C0001/999, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 2340 (25 June 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N VT04421

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

VICE PRESIDENT ROSS

C No 00019 of 1999

EGG PROCESSING AWARD 1989

Review under Item 51, Schedule 5,
Transitional WROLA Act 1996 re
conditions of employment

MELBOURNE

1.01 PM, TUESDAY, 11 JUNE 2002

PN1

MS A. PARKES: I appear for the National Union of Workers.

PN2

MS F. FIELD: I appear from the Australian Industry Group on behalf of Farm Pride Foods Limited.

PN3

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I gather - or I am told that the draft simplified award is agreed between the parties; is that correct?

PN4

MS PARKES: That is correct, your Honour.

PN5

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, okay, thank you. The only issue that then arises is the fact that recently I varied the 1989 award with respect to the recent Safety Net Review decision, and how do we deal with that in the context of this award. One option might be this, rather than a, sort of, a complicated process of writing and seeking to vary the draft order already submitted or anything of that nature. I could issue a simplified award on the date that the safety net adjustment is to operate from and incorporate the new wage rates and allowances, etcetera, whatever was in the draft order; is that agreeable as an approach?

PN6

MS PARKES: Yes, your Honour.

PN7

MS FIELD: Yes, your Honour, that would be fine.

PN8

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay. Are there any other - I will just refresh my memory with respect to the Egg Processing Award. Are there any other - it is only Farm Pride, isn't it, that is - - -

PN9

MS FIELD: It is, your Honour, yes, they are the only respondents.

PN10

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay. So everyone has been consulted and everyone is in agreement. That is where we are up to. Okay, well, I will adopt that course. The - - -

PN11

MS PARKES: Your Honour, there is - - -

PN12

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, Ms Parkes.

PN13

MS PARKES: - - - just one issue. If I could just hand up the final draft order that is agreed to by the parties. I am also going to hand up a second document, your Honour, which was the draft provided by the Commission. This is a marked up document to indicate there has been some minor amendments by the parties to that.

PN14

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. Perhaps if you take me through those.

PN15

MS PARKES: If I could take you through those, your Honour.

PN16

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I might mark the final as - well, I might make that joint exhibit 1 and the marked up copy joint exhibit 2. Okay.

EXHIBIT #JOINT EXHIBIT 1 FINAL DRAFT ORDER

EXHIBIT #JOINT EXHIBIT 2 MARKED UP DRAFT ORDER

PN17

MS PARKES: Your Honour, the parties will submit that the final draft order handed up before you, the exhibit number 1, meets the requirements of the item 51 review of part 2 of schedule 5 of the WROLA Act. One of the amendments, if I could take your Honour to that, is in relation to clause 11.2 roster.

PN18

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN19

MS PARKES: There is an issue in relation to the draft provided by the Commission as to clarifying what the particular clause meant, so the parties have restructured the clause in a manner that indicates the intent of the parties and indicates the roster arrangements for normal shifts and also roster arrangements in relation to changes for rostered days off to clarify that clause.

PN20

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That is fine.

PN21

MS PARKES: Other than some numbering amendments, your Honour, the only other clause that I would take you to before addressing you on the issue of minimum rates is the parental leave clause. In the draft provided by the Commission there were provisions there as to when the parental leave clause would come into effect - - -

PN22

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I see.

PN23

MS PARKES: - - - and in the final draft handed up before you, your Honour, these provisions have been deleted and the union would seek to rely on the decision made by your Honour and handed down on 4 March 2002 in the NUW and Butter Factories and Condensories Award and Other Awards in relation to this issue found at print 914876.

PN24

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay, thank you. So that only leaves the properly fixed minimum rates?

PN25

MS PARKES: That is correct, your Honour. The NUW would submit that the award does contain properly fixed minimum rates. In particular, your Honour, I would refer you to the Storage Services General Award 1999 found at - the Storage Services Award has gone through the minimum rates adjustment process before Commissioner Hingley as part of the item 51 review, and his decision of 30 June 1999 found at print R6234 found that that particular award contained properly fixed minimum rates.

PN26

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And the structure there is similar to - or the same as the structure here?

PN27

MS PARKES: That is correct. It is not identical, but it is similar in that many of the classifications are the same, your Honour, and we would submit the fact that that particular award contains minimum rates is relative to this particular award which is based upon that award.

PN28

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Are you able to tell me what the differences are?

PN29

MS PARKES: Certainly. In relation to the Storage Services General Award, there are six classifications, your Honour. There is store worker grade 1 and there are three different levels for that: on commencement, after three months and after 12 months. And then there is store worker grade 2 and store worker grade 3 and store worker grade 4. In respect of this particular award, whilst there are also six classifications, they are slightly different. We have got grade 1 which under the 2002 safety net adjustment which will come into effect on 19 June, would be $473, and that correspondents with the store worker grade 1 under the Storage Services Award of $470.60, so there is a slight discrepancy of about $2.40, your Honour, but we would submit that that is relative.

PN30

Similarly, in relation to the after three months, the next level up, that would comparable to the rates contained in the Storage Services Award with $481.40 would be as a result of the 2002 safety net adjustment in relation to this award when it comes into effect in comparison to $478 under the Storage Services General Award. There is then the change though that under this award after six months there is the provision for the next increase as opposed to an after the 12 month increase in the Storage Services General. So that is the first difference in the classifications, your Honour.

PN31

Grade 2 then of this award would equate to store worker grade 3 of the Storage Services General Award, so there doesn't appear to be an equivalent to a store worker grade 2; that is the next difference. And then we have a stores administrator in this particular award which would appear to be a level above a store worker grade 4 in the Storage Services General Award. So the structure is very similar; it is just the classifications are slightly different.

PN32

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Where are the various grades defined, the work that they carry out?

PN33

MS PARKES: Your Honour, there does not appear to be any classification descriptions under this award.

PN34

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Are there such descriptions under the Storage Services General Award?

PN35

MS PARKES: There are, your Honour.

PN36

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I wonder whether it would be appropriate to include the same descriptors where they relate to classification levels that are very similar in this award, otherwise the difficulty is - someone picking the award up, it would be difficult to know whether they are a grade 3, a grade 4 or a stores administrator, that is all.

PN37

MS PARKES: Your Honour, the NUW would certainly be happy to adopt that approach and to draft an additional clause in respect of classifications, and given that there is only one company involved, there is actually an enterprise agreement in place which may well have classifications in it.

PN38

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That may well be the case, yes.

PN39

MS PARKES: But in the event that it doesn't, certainly they could be based upon the Storage Services General Award classifications.

PN40

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. I would certainly be making the suggestion that they be based on the Storage Services General Award unless the changes to those definitions are relatively minor, perhaps tailored to the specific enterprise, because obviously the closer the definition is to the Storage Services General Award, the easier it is to make the argument that they are properly fixed.

PN41

Well, if that is done, then that would answer the issues in respect of grade 1 on commencement and after three months, and grade 2 which I think you said was the equivalent of grade 3 in the Storage Services Award. What about grade 3 and stores administrator under this award, where do they line up?

PN42

MS PARKES: Grade 3 under the Egg Processing Award would correspond to store worker grade 4 under the Storage Services General Award.

PN43

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right.

PN44

MS PARKES: And it would appear that the stores administrator would be a classification approximately a level above store worker grade 4 given that it is $18 higher - or just under $18, so it would appear to be - equate to a grade 5, your Honour, and that may well be that that is tailored to the need - that is because it has been tailored to the needs of the specific enterprise and that there is a role of a stores administrator whereas the Storage Services Award is an industry award.

PN45

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. Okay. Just with the after six months, the differential between the three and the six months, I am just trying to work out how that fits with the - what is the difference between in the Storage Services Award the after three months rate and the after six months rate?

PN46

MS PARKES: Under the Storage Services Award there isn't an after six months rate.

PN47

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, but the after - sorry - after 12, the after three and after 12.

PN48

MS PARKES: After three and then after 12. I am afraid I don't have the relativities in front of me, your Honour. I should know them off by heart, but unfortunately I don't, but you are looking at a dollar term of $7.60.

PN49

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right. Just bear with me for a sec. Whereas the difference here is $8.40. Okay.

PN50

MS PARKES: Although it may well be because of the needs of the particular enterprise that additional skills are learnt more quickly, your Honour.

PN51

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Could be, yes. I might just go off the record for a moment.

OFF THE RECORD

PN52

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most appropriate way of dealing with this issue of properly fixed rates would be to provide the parties with an opportunity to confer with a view to developing classification definitions, and those definitions can draw on the definitions in the Storage Services General Award with whatever tailoring is necessary to reflect the needs of the enterprise.

PN53

There are two particular issues that I would ask you to direct your attention to. The first is the grade 1 after six months rate and the justification for the differential between the after three months and the after six months;, that is, what additional skills or training does the employer require the employee to have at that point. And the stores administrator; similarly, what sort of work that person will be doing, and how that classification might relate to the Storage Services General Award.

PN54

The third issue is more generally just a simple comparison table of the classification levels in this award and the rates and what you say are the comparable or as close as you can get to it classifications in the Storage Services General Award. Okay.

PN55

In terms of timing, given that the $18 takes effect from 19 June, I think, do you think you will be able to resolve these outstanding issues before then? Or do you just want me to go ahead, issue the order and I will give you until the end of the month to finalise this? I will issue the order in respect of the 89 award.

PN56

MS PARKES: That might be easiest, your Honour. It is just that I have got interstate commitments this week and whilst I would love to say I can have this finalised Friday, we may need to have discussions.

PN57

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it might be cleaner if we do it that way. Is that okay with you, Ms Field?

PN58

MS FIELD: Yes, that would be, I think, preferable, thank you, your Honour.

PN59

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay. All right. Well, I will wait to hear from you by the end of the month as to finalisation of those matters. In the meantime, as I have already indicated, I will go ahead and issue the order varying the '89 award for 2002 safety net. Okay. Anything further? No. All right. Well, I will take it that the final JOINT EXHIBIT1 represents the agreed position between the parties and that in translating that document to the final simplified award, I will vary it to reflect the agreed position in relation to classification definitions and also in relation to the May 2000 Safety Net Review decision. Okay. I won't bring you back in, I will just rely on the correspondence and issue an order subsequent to that. All right Nothing further? Thank you. I will adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [1.18pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #JOINT EXHIBIT 1 FINAL DRAFT ORDER PN17
EXHIBIT #JOINT EXHIBIT 2 MARKED UP DRAFT ORDER PN17