AG2002/2957, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 2484 (3 July 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 VT04555

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER GRAINGER

AG2002/2957

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LJ of the Act
by SICPA (Australia Pty Ltd) and Another for
certification of the SICPA Victorian Award
Employees Workplace Development Agreement 2002-2005

MELBOURNE

3.06 PM, WEDNESDAY, 19 JUNE 2002

PN1

MR T. EFTIMADES: I appear for SICPA Australia Pty Ltd and appearing with me is MR G. HOLLAND and MS J. VAN STADEN.

PN2

MR T. RICHMOND: I appear for the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Eftimades, you are running me through it. The way that I like to have it done is for you to put as much on transcript as possible. I know that you have got statutory declarations in from Mr Holland-King and from - I think it is from Mr Reid from the union. But if you would just run me through as many of the statutory requirements as possible and if I have got any questions outstanding I will ask them of you. Thanks very much.

PN4

MR EFTIMADES: Commissioner, this is an application pursuant to division 2 section 170LJ of the Workplace Relations Act. It is an agreement that covers the manufacturing facilities of the Victorian site of SICPA Australia Pty Ltd and it affects approximately 64 employees. By way of work background, the company commenced negotiations with the AMWU in November 2001. A number of employee representatives of union officials were involved in negotiations that ensued with the company representatives.

PN5

Throughout the negotiation process all employees had access to both management, employee representatives and union representatives to discuss the proposed agreement that was in hand at the time. Each employee at the site has a fairly good understanding of English.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I note there were 25 people of non-English speaking background.

PN7

MR EFTIMADES: They are of non-English background but their command of English is quite good - - -

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, good,

PN9

MR EFTIMADES: - - - and they do understand contents of documents and the intent of the documents that were negotiated throughout the process of the discussions with the union. Each employee was advised, approximately, on 20 April 2002 of the intention to make an agreement between the parties and that the agreement would be certified with the Australian Relations Commission. On about 3 May the employees were provided with a forum to attend a paid time meeting at which forum the employees were presented with the contents of the agreement and copies of the agreement for their perusal.

PN10

And a number of management officials and representatives, as well as the union representatives, were in attendance to respond to any queries the employees may have had. At the expiration of the 14 days, which was 16 May, the employees also held another meeting and at that meeting they voted unanimously to endorse the proposed document between the parties. It was more than a valid majority, in fact.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: So it was unanimous?

PN12

MR EFTIMADES: Yes. The person that attended on behalf of the AMWU in the course of that meeting was Mr Ernie Jackson who, in turn, conveyed the information to the management representatives. So the point we are making, basically, is that the company did provide the necessary information to the employees and gave them - - -

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, within the requisite timeframes.

PN14

MR EFTIMADES: Within the prescribed time, certainly, and the 14 days notice was also applied in full. The agreement itself is - contains, sorry, a parent award, that being the Graphic Arts General Interim Award of 1995. It does contain procedures for preventing and settling dispute procedures and that is particularly covered in clause 24 entitled dispute settling procedure. It has an expiry date that does not exceed three years and is also covered in clause 6(a) of the agreement, and the date is 17 January 2005.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN16

MR EFTIMADES: And as we stated, the document does reflect the intent of the parties involved in this agreement. For these reasons we submit, respectfully, to the Commission that the agreement is consistent with the Workplace Relations Act and worthy of certification.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thanks very much, Mr Eftimades. Mr Richmond - - -

PN18

MR RICHMOND: If the Commission pleases.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - if you could just - thank you very much. Yes, Mr Richmond, I have just got a couple of questions for you and then if you just let me know if you support what Mr Eftimades has said for the company. To begin with, does the union have at least one member employed by the business?

PN20

MR RICHMOND: Indeed.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Indeed yes?

PN22

MR RICHMOND: Yes, Commissioner, indeed, yes.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: And is the union entitled to represent the industrial interests of that member?

PN24

MR RICHMOND: Yes.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. And Mr Richmond, do you otherwise support the submissions made by Mr Eftimades?

PN26

MR RICHMOND: Yes, I do. The union has engaged in a very thorough process of consultation with its members who are the majority of, if not all, the manufacturing employees at SICPA.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN28

MR RICHMOND: And throughout that process both officers and delegates of the union have made themselves available to answer questions that any individual employees may have had. We are proud that it was approved unanimously and we see that as a reflection of a very high level of satisfaction of the outcome from the employer's point of view.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: yes.

PN30

MR RICHMOND: So I have nothing further to add to the statutory declaration material.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I just, Mr Richmond, with regard to the no disadvantage test, did you have anything in particular you wanted to point out to me or are you happy to leave it to me to cite what I see as being the advantages?

PN32

MR RICHMOND: The only thing I would say about the no disadvantage test, Commissioner, is that the rates of pay contain - and I am not sure if I am in possession of the file - - -

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Clause 14 in regard to wages, is it 4.5 per cent plus 5 per cent plus 5 per cent increases set out over the three years of the agreement?

PN34

MR RICHMOND: Yes. Well, the actual rates, as outlined in appendix C, are well in excess of the equivalent classifications within the award and for that reason we believe that the requirements of section 170LT are well and truly met in this document.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, good. Thanks very much. Nothing else, Mr Richmond?

PN36

MR RICHMOND: No, I have nothing further, Commissioner.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: No, thank you. Then having both considered the written submissions and having heard the submissions today from Mr Eftimades for the company and Mr Richmond for the union, I am satisfied that in regard to the SICPA Victorian Award Employees Workplace Development Agreement 2002-2005 that it does meet all the requisite statutory requirements under the Workplace Relations Act.

PN38

I note, particularly, that the provisions of section 170LJ have been satisfactorily met. I note that with regard to the no disadvantage test, clause 12 with regard to classification, clause 13 with regard to leave, clause 14 with regard to wages and the three annual wage increases prescribed there, clause 15 with regard to income protection, clause 20 with regard to rostered days off, clause 26 with regard to redundancies and clause 29 with regard to no disadvantage, all of these provisions seem to represent an advantage over the award.

PN39

I note that there is the requisite dispute resolution clause, clause 24 with the capacity at clause 24(e) for matters to be referred to this Commission. I note that the period of the agreement doesn't exceed three years under clause 6(a). It is three years from 17 January 2002. I note that it does end a bargaining period. And accordingly, I do certify this agreement today, 19 June 2002, and will issue a certificate shortly. Thank you. And I now adjourn these proceedings. Thank you very much, Mr Eftimades and Mr Holland-King and Ms van Staden and Mr Richmond.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.15pm]