parties the union is given access to the work force appropriately - Ms Nguyen, you might want to hear this.

PN122

MS NGUYEN: Yes.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: I am sorry. What I am saying is, in the interest of both parties, the union should be given access to the employees, those employees who want to meet with the union, in an appropriate location where both the union and the employees can feel confident that the matters they are discussing are between them and not the world.

PN124

MS NGUYEN: Yes, Commissioner. My client will allocate a place for the meeting; that's not problem. It won't happen in the lunch area - lunch room - - -

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: Because of the fact that other people - - -

PN126

MS NGUYEN: Other people will be there.

PN127

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - have their lunch there. I can understand - what's the area that you are talking about?

PN128

MR TOWNSEND: We will set up tables and chairs which will give them ample room. We have done it in the past for Jack, and he has been quite happy with that, and basically there are people who don't want to be interviewed during the lunch break.

PN129

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, is there any way of staggering the lunch break?

PN130

MR TOWNSEND: We do that anyway.

PN131

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, can you stagger the lunch breaks so that those who don't want to attend can have their lunch first, and those who do want to attend can have their lunch second?

PN132

MR TOWNSEND: Very hard disrupting the factory, because of the nature of our business. It's probably better we allocate a certain area which - the lunch break - - -

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that outside, is it?

PN134

MR TOWNSEND: No, it's inside - inside. We will make sure they are comfortable. We are quite fair in that area. But the lunch room, there is a number of people there - - -

PN135

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Jaloussis?

PN136

MR JALOUSSIS: Commissioner, the concern we have is this: that if the meeting is allowed to take place in the lunch room - I appreciate that there may be people who may not want to listen and that's their right, they don't have to listen, but the concern we have is that if the meeting is set up elsewhere, then, those people - - -

PN137

THE COMMISSIONER: They'll be identified.

PN138

MR JALOUSSIS: - - - who attend are highlighted to the company that they are interested.

PN139

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, look, I think in the best interests of everybody it is held in the lunch room. Those who don't want to listen, don't listen; those that want to, listen.

PN140

MR JALOUSSIS: Okay.

PN141

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that's fair to both sides.

PN142

MS NGUYEN: That's fine. That's fine with my client.

PN143

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Lunch room. And that's going to happen on Tuesday as well is it?

PN144

MR JALOUSSIS: Yes, Commissioner.

PN145

THE COMMISSIONER: And what is the lunch break time?

PN146

MR TOWNSEND: It's been from 11.30 till 12.30.

PN147

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So 11.30 till 12.30, so that should give the union time to carry out any necessary inspections of records, and then to proceed to a meeting with those employees who want to meet with them.

PN148

MS NGUYEN: Yes.

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: Does that satisfy your application?

PN150

MR JALOUSSIS: Yes, Commissioner. The union proposes to be there from 9.30 for the whole day inspecting the records, and conferring with those employees at lunch-time.

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, only at lunch-time. You can observe the functions of the factory for as long as you want to, you have got the right to be there, but you can't interfere with production in any way.

PN152

MR JALOUSSIS: No, no. I am just conveying that to the Commission.

PN153

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. Well, the company is aware of that now that you will be there for the best part of the day.

PN154

MR JALOUSSIS: Yes.

PN155

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN156

MS NGUYEN: Commissioner, I would ask that the conduct of investigation and speaking with staff be carried on in an orderly fashion. There shouldn't be any unpleasantness, obscene exchange, in front of staff.

PN157

THE COMMISSIONER: I am not sure how you manage that, Ms Nguyen, to be quite honest.

PN158

MS NGUYEN: My client's instructions are that Mr Jack Morel always acted in an orderly fashion, but Mr David Tritton seems to raise voices and was out of line in some of the cases. There was one incident where my client simply said to the people - the union, look, don't go and - he said that he merely asked the interpreter who was responsible if one of them got hurt while moving around the machinery in the factory, so just, you know, "Don't move around too much. If the machine falls, it can hurt the staff," but then that was taken to be a threat by my client - that was interpreted somehow, I don't know how - - -

PN159

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that would be a pretty foolish thing to do if that was the threat that was made. You say it wasn't a threat, it was more about safety of people moving within the factory?

PN160

MS NGUYEN: That's right. That's right. There's been, you know - I wasn't there, I don't know the quality of the interpretation, but it seems like my client said something but it was misinterpreted - - -

PN161

THE COMMISSIONER: Maybe they should have had you there, Ms Nguyen.

PN162

MS NGUYEN: Perhaps.

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, does that satisfy your notification?

PN164

MR JALOUSSIS: It does to this extent, Commissioner, that just on something that you indicated previously, that the union is not entitled during working hours to speak to the employees, that is not so, with respect, Commissioner. The union is entitled to speak to any of its members when it has entered the premises and if any of the members do want to speak - - -

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: As long as it doesn't interfere with production.

PN166

MR JALOUSSIS: That's true, but they are not constrained to talk to those employees only during lunch break.

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I will leave someone else work that one out under the Act if they want to.

PN168

MR JALOUSSIS: Well, Commissioner, I can refer you to the provisions of section 285(b) of the Act which provides for that to happen, that the union can speak to members, and can actually walk round the factory and view the operations.

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: I didn't suggest you couldn't, but I think you need to be a little careful about conferring with employees who are working and that it doesn't interfere with production. That is the point I am making about that.

PN170

MR JALOUSSIS: Oh, yes, I understand that. I understand the - - -

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, you can't walk in and pull the whole place up, is what I am saying.

PN172

MR JALOUSSIS: No, we are not proposing to do that and what occurred on that day was not what was intended to happen. As I said, i think matters got out of hand because of the attitude of Mr Townsend and other officers of the company.

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, they are saying that Mr Tritton was responsible for it as well. So maybe everybody had a burr under their saddle on that day. I don't know.

PN174

MR JALOUSSIS: Well, Commissioner, just finally, I don't think there was any misunderstanding in the interpretation. The gentleman who was threatened is Vietnamese and he was threatened in the Vietnamese language, so I don't think there was any misunderstanding there. But it is on record and we hope that that won't happen again, nor that there will be any confrontation. I understand Mr Morel has been there on previous occasions - - -

PN175

THE COMMISSIONER: I would hope not either.

PN176

MR JALOUSSIS: - - - and the union just wants to establish good relations with this company.

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think you have both got a bit of work to do in that regard based on the current - most recent visit. Okay. So if that satisfies your notification at this stage - - -

PN178

MR JALOUSSIS: Yes, it does.

PN179

THE COMMISSIONER: And, Ms Nguyen, is there anything that you wish to say further?

PN180

MS NGUYEN: There is also an incident where Mr Tritton was about to push one of the staff in a threatening manner.

PN181

THE COMMISSIONER: Push them in a threatening manner.

PN182

MS NGUYEN: Yes.

PN183

THE COMMISSIONER: I am not sure what that is.

PN184

MS NGUYEN: Well, this is Mr Warren Ho. He stepped forward to take - they were taking photographs. Mr David Tritton then took garments from a sample rack without permission and Mr Warren Ho said, "Don't remove it."

PN185

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about that. The company can be asked to show particular articles to the union.

PN186

MS NGUYEN: Sorry, sorry, no, no, that was the wrong - - -

PN187

THE COMMISSIONER: But that should be the company officer doing that, not the union officer.

PN188

MS NGUYEN: Yes, okay. That was another incident. I apologise. When a contractor was putting garments in a car, David Tritton put his notebook in the open boot of the vehicle so she could not close the boot. Mr Warren Ho, the company's financial controller, asked her if she wanted it there? She answered that she did not and she wanted to leave. Mr Tritton would not remove the notebook - - -

PN189

THE COMMISSIONER: Maybe she should have just closed the boot and driven off.

PN190

MS NGUYEN: Yes, but Mr David Tritton would not remove the notebook, so Mr Ho stepped forward to take it out and closed the boot and Mr Tritton moved in front of Warren with both his hands in a threatening manner and lunged towards Mr Ho's chest. Mr Barry Townsend then called out for him not to put his hands on anyone, and Mr Tritton did stop. Now, these things should not happen.

PN191

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't disagree with that. They shouldn't happen.

PN192

MS NGUYEN: Yes, they should not happen. Things should be done in an orderly fashion. There should not be, you know, threats made. It's for the benefit of everyone. My client's here, willing to co-operate, willing to provide access, and perhaps if the Commissioner would stress that they do act in an orderly fashion.

PN193

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think both parties have to exchange the common courtesies of the appropriate way to go about their respective business, and I don't think I can put it any clearer than that.

PN194

MR JALOUSSIS: Commissioner, if I could just respond to - firstly, can I say, I know Mr Tritton quite well, and I have been instructed that that incident never occurred as far as Mr Tritton raising his arms. He knows better than that and wouldn't do anything of that nature. But can I indicate that the lady concerned appeared to be an outworker who was putting material into the boot of her vehicle. Six of these ladies actually left when the union attended, carrying material to their vehicles. When questioned, Mr Hanson said he didn't know who she was or what she was doing there, and Mr Ho - or Mr Ha, I should say, also indicated that he did not know who they were and yet they were preventing the union officials from talking to them. It was quite clear that these ladies were outworkers and they were taking material home to work on.

PN195

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, I don't have to tell you how to suck eggs. You know how to get around that one.

PN196

MR JALOUSSIS: No, that's right. And, Commissioner, the situation is that there is information that the union has and I've got copies of the photos that were taken on the day.

PN197

THE COMMISSIONER: What turns on all that where I'm concerned?

PN198

MR JALOUSSIS: Well, only to show to you that, when the union was wanting to talk to the employees, Mr Townsend sat himself on a table and sat there - - -

PN199

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, you can both sit there and - this is not a brownie points exercise. I think there are a few problems at this workplace and I think both parties need to take stock of their respective situations and try and get a better level of understanding communication, and, Ms Nguyen, your client should not be trying to avoid or hide outworkers from these people if they are there at the time.

PN200

MS NGUYEN: That wasn't the case, Commissioner.

PN201

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, I am getting claim and counterclaim of two sides of the story, but, at the end of the day, you should both know how to conduct yourselves and I hope that I'm not going to see these parties back here again in respect of this notification, raising the same sort of complaints that they are about one another again.

PN202

MS NGUYEN: Yes.

PN203

MR JALOUSSIS: Commissioner, just on that point, can I just indicate we're taking this opportunity to utilise the Commission's assistance to resolve this matter. If the company is not prepared to co-operate within the letter of the law, then the union will have no alternative than to take the matter further to the Federal Court.

PN204

THE COMMISSIONER: That's fine, but that is a double-edged sword, Mr Jaloussis. Both parties have to do that. It is not just them or you having to do it. You both have to do it. So unless there is anything of pertinence that either party wants to raise, I will adjourn these proceedings. The parties have made their arrangements in terms of inspection of the time and wage records on Tuesday at 9.30 am, that is, 11 June, and at that time there will also be an examination - and they should be made available - of records re contractors and outworkers, and obviously the parties, I think, need to - and there will be a discussion during the lunch break in the lunch room with those people who want to attend and listen to what the union has got to say. I will leave this file open and I will give the parties leave to have this matter relisted if that becomes further necessary. On that basis, I will adjourn the matter.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [12.05pm]