C2002/1735, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 2344 (25 June 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

C2002/1735

TRANSPORT WORKERS (LONG DISTANCE
DRIVERS) AWARD 2000

Application under section 113 of the Act
by the Transport Workers Union of Australia
to vary the above award re living away from
home allowance

SYDNEY

10.03 AM, TUESDAY, 11 JUNE 2002

Continued from 8.5.02 in Melbourne

Hearing Continuing

THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED BY VIDEO CONFERENCE IN SYDNEY

PN50

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are there any changes to the appearances in Melbourne?

PN51

MS F. FIELD: Your Honour, I am appearing instead of Toby Hall who appeared on the last occasion for the Australian Industry Group.

PN52

MR R. LEMISH: Your Honour, I am appearing for TNT for the first time.

PN53

MR B. IRONMONGER: I've joined, your Honour, for this mornings -

PN54

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Are there any appearances in this matter in Adelaide?

PN55

MR R. KUCZMARSKI: Yes, good morning, your Honour. I am representing the South Australian Road Transport Association.

PN56

MR L. BELL: I appear for the Transport Workers Union, South Australia.

PN57

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Are there any changes to the appearances here in Sydney in this matter? You were here before, Mr Houlihan.

PN58

MR HOULIHAN: Yes, I was here before but I am with MR T. EARLS today.

PN59

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. This matter was last before me on 8 May. After a short hearing, we adjourned into chambers. I understand that the parties were going to have some discussions. What has happened since then, Ms Tisdale?

PN60

MS TISDALE: We have had some discussions, your Honour. I'm not sure how far they've got. Some of the employer parties did make some suggestions which ..... we were seeking, specifically a way of writing the proposed meal allowance so that it applies to people who are away from home for essentially more than one night. So it doesn't apply to shuttle drivers or drivers who are in perhaps an equivalent situation to drivers who work night shift.

PN61

So we think that those discussions were a little bit fruitful and we will be crafting the remuneration that we're seeking based on that discussion. I'm not sure that we got much further. I don't think that the employer parties we met with have actually agreed at this point to the variation that we're seeking.

PN62

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What do you want me to do next with your application then?

PN63

MS TISDALE: I think, unless the employer parties have conversations this morning, that we really need to prepare an outline of submissions and witness statements in support of our claim. We're in a position to do that in about four weeks.

PN64

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there anything to be gained, do you think, from having an attempt at conciliating the matter or does it probably not really lend itself to that and you can continue to have your discussions and work on these documents you mentioned?

PN65

MS TISDALE: I think that probably is the most time efficient way of approaching it, your Honour.

PN66

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Now, Ms Field, do you want to say something about how those you represent see the matter proceeding and anything about Ms Tisdale's proposal?

PN67

MS FIELD: Your Honour, my understanding from the report I got of the proceedings before you in May was that the TWU would provide some calculations for us to look at. Now, I had the wrong date for the meeting between the employers and the TWU so I missed that meeting and I haven't seen those calculations. I guess part of our response will be predicated on what those calculations say and I'm sure Ms Tisdale will provide those to me.

PN68

We have sent a circular to our members about the application and we have had no negative feedback, your Honour. So I would be, I guess, prepared to say at this stage that I think there is a likelihood that we will not be opposing the application, but again, there is one member who does want to see the calculations.

PN69

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. Mr Lemish?>

PN70

MR LEMISH: No comment on this matter, your Honour.

PN71

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. We might go to South Australia now. Mr Kuczmarski?

PN72

MR KUCZMARSKI: Thank you, your Honour. I would just reiterate what Ms Field has mentioned. We have not seen anything from the discussions between the parties in this matter and we would like to see some documentation before we can have a view on this issue at all.

PN73

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Mr Houlihan? Who was going to say something, Mr Ryan?

PN74

MR P. RYAN: Yes, I appear on behalf of ARTIO in Melbourne.

PN75

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr Ryan, I overlooked you.

PN76

MR RYAN: I was here at the last hearing so I didn't enter any change of appearance. I was present at the discussions with the TWU and I would like it put on the record that ARTIO do oppose the TWUs application to increase the overnight allowance and also to introduce the meal allowances. In terms of our meeting with other employers and the Transport Workers Union, it was purely on a without prejudice basis to explore and gain an understanding of how this might work should it be argued and should the Commission in its wisdom decide to introduce some form of new allowances. So I would simply like that put on the record and I think that an attempt at conciliation or mediation at this stage would probably not be very fruitful, your Honour.

PN77

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right.

PN78

MR R. IRONMONGER: Your Honour, I appear for VECCI. I also adopt those submissions of Mr Ryan. I was present at that meeting as well.

PN79

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, thank you. Are you in this matter, Mr Houlihan?

PN80

MR HOULIHAN: Yes, I am, your Honour. At that hearing in May in Melbourne, I was my usual conciliatory and kindly self and wasn't particularly hostile to this application at all. That, I think, had more to do with the rustiness of my knowledge of current matters in the transport industry rather than any virtue in the application. My position now is that we do oppose this and we have seen nothing yet form the TWU to shift us in that. So I would be in exactly the same position as Bob Ironmonger or Peter Ryan in that we will be opposing this and we wouldn't see a lot of virtue in conciliation.

PN81

MR RYAN: The line is going in and out, your Honour. We couldn't hear probably half a minute of what Mr Houlihan said but maybe that was because he was turning somersaults under water.

PN82

MR HOULIHAN: Well, you certainly missed great value. Any words of mine, you should certainly complain if you miss out on them. All I'm saying is that I'm opposed to it.

PN83

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Schultz?

PN84

MR SCHULTZ: Your Honour, I also was at that meeting with Mr Ryan and Mr Ironmonger and NatRoad's position is that we are opposed to the claim as well.

PN85

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Back to you, Ms Tisdale?

PN86

MS TISDALE: Thank you, your Honour. We think it would be useful for the efficient conduct of this if there were directions set. We've had a bit of a think about what they could be. We would be able to provide an outline of submissions and witness statements in four weeks time. We think that another four weeks would be a suitable amount of time for the employers to respond to those and file their own witness statements and then with a further two weeks for us to respond to their material and then the matter be listed in about two and a half months time.

PN87

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I suppose the only thing about launching into the employers' statements is that I wouldn't mind knowing myself just how widespread the opposition is when they know what your arithmetic is and where you've got the figures from and how you say the claims are justified. I don't know, you might still have the same opposition or it might narrow somewhat. Would you have any objection to me listing a report back very shortly after the date that you would be filing and serving your outline of submissions and statements of any witnesses you would call in support?

PN88

MS TISDALE: No, your Honour.

PN89

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. I don't think we'll lose much time by doing that because the employers should be aware that at that report back I would want to know who will be opposing the claim and they should be aware that they will be facing then a direction for them to reply very shortly thereafter. So I don't think it's necessarily going to extend out this program. All right, you give me your four weeks deadline, Ms Tisdale?

PN90

MS TISDALE: I don't have my diary with me. Friday, 19 July?

PN91

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I am going on leave for two weeks so despite my good intentions about listing this within a couple of days of that deadline, I wouldn't list it until the week commencing 5 August. Do you want to give yourself a little more time, Ms Tisdale, in those circumstances?

PN92

MS TISDALE: Could we move it back a week, your Honour?

PN93

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right, we could do that, Friday the 12th?

PN94

MS TISDALE: Yes, your Honour.

PN95

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, then, I could list it on Thursday, 18 July. I will be in Sydney so it will be a videoconference. Does anyone want me to avoid any particular time on Thursday, 18 July? All right. Well, very shortly after we adjourn the several matters in the list this morning we will give you a time of a videoconference hook-up, Melbourne/Sydney/Adelaide. Is that as far as we can go on that matter? We will have transcript of this matter and we will organise for it to be sent to you as soon as possible. We will call on the next matter.

ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 18 JULY 2002 [10.15am]