C2002/2406, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 2375 (27 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 DRAKE

C2002/2406

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC,
ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING
AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA

and

TELSTRA

Application under section 170LW of the Act
for settlement of dispute re a number of
Telstra employees being made redundant
whilst agency based staff carry out the
same functions

SYDNEY

10.29 AM, WEDNESDAY, 12 JUNE 2002

Continued from 30.5.02

Hearing Continuing

PN107

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I have the appearances, please?

PN108

MR A. ABSOLOM: I appear for the CEPU and with me is MR S. DODD, also from the CEPU.

PN109

MR B. WICKS: Your Honour, I am from Telstra, together with

PN110

MR P. BARRETT, also from Telstra.

PN111

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, Mr Absolom?

PN112

MR ABSOLOM: Your Honour, it is the intention of the CEPU to call four witnesses before you to substantiate the claims that labour hire staff are doing work that Telstra employees are doing and that Telstra employees should not be made redundant. One witness will be the organiser from New South Wales and an organiser from the New South Wales P&T Branch who will give your Honour a general overview and background to the dispute. Two other witnesses will be from Telstra.

PN113

One of those witnesses has left the organisation but has been employed previously in this area for some time and the other witness is a person going through the redundancy process at this moment, also engaged in the area for some considerable time. The other witness the CEPU intends to call is a contractor who has been engaged in these duties also for some considerable time. When I say a contractor, he's a labour hire agency person, your Honour.

PN114

Further, it is the intention of the CEPU to submit witness statements. This can be done or the CEPU intends to do this by 25 June. The CEPU will then seek witness statements from Telstra by, if your Honour agrees, 5 July. The CEPU would then endeavour to respond to such witness statements by 11 July. Considering that this is a period of some three or four days, if this is not possible such responses can be dealt with in oral evidence.

PN115

The CEPU intends to prove to your Honour that for a considerable period of time labour-hire employees/contractors have been doing the same work as Telstra employees in data management centres and such employees should not be made redundant. Your Honour, discussions have occurred between the parties but in the end these have proved fruitless. The CEPU has also considered the issue of site inspections but at this stage the CEPU considers this not to be appropriate.

PN116

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Why? Because it's not beneficial?

PN117

MR ABSOLOM: No. It's our understanding, your Honour, that work practices since this dispute has risen to the level of the Commission, or prior to this, work practices may have changed in these areas.

PN118

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. Thank you.

PN119

MR ABSOLOM: I would like to put forward now the daft orders.

PN120

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is this timetable agreed to?

PN121

MR WICKS: No, your Honour.

PN122

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, perhaps I'll hear from Mr Wicks about what he says and then look at both of your drafts. Yes, Mr Wicks?

PN123

MR WICKS: Thank you, your Honour. In terms of the timetable, we would certainly welcome the provision of witness statements from the CEPU. Our only point would be that we would suggest that the statements be provided by 18 June. Presumably they are in the process of being prepared at this time and accordingly Telstra would respond with its statements by 2 July. That would simply allow a little bit more time before the actual hearing for the parties to have all of the relevant statements.

PN124

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What's the first hearing date?

PN125

MR WICKS: 11 July, your Honour.

PN126

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that your only objection?

PN127

MR WICKS: I have other issues around other material that ought to be provided. I'm happy to talk to those now or - - -

PN128

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, do that.

PN129

MR WICKS: It's Telstra's position that, based on the order that will be handed up, it is appropriate that the union provide to the Commission and to Telstra details of the basis on which they seek the orders and an outline of their submissions in respect to the jurisdictional issues and the application of the redundancy agreement to those orders. We would also be seeking a direction today that the hearing be effectively limited to the orders that they seek in order to ensure that the parties understand what will be argued commencing on 11 July.

PN130

The basis on which we're seeking that submissions also be provided in writing on 18 June, is, firstly, to enable the hearing on the 11th and thereafter to be dealt with as efficiently as possible but also to ensure that Telstra fully understands what it's being asked to meet in respect to this matter. I won't go to the orders at the moment because they haven't been handed up but there are clearly matters within the orders as to which we would seek to understand on what basis the union believes that they can be issued.

PN131

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Could I have a copy of the orders, please? Mr Absolom, what you basically have is a request from Telstra to move the statements back a week on everyone's part so that you get yours out a week earlier and they get their responses out a week earlier, so that everyone is moving backwards by seven days which gives you a week to get out the four statements and any other documents you wish to produce. Can you do that

PN132

MR ABSOLOM: We would seek, your Honour, that perhaps Friday, the 21st, Friday week, would be appropriate.

PN133

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. How about tha as a compromise, Mr Wicks - the 21st and then the following Friday?

PN134

MR WICKS: No problem, your Honour.

PN135

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. So that's the 21st and then the following Friday for you. So it's the 21st and the 28th and then the 5th.

PN136

MR WICKS: Your Honour, in respect to the following Friday, would it be possible to make that 2 July, just to give us a little bit more than a week to understand the union's position and prepare evidence?

PN137

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, why don't we make it the week and if you have some problem you can come back and speak to Mr Absolom? It seems week/week/week is convenient. If you have some trouble with that then we'll have to move their time for responses. We could do that now. If you wanted it, instead of the 28th we could make it 2 July and then we could make it the 9th instead of the 5th.

PN138

MR WICKS: Certainly. That would be good if that was possible.

PN139

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Absolom? So it's the 21st for you, then 2 July and then 9 July.

PN140

MR ABSOLOM: Yes, that's fine by us.

PN141

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. I think, Mr Absolom, what you should do at the same time is provide an outline of your submissions. That will put Mr Wicks in a position to understand what is the basis on which you say the Commission has power to issue the orders and under what head of power it is and Mr Wicks, your response on that issue by the same date, the 2nd.

PN142

MR ABSOLOM: Yes, certainly, your Honour.

PN143

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there anything else?

PN144

MR ABSOLOM: No, thank you, your Honour.

PN145

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you agree about the inspections as well?

PN146

MR WICKS: Your Honour, we obviously understand the order sought which we received last night and some of the evidence. We haven't really finalised whether we believe inspections are appropriate. We understand, obviously, as much advance notice as possible is appropriate.

PN147

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What's important is that we might just have to have them after the evidence because we have the two lots of dates fixed and we have two days each, if I remember correctly. So if you do in the end think it's appropriate there's nothing wrong with us re-assessing the position after we've heard the evidence and then going back and having a look. I just would like you to give me as much notice as possible. Thank you for waiting for me. The Commission is adjourned.

ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 11 JULY 2002 [10.39am]