C2001/4579, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 2828 (24 July 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

COMMISSIONER JONES

C2001/4579

STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF
NEW SOUTH WALES

and

AUSTRALIAN RAIL, TRAM AND
BUS INDUSTRY UNION

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of an industrial dispute re the intention to amend
the arrangement for swapping of shifts by guards
during the proposed trial period of 19 day month
rostering for guards

SYDNEY

2.37 PM, TUESDAY, 9 JULY 2002

Continued from 27.8.01

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: May I have appearances, please?

PN80

MR I. DWYER: If the Commission pleases, I appear on behalf of the State Rail Authority of New South Wales. I have with me MR F. GRIFFIN, MR R. DALTON and MR J. ROSEWORN.

PN81

MS L. CARRUTHERS: If it please the Commission, I appear for the Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union and I have with me MR CARTWRIGHT and MR QUINN.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. When this matter was last before me in August last year I made a recommendation. It would appear from that recommendation that some of it hasn't been followed and I remember requiring the parties to regularly report back to me. I don't see that a report back or a call for this matter to be brought on last Monday is a regular report back situation, but would you explain to the Commission what has transpired since August last year?

PN83

MR DWYER: Commissioner, you are quite right, there has not been a regular report back and in my submission I will probably be able to explain that. Following your recommendation of 27 August the parties did undertake a tour of guards depots in relation to the 19-day month. That tour was undertaken from 3 September to 21 September and a vote was taken by guards in relation to the trialing of a 19-day month. Commissioner, if I may I would like to tender a document which is the documentation presented to the guards at those times.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you wish that marked as an exhibit?

PN85

MR DWYER: Yes, please, Commissioner.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be SRA1.

EXHIBIT #SRA1 DOCUMENT HEADED 19-MONTH TRIAL GUARDS

PN87

MR DWYER: Commissioner, as you will see it is a document headed 19-Month Trial, Guards, and it has five options on the front on how we ought to approach it. The second page just for the Commission's information is where the trial was to occur which would be in two stages and it nominates the locations for stage one and stage two. Then it goes on to talk about expressions of interest invited from guards to work at different locations because we had to build the numbers up to accommodate the 19-day month working in various locations.

PN88

It then goes to talk about expression of interest, and so forth. The most important part, Commissioner, is on page 5 where it's headed the 19-Day Month Rostering Arrangements. Commissioner, at the presentations, the management side went to great lengths to explain to the staff that to implement the 19-day month would require in our view a change to the swapping arrangements and we deliberately put your recommendation in the paper to indicate to the staff who were aware that the matter had been before this Commission as presently constituted before and that State Rail would be looking at options to vary the swapping arrangements and be aware, as we didn't want any misunderstandings as to what State Rail's intentions were to be able to accommodate a 19-day month. That's the purpose of that exhibit at this point in time, Commissioner.

PN89

Now, following our presentation to the guards, Commissioner, there were a number of meetings held between the parties in an endeavour to resolve our problems and try to come to some understanding on all the swapping arrangements. On 22 November, Commissioner, the RTBU Train Guards Division sent Ms Gail Gregory, who is the train crewing manager, a letter. May I tender that document?

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that will be exhibit SRA2.

EXHIBIT #SRA2 LETTER FROM RTBU TRAIN GUARDS DIVISION TO MS G. GREGORY DATED 22/11/2001

PN91

MR DWYER: Commissioner, SRA2 was dated 22 November. As I said, it's from the RTBU Train Guards Division addressed to Ms Gail Gregory, train crewing manager and it's signed by Michael Cartwright, the Secretary of the Train Guards Division. It goes on to say, Commissioner, and I quote:

PN92

On 15 November 2001 at a meeting ...(reads)... 19-day month trail.

PN93

It goes on to say:

PN94

This motion was carried unanimously.

PN95

So Commissioner, from 22 November, the union indicated that the issue was non-negotiable.

PN96

State Rail attempted to continue negotiations, Commissioner. Following the Christmas period I wrote to Mr Lewocki on 11 January indicating dissatisfaction with proposals for the swapping of the shifts during the 19-day month trail and, if I may, Commissioner, I would like to tender that document.

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be SRA3.

EXHIBIT #SRA3 LETTER FROM MR DWYER TO MR LEWOCKI DATED 11/01/2002

PN98

MR DWYER: It's not a lengthy letter, Commissioner, but I think it's important that I take the Commission through it because it puts the Authority's position in relation to what we were looking for in relation to change and swapping arrangements. It says:

PN99

I refer to previous discussions ...(reads)... the conditions that should apply.

PN100

Commissioner, it takes you through paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in relation to how the arrangements would work, and it goes on to say, in the last paragraph:

PN101

State Rail again advises ...(reads)... arrangements for the trial to be put in place.

PN102

Now, Commissioner, this letter is dated 11 January. You may recall that when we were last before you in August we indicated that we would operate the 19-day month trial for a period of 12 months in two six-month blocks with a number of depots operating in the first stage and the second stage. So what we're saying there, Commissioner, is. "We will put the swapping arrangements in that we can agree upon and at the end of the day, if we find they're not working properly or they need change, by all means you're not stuck with those arrangements, we can sit down and change, once we know the effect of it".

PN103

Following my letter of the 11th, Commissioner, the union responded on 17 January and I'll tender that, if I may.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be exhibit SRA4.

EXHIBIT #SRA4 LETTER FROM UNION TO SRA DATED 17/01/2002

PN105

MR DWYER: Commissioner, SRA4 is a letter from the RTBU addressed to myself and signed by Mr Ken Sullivan, a branch organiser with the union. It's headed "Guard Swapping of Shifts" and it says:

PN106

Further to your correspondence ...(reads)... negotiation with this union.

PN107

So, clearly, SRA4, we contend, was a different attitude from that expressed by the union in November when they said it was non-negotiable. So we then see a chance to continue negotiations, on 17 January.

PN108

Further meetings were held, Commissioner, and on 15 February I again wrote to Mr Lewocki, attention Mr Sullivan, regarding our position following a number of meetings held between 17 January and 15 January, if I may tender that document.

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be exhibit SRA5.

EXHIBIT #SRA5 LETTER FROM SRA TO UNION DATED 15/02/2002

PN110

MR DWYER: Commissioner, SRA5 is a letter dated 15 February to Mr Lewocki signed by myself and it's headed "Guard Swapping of Shifts" and it reads:

PN111

I refer to the above ...(reads)... in respect to the guard swapping.

PN112

Commissioner, you'll see an attachment to SRA5 and I will come to that in a moment. Continuing:

PN113

As previously advised ...(reads)... workload of rostering officers.

PN114

Again, I will comment on that later in my submissions, Commissioner. Continuing:

PN115

As advised at our meeting ...(reads)... in relation to this matter.

PN116

That was our position at 15 February, Commissioner, and if you look at the attachment headed Shift Swaps During the 19-day Month Trial you will see what State Rail's original position was in august 2001. Our position was you might say firm but not hard, all swaps to be with rostering officer by 9.00 am on Tuesday prior to the posting of the fortnightly roster and amended roster. That was in August 2001 when we were first before this Commission.

PN117

In January, Commissioner, following discussions with the union we had varied our position a fair bit. We are still not happy with the current arrangements but we thought if we could lessen the load for the union with regard to swapping arrangements there was some hope that we could get to a final position where both parties could accept the outcome and you will see there, Commissioner, it is a fair change to what we originally put up. I won't take you through those exact points, I will come back to those later when I come to the final part of my submissions, but you can see that we have had a fair bit of change and we talk about one swap per day and so forth but at the moment, Commissioner, it is unlimited. After my letter of 15 February the union wrote back to us on 19 February, and I will tender that document.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be exhibit SRA 6.

EXHIBIT #SRA6 LETTER FROM UNION TO SRA DATED 15/02/2002

PN119

MR DWYER: Commissioner, prior to addressing SRA 6 I would just point out that between 15 February and the union's response on 19 February, SRA 6, State Rail gave two guards or two guards representatives time off to review the Authority's position with regard to SRA 5 and we talked about the number of swaps that had occurred, to let them review it to satisfy themselves that the figures we were coming up with were not just drawn out of the sky, they were actual figures and we could support them. Following that, Commissioner, the union responded on 19 February and said:

PN120

Further to previous correspondence regarding the above ...(reads)... urgent attention and response to this important matter would be appreciated.

PN121

My copy is unsigned, Commissioner, and I don't know if the original one we got was signed or not but what concerns State Rail about that letter is the comment in the second paragraph where Mr Sullivan says that the endorsement with regard to the taking of this trial was on the clear understanding that the swapping of shifts was to be maintained and that this was clear to City Rail management.

PN122

That flies in the face of SRA 1 where we show the Commission the exact documentation that we presented to our guards at the presentations in those locations and we made it very, very clear to them, and indeed it is on paper at tab 5 that State Rail had to change swapping arrangement. We indicated that they would have to consider that in their final vote. I was on those addresses myself, Commissioner, along with Mr Griffin and I can assure you that is exactly what was said from the management side.

PN123

We have to take the letter of 19 February, Commissioner, with a little grain of salt, that the guards endorsement to partake in the 19-day month was on the clear understanding that State Rail knew that there would be no changes to the swapping arrangements. That is incorrect.

PN124

Now, Commissioner, following the letter of 19 February a little time slipped by before the Authority again wrote to the union. We attempted to have other discussions and we were getting nowhere and at the time the 19-day month was presumed to commence in April with the new timetable. That timetable went back to a date to be determined. We were concerned about leaving this matter in abeyance, the swapping arrangements were again getting out of hand and at that time, Commissioner, we were being approached by our rostering officers concerning the additional work load and concerns they were having with trying to draw up rosters that don't breach the awards and they had this additional work load of the monstrous amount of swaps taking place.

PN125

The rostering officers were indicating to us very clearly that they were dissatisfied and that something had to be done in order that they could properly do their own job, they could check their rosters to ensure there was no breach of the awards and so forth and with the additional work load of the swaps that were going on at the time and how it was operating, it was totally unsatisfactory. Indeed, it was unsatisfactory to them and it was unsatisfactory to the management of State Rail. In order to address the matter, again State Rail wrote to Mr Lewocki on 3 May, if I may tender that document.

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be SRA 7.

EXHIBIT #SRA7 LETTER FROM STATE RAIL TO MR LEWOCKI DATED 03/05/2002

PN127

MR DWYER: Commissioner, SRA 7 is a letter to Mr Lewocki and it is signed by Grant McPherson, the deputy chief executive director of Human Resources, so a letter signed by the deputy chief executive indicates that the Authority is getting concerned about what is going on. The letter reads:

PN128

As you will be aware, discussions with respect to the above have been ongoing since August last year ...(reads)... Commissioner Jones of the AIRC stated inter alia.

PN129

and it goes on to quote some of your recommendations, Commissioner. Then it goes on:

PN130

To ensure there is no confusion in relation to this issue the Authority proposal is again outlined.

PN131

It is the proposal, Commissioner, in SRA 5. It goes on in the second last paragraph:

PN132

In order to bring this matter to finality the RTBUs formal position as to the Authority's proposal is sought. Your early response would be appreciated.

PN133

We are now up to May since August, Commissioner, a lot of correspondence has gone across, we still can't get a position. Mr Lewocki under Mr Sullivan's signature responded to the deputy chief executive on 9 May and if I might tender a copy of that.

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be SRA 8.

EXHIBIT #SRA8 LETTER FROM RTBU TO DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE, STATE RAIL AUTHORITY, DATED 09/05/2002

PN135

MR DWYER: Commissioner, the letter is signed by Mr Sullivan and goes on to say:

PN136

This matter has been the subject of considerable discussion...(reads)... current agreement was to be maintained -

PN137

and he refers to his correspondence of 19 February. Continuing:

PN138

The RTBU guards' position ...(reads)... treat this matter as in dispute.

PN139

So, Commissioner, on 9 May we're still in dispute in relation to the change in swaps. We would submit, Commissioner, that we made it very clear before this Commission in August last year and again in September with four presentations to our staff, that changes to swaps and the way they were done had to be changed for a number of reasons, not lest to accommodate the working of a 19-day month.

PN140

Now, Commissioner, in some of that correspondence from the union, they refer to an agreement between the parties. I would refer the Commission to RTBU1 which was the actual agreement that was presented by Ms Carruthers at the hearing before you in August. This document has been around, as I understand it, since 1996 and at that time, Commissioner, we had about 800 guards, I think. We now have something in the vicinity of 1000 guards.

PN141

If you go through the document - it's very funny. At the time of the agreement it was signed by a Mr Roger McAllister, who was then the City Rail Train Crewing Manager and Mr McAllister has now retired some 18 months ago. It was also signed by the Metropolitan Guards Secretary, a gentleman by the name of Mr Ben Nimawari, who at that time was the Guards Secretary of City Rail Guards. Mr Nimawari is still at State Rail and we approached him - he is now a member of the management team - and asked for his view on what clause 7 on page 9 of the document actually meant because it seemed to be very ambiguous and the more ambiguity there is in it the more we don't seem to be able to control it.

PN142

Could I take you, Commissioner, to the fourth paragraph on page 9 under the heading, "Exchange of Shifts"? It says:

PN143

Multiple exchanges of shifts on any given day will not be accepted.

PN144

Now, Commissioner, multiple, in our view, means any more than one. So we would argue, if you just look at, you would say that you can have only one swap per day. Unfortunately, in the sixth paragraph, it goes on to say:

PN145

Guards must restrict the number of exchanges of shifts to two on any nominated day.

PN146

So one paragraph seems to be going exactly against what the other one says. There is definitely ambiguity there, Commissioner, and I have been unable, through a number of officers, to get a clear delineation on exactly what the requirements are under this agreement. This is where we're getting into trouble, Commissioner - getting into so much trouble that now we have that many swaps going on with guards out of course that we're concerned with breach of award.

PN147

Only recently the RTBU took the Authority before the Chief Industrial Magistrate's Court in relation to breach of award on guard rostering, where we did breach the award. Now, investigations reveal, I'm led to believe, that it was due to a workload problem. the particular officer, because of the workload he had with other issues, including swaps - it's mentioned in the report given to me - that he didn't have time sufficiently to check his work and that was the reason the mistake was made.

PN148

We don't want to be before the Industrial Magistrate's Court again on breach of award, Commissioner. That's not our business or we're not in that game and we're concerned that what's going on at the moment with swaps is starting to reflect on the work of officers in the rostering area.

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: You go so far as to say that the ambiguity structure, to the extent that if there is any more than one exchange anywhere - - -

PN150

MR DWYER: It's very strange, Commissioner. When we spoke to Mr Nimawari - - -

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - is hard to control.

PN152

MR DWYER: It is, Commissioner. When we spoke to Mr Nimawari he was adamant it was only one but he couldn't explain, or couldn't recall - and that's understandable, some six years ago or whenever it was - the rest of it. There may have been, shall we say, some understandings reached between the parties on how that would operate at that particular time but only one officer is available and, as you know, where agreements are reached with intent, sometimes those intents get changed or misunderstandings occur. Commissioner, I commented to you in August last year about the concerns we had with the number of shift alterations or swaps and that was in SRA2.

PN153

Commissioner, I would like to tender another document - - -

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: As I recall your particular problem area was Sydney itself, wasn't it?

PN155

MR DWYER: Sydney Depot will be a problem with the 19-day month but it's not for another six months - it's the second part - but all depots are causing us headaches, Commissioner. We've gone back and done some sums just to show you the enormity of this problem.

PN156

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be exhibit SRA9.

EXHIBIT #SRA9 SRA CALCULATIONS ON SWAPPING ARRANGEMENTS

PN157

MR DWYER: Commissioner, we have 18 depots with guards' locations, from Sydney all around the metropolitan area up to Newcastle, down to Wollongong and south to Campbelltown, and so forth. Commissioner, this takes 18 fortnights, from 12 August last year to 20 April this year. You'll see, Commissioner, there was a total of 26,423 alterations to rosters caused by swaps in addition to other alterations such as sickness, long service leave, holidays, and so forth. This 26,423 was swaps only.

PN158

We go on to show you there, Commissioner, that that averages out at 1467 alterations per fortnight. Every two weeks there are nearly 1500 alterations to the guards' rosters. these figures give an average, Commissioner, of 489 alterations each per fortnight per three rostering officers who are required to roster guards. We have only three looking after the lot. In turn, Commissioner, that relates to nearly 50 additional alterations they have to make to their rosters per day.

PN159

Now, Commissioner, with the introduction of the 19-day month at the beginning of July, we expect the swaps again to increase. The reason for this is that a number of guards in the 11 depots that are on trial will attempt to re-organise their rosters to support their social requirements. Commissioner, we accept that. People have a social life and they are entitled to that, but they also have a job that requires them to work particular rosters.

PN160

We also, Commissioner, are permitted to fatigue roster. We have been doing some studies with the University of South Australia and with the unions right across Australia with all states involved, both management and the union, looking at fatigue rostering and the problems associated with people working to 2 am, and so forth. What we have done, Commissioner, is that we have developed what we call fatigue friendly rosters which ensure that the fatigue which set into our employees on certain shifts is changed and each roster now is looked at to ensure that it is fatigue friendly. So as soon as we start having more swaps, Commissioner, that means the rostering officers will have to do more and more work to ensure that, at the end of the day, people aren't fatigued.

PN161

Now, we have recently had a dispute with the union over how that is to be done and we've agreed that, with the new rosters coming in from 14 July to accommodate the 19-day month, in relation to fatigue we will look only at the master rosters and we won't, shall we say, set up these rostering officers as the people who say, to myself, "You're fatigued. You can't have a swap, but Mr Griffiths, beside me, can because he happens to be my friend".

PN162

So, to take that away and to take the accountability off the rostering officer, workload-wise and responsibility-wise, we are waiting until December, Commissioner, in relation to those sort of alterations because we will have technology that we will be available to us to be able to ensure that people are not fatigued when they go to the delegate and make swapping arrangements, change shifts or work overtime. To go back to SRA 9, Commissioner, that is 26,000 alterations to swaps. That's just ridiculous, to put it bluntly. I will give you an example of what is going on. Here we have one employee who swapped 24 times in a fortnight. It goes like this, Commissioner.

PN163

X swaps with Y for the whole line, and I won't name the people, then X swaps with Y again for the first Sunday back, so he swapped his first Sunday and then he swaps it back. Then X swaps with Z for another Sunday, then X swaps with another person for two days, then he swaps back with another person. All in all there were 24 alterations to the roster in a fortnight just to accommodate Mr X.

PN164

We do not believe that is a proper way to be working, it is totally out of control and I think you would have to agree, Commissioner, that with that number of swaps, 24,423, in that period of 36 weeks, we will be cracking the 30,000 before we hit one year, so it's just not on.

PN165

The other point we would like to make is that the union have said to us on a number of occasions that they have a personal life to lead and we accept that, then the emergencies come up and we accept that but, Commissioner, State Rail has a number of policies, indeed it has 21 policies that refer to alternative arrangements for leave such as sick leave, study leave, bereavement leave, court appeals, jury duty, family leave and so forth, so instead of arranging swaps these people could arrange alternative leave and if the rostering officer is given advice early enough they can make out those rosters, ensure they are correct in relation to award conditions and so forth, the work load is reduced and employees know exactly what they are doing.

PN166

Commissioner, this business of coming in one day and swapping with someone else the same day and then reswapping, it's just not working and if we don't do something about it very quickly we will have an industrial dispute with our rostering officers, so we are between a rock and a hard place so far as these arrangements are concerned. We believe we have put up a solution to the matter, an option, it is an option that our drivers have accepted. We had a similar problem with our train drivers, we sat down with them and we negotiated an agreement with them which is exactly the same agreement we have put to our guards. The drivers accepted that and I understand it is working extremely well at this point in time. It is being monitored. They are different to other employees, Commissioner, in relation to personal life and so forth.

PN167

Commissioner, I would state before you that State Rail have done everything possible. Admittedly, we have not reported back to the Commission because we were hopeful that we could resolve the issue and the submissions we have put before you with the SRA exhibit would indicate that. We would be seeking some direction from the Commission either that the RTBU sit down and enter into negotiations with us quickly to come up with changes to swapping arrangements that would suit both sides, RTBU and State Rail, which would also accommodate the work load that we are putting on our rostering officers and get away from the concern that we may have that work load problems being in breach of the award and so forth. If the Commission pleases.

PN168

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Dwyer. Yes, Ms Carruthers.

PN169

MS CARRUTHERS: Thank you. Commissioner, as far as the RTBU is concerned this dispute notification by the SRA really is in relation to not the implementation of the 19-day month but a further attempt to vary an existing agreement, RTBU 1, which concerns shift swapping arrangements between the guards and the SRA. The union has made it clear that we are happy to negotiate an agreement within the context of appropriate arrangements for negotiating changes to agreements. For example, Commissioner, negotiations were on foot which included the 19-day month yet matters concerning changes to RTBU 1 were not part of those negotiations, it was never raised in the context of the EBA negotiations by SRA.

PN170

It is also important in context, Commissioner, to understand - this may have been raised, I don't have the transcript available in the office, it may have been raised when we were last before you in August - it is important to consider that this is really about swapping arrangements, it is not really about the 19-day month. The SRA itself offered during the negotiations on the EBA a sum of money per guard if guards would in fact agree to not go with the 19-day month. In the event, following your recommendation it was put to a ballot and as you know it was carried overwhelmingly.

PN171

The difficulty that Mr Dwyer has referred to in relation to swapping has nothing to do with the 19-day month, indeed in his own submission before you he made it clear that the implementation of the 19-day month doesn't begin till Sunday.

PN172

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but he perceives a problem.

PN173

MS CARRUTHERS: Mr Dwyer perceives a problem but the problem Mr Dwyer is referring to is a problem with the current swapping arrangements. He said that himself, he said that the swapping arrangements are out of hand, but the problem for him is that the trial hasn't even begun.

PN174

Can I also refer to exhibit SRA 9, to make a couple of points about that. In relation to SRA 9 it is important that it be understood in context that the alterations mentioned there need to be treated very carefully. They are not single instances. For example, if I swap during a fortnight, each day of that fortnight is counted as part of a swap, so what you would really need to do in terms of looking at the amount of swaps is to divide those figures by 14.

PN175

THE COMMISSIONER: They are still pretty high, though, aren't they?

PN176

MS CARRUTHERS: Well, Commissioner, they may be pretty high but we have it fact families working as guards on the trains and this is really a working family issue as far as being able to arrange things. When you have two shift workers working, part of a family, and remember it could be two of them swapping a shift to accommodate some particular child care arrangement, that would show up for the couple 28 swaps.

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: I can appreciate that would be a problem, if two members of a family are working in the same job, but is that really the responsibility of the organisation to overcome that, if two people choose to work in the same job?

PN178

MS CARRUTHERS: Well, I would say two things about that, Commissioner. Firstly, the organisation has as we know statutory obligations in relation to working family arrangements and making proper accommodation for them and it is irrelevant whether two people of the same family work in an organisation or not, the statute simply doesn't refer to that, but the second issue here is that we have an agreement, RTBU 1, concerning how these arrangements are to be carried out.

PN179

In relation to the ambivalence of the agreement, it is clear to this organisation what it means but I would say this, all the way through this dispute the aim has been to change and vary that agreement. The union's position is that agreements may be varied, of course agreements may be varied, there is a process for varying agreements, there is no question about it. In correspondence before you tabled by Mr Dwyer the union has indicated its willingness to deal with entering into negotiations on varying agreements and so on. This Commission, with respect, would know there is a process for doing that and indeed the Commission itself when we were last before it in August last year actually set down in the recommendation some kind of process and I refer to point 2 of the second paragraph of the recommendation where it says:

PN180

If the results of the ballot show ...(reads)... problems such trial period might bring about.

PN181

Commissioner, the proposed variations that were set out and shown in SRA 1 that was posted out. Despite that, no committee was formed and no joint assessment was made.

PN182

THE COMMISSIONER: Isn't that the responsibility of both parties?

PN183

MS CARRUTHERS: Well, Commissioner, I would concede that it is a responsibility of both parties but what I would say is that this was a view about how the swapping arrangements would arise, that is, those arrangements set out in the letter from Ms Gail Gregory to the union and, prior to that, as an attachment to a document SRA5, 15 February this year, the letter that Mr Dwyer wrote to Nick Lewocki. I've referred to the third paragraph of that.

PN184

Really, what he is seeking here to do - and I think we need to set aside the issue of the 19-day month if we can - and what this letter is really coming out and saying is that the Authority wants to change the current swap arrangements because they are ineffective and increase the workload on rostering officers.

PN185

Now, I will just stop there and say this. It may well be the case that there is not enough staffing for the rostering officers. We would not resile from that for a moment. We have to come back to the central position in this, Commissioner, which is that if we have an agreement in place as to how these things are to be managed then there is a process for actually dealing with that. The proposals being put forward in the correspondence SRA5 and subsequent were never discussed with the union. These were unilateral proposals that were just put up.

PN186

Commissioner, it's the view of the union that in fact the Authority is not particularly supportive of the implementation of the 19-day month. However that be, it doesn't, I suppose, in one sense, matter because it's a trial. It's open for the SRA to say that the trial hasn't been successful.

PN187

In fact, what this union is concerned about is that two issues are being hooked together in a way that is not tenable. That is, that an agreement signed in 1996 is now being found by the SRA difficult to implement. It would like unilaterally to change the agreement to a set of proposals - and they are summarised there in SRA5 - but instead of actually sitting down and negotiating a new agreement with the organisation, with the RTBU, which it had, Commissioner, last year, during the enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations, it let those go to finality.

PN188

We came here. There was a recommendation on how to introduce the 19-day month. The ballot went ahead. It was agreed to and the process for actually dealing with the other issues that were falling out of it was not properly set up. It hasn't been set up and, while I concede that it's incumbent on both parties, what I would say, Commissioner, is this. If you look at RTBU1, we have an agreement there, so there really does have to be quite a serious process for dealing with a variation to an agreement because, as the name implies, it's an agreement. One side simply can't repudiate an agreement - - -

PN189

THE COMMISSIONER: What are the steps then that you're raising?

PN190

MS CARRUTHERS: Well, in our view, Commissioner, there are a couple of issues we would like to raise, before I get to that, about the number of swaps. Can I just say, for the record, that the union has no problem at all with people who put in swaps that are not in accordance with that agreement and who abuse that agreement being properly managed. Can I make that very clear at the outset?

PN191

It's the view of the union that that is not being properly managed in many instances and there may well be abuses, but we say, set those aside for a moment. The members are entitled to take heed of that agreement. We would say that variation to that agreement, which has been varied actually in many respects over the period since it was made, has been done in the context of enterprise bargaining negotiation and we would say that any negotiations that are negotiations to talk about changes to swaps should be done within the same context.

PN192

THE COMMISSIONER: How long will that take?

PN193

MS CARRUTHERS: Well, Commissioner, like any agreement, it would take until the parties are agreed.

PN194

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but when is the agreement due?

PN195

MS CARRUTHERS: This current functional agreement expires in March 2004.

PN196

THE COMMISSIONER: So it will be 2003 before we will be able to look at it - is that what you're saying?

PN197

MS CARRUTHERS: Well, at this stage, yes, unless there's some process that the members are happy with in the interim. There is nothing to stop either side seeking to raise and trying to change an agreements prior to its nominal expiry date, if you like. There's no problem with that. As it stands, this agreement, as altered, as amended, forms part of the context of the existing EBA. We say there's no problem in either side seeking to vary something within the life of an agreement, but a proper process has to be put in place and it has to be done within the context of any kind of variation to these sorts of agreements.

PN198

That's the difficulty, Commissioner, with this, that they have simply sought unilaterally to change that agreement, that part of the agreement which is clause 7, although on previous issues contained in that agreement it has been negotiated, changes agreed and incorporated into an EBA. So, Commissioner, what is being sought here, in our submission, is an attempt simply unilaterally to change this part of the agreement without going through those EBA processes.

PN199

I would just like to make a couple of other points, if I may. I was familiar with the award breach matter before the Chief Industrial Magistrate. Sir, that award breach was not connected with swaps and, indeed, the depot from which that person came where the award breach occurred has the lowest number of swaps in the system. So really I think, with respect, that's a bit of a red herring in these proceedings. So I would ask the Commission, with respect, to set that issue aside.

PN200

We recognise that there are a large amount of swaps, although we say they are not as great as in SRA9. We say that those swaps are available to people as per the agreement and that a large amount of them accrue because of various members of the family working as guards. The fact that the guards numbers have increased from 800 to 1000, a 25 per cent increase, may have something to do with the additional number of swaps because there has been an increase in the number of employees. That may well be the case. It has a certain logic to it.

PN201

However, that increase has been going on for some time. I think that increase goes back prior to the Olympics and was certainly intensified by the Olympics. So the increase has been, if you like, within the purview of management and the union. We have known that's been going on for three or four years.

PN202

There has been time, in our submission, and, indeed, the proper time, in our submission, would have been last year when the EBA was being negotiated, to take into account those sorts of issues in that rostering arrangement, as well as the 19-day month, in negotiating that EBA. It simply wasn't done.

PN203

Commissioner, may I say again, we really do need to understand this in the context that the 19-day month is not something that has been eagerly sought by management. Indeed, they offered money for the union not to reject it. The union's position was that it wanted a ballot. We had a ballot, as per your recommendation, and the members accepted it, but it is not part of that process, that EBA bargaining process. The focus of the parties was on the 19-day month. It was never introduced as part of that EBA bargaining process. That would also require a variation to clause 7 of that rostering agreement. None of us in this room are in position to say what would have happened had it been so. The point is, it wasn't done.

PN204

My submission further is that it wasn't done because, in a sense, the SRA hoped not to have to put this to trial. Now, in the event it is put to trial - and I make no issue over it, I'm not taking any issue with the SRA over that at all because the parties are agreed it's going to start - the issue the union has is that the SRA has tried to hitch one difficulty, arising out of an agreement that it had never sought to vary in the proper way, to another matter.

PN205

We say, and Mr Dwyer himself said in his submission, the swapping will become intolerable when we introduce the 19-day month. Well, we haven't introduced it yet. If there have been growing difficulties with swapping, what we say is that there was a way in which to deal with that and a proper process, in the way in which other rostering arrangements within the organisation have been dealt with.

PN206

We say here that it is quite unfair to simply pluck this particular aspect of that rostering agreement out and say, here's our proposal and all of you are going to be doing the 19-day month, this proposal will apply to you but it won't apply to all the other people. We would see that as putting pressure on the issue of the 19-day month trial but I have no further submission to make on that, I mean it's a trial, if there are difficulties with it on either side there's a process that has been set up by yourself to deal with it, so I make no issue out of that.

PN207

I do come to the issue of swapping arrangements and the changing of them in this way. Again, we say where people breach that agreement on our side it should be managed properly and it should be dealt with but we say where variation is sought to that agreement it should be dealt with in the proper way. If guards breach this swapping agreement, they actually can be banned, that is the swapping agreement, so there is a provision available.

PN208

I apprehend, Commissioner, that the difficulty here is that with the increase in the number of guards, the change of work and family patterns that has resulted from the mix of guards and the increases and so on that have occurred have put pressure on the rostering clerks that deal with this. It may well be that it is not feasible for three clerks to manage that work load.

PN209

Commissioner, I would suggest with respect to the SRA that there is another proper and appropriate way to deal with that staffing and management issue. There is a better way to deal with this issue, to have a look at the computing arrangements, for example, about whether in fact they can take into account fatigue management rostering principles when they have these kinds of swaps at local depots. There is a possibility that that can be introduced, that has been discussed as I understand it, and better staffing arrangements with rostering clerks, but if the SRA is seeking to change an agreement outside the proper process of changing agreements we say that that cannot be countenanced because if we were to come down here and seek to do the same thing we believe we would have to really justify it.

PN210

In our view, the onus should be properly on the SRA to find a way to put some of the changes that they wish to make into a proper negotiating process and seek to have the results of that incorporated into a certified agreement. I say that because variations to that agreement have been made and have been incorporated into a previous EBA. It is not the case that the union is rigid on those issues but we say, Commissioner, that what is being sought here arises fundamentally from SRAs growing inability, for whatever reason, to manage the changing workforce mix and the growth of the workforce.

PN211

Commissioner, we say we may need to look at that but you really can't ditch standing agreements just because you haven't worked out a way to deal with changing workforce arrangements which indeed, with respect, the Authority has been aware of for four years. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN212

THE COMMISSIONER: One more question, Ms Carruthers, before you sit down. The ambiguities pointed out by Mr Dwyer in relation to RTBU 1, have you any comments on that

PN213

MS CARRUTHERS: Well, he didn't really explain what the ambiguities are.

PN214

THE COMMISSIONER: I can see the ambiguity without Mr Dwyer explaining it, it just doesn't seem to gel with me.

PN215

MS CARRUTHERS: Sorry, where is that?

PN216

THE COMMISSIONER: If you go to the fourth paragraph on page 9, it talks about multiple exchange of shifts on any given day will not be accepted, so that must be more, more than two.

PN217

MS CARRUTHERS: That's more than two people on a swap.

PN218

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it doesn't say that, that's the problem, because if you read the second paragraph down from that:

PN219

Guards must accept the number of changes of shifts to two on the nominated day.

PN220

MS CARRUTHERS: Yes, but if you read on, sir.

PN221

THE COMMISSIONER: On their merits.

PN222

MS CARRUTHERS: This does not preclude the number of guards, ie more than two, signing an application - - -

PN223

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but that competes with the two paragraphs above. "Multiple exchanges" - multiple exchanges to my mind means more than one - "of shifts on any given day will not be accepted."

PN224

MS CARRUTHERS: Yes. That's one person, Commissioner. Multiple exchanges of shifts on any given day means if I, for example, at 9 o'clock said I wanted to exchange shifts with somebody and then at 12 o'clock said I wanted to exchange with somebody else and then at 1 o'clock said I wanted to exchange with somebody else, that would not be permitted.

PN225

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I understand that, that may be the situation, but as I pointed out earlier, you could go to one extreme in reading that paragraph, it says "more than a multiple exchange anywhere in the system then it will not be accepted." In other words, the paragraph might have the intent that you are talking about but it doesn't come across that way, particularly when you read the second paragraph.

PN226

MS CARRUTHERS: Commissioner, in the respect that there is any ambiguity, and I am in fact advised that it is understood as to how it would work, because if you go down to two paragraphs below Multiple Exchange of Shifts, paragraph 4, guards must restrict the number of exchange of shifts to two on any nominated day - - -

PN227

THE COMMISSIONER: But you see, you've got multiple exchanges of shifts will not be accepted on any given day, so multiple exchanges means more than one. Then you go to two paragraphs down, there can be two.

PN228

MS CARRUTHERS: I think in a sense it's the way it has been set out.

PN229

THE COMMISSIONER: That's what I am getting at, it is ambiguous.

PN230

MS CARRUTHERS: The way it's set out, but not the words. "Multiple exchanges of shifts on any given day will not be accepted." The next paragraph sets out the processes by which people can actually exchange shifts and deal with changes in shifts, so if you like, the paragraph under the fourth paragraph actually sets out the processes whereby those exchanges can and may occur. I would suggest, Commissioner, that that really arises from the fact that that hasn't been set out as a proper heading and that the following paragraphs should have actually been numbered (a), (b), (c) and (d).

PN231

However, that is the case, Commissioner, and if one party to an agreement may feel that there's an ambiguity, there are processes for dealing with ambiguity in agreements and, of course, it's the same sort of process, there's a process for dealing with variations. Again, if this is the case, why suddenly was this raised last year? This agreement has been in place since 1996. Resolution of ambiguity is a normal process, it is a process that often arises and that can be dealt with in terms of negotiation or it can be dealt with by application but in neither way has that process been gone through by the SRA.

PN232

I still say, Commissioner, that it is understood by the union as to how that is set out and as to how it works. Now Mr Dwyer says it is ambiguous and he doesn't understand how it works. I think, sir, with respect, that the fact that the SRA doesn't understand how it works is really more due to the fact that they do understand how it works and now in this current environment it is not working in the way they hoped in the beginning when this document was signed it would work. That's fine, there is no criticism there but what we say is that the knowledge of that was available well before last year when the EBA negotiations commenced and that was the time to introduce it.

PN233

What we say is that there is a proper process for varying agreements and we would say that that is what is required here. You cannot, with respect, just simply issue letters proposing changes to an agreement and say, well, this is how we think this should week. I would repeat, this is most important and needs to be separated from the 19-day month. It is on trial, the guards voted for it, if there's difficulty with the 19-day month either party can bring them back. That's part of the process of negotiation.

PN234

Finally, sir, this issue in our view arises because of a change in mix of the workforce and the inability of the SRA to actually manage the arrangements set out in this agreement. We say let us get a process, a proper process of varying the agreement. It shouldn't simply be done unilaterally on the basis that suddenly there is a problem because the workforce has grown by 25 per cent and the mix of the workforce. With the mix of the workforce changing, people still have their statutory and legal rights, disagreements are part of the EBA agreement, so we would say, Commissioner, that really the process for varying falls within those general processes. If it please the Commission.

PN235

THE COMMISSIONER: I think it was said last time that one of the problems arising out of the agreement is that it was drafted, or was drawn up, to meet a 20-day roster.

PN236

MR DWYER: That is correct, Commissioner.

PN237

THE COMMISSIONER: We're now looking at a 19-day roster to be put on trial. Therefore, it could be considered - I'm not saying it doesn't - that the first one, which is RTBU1, may not in fact meet what is going to be the trial period.

PN238

MR DWYER: That's correct, Commissioner.

PN239

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not saying it doesn't, it could. We're looking at two different scenarios, aren't we?

PN240

MS CARRUTHERS: It may well be, Commissioner. It could. The point I make is this. This was well known. If it could, and if there were difficulties here, this document has been in since 1996. This was well known to the SRA last year when a number of issues were negotiated, including the introduction of a 19-day month.

PN241

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not condoning what has happened. In fact I'm critical of both sides in terms of the way the thing has progressed over the period, but we still have a problem and we still have to try and resolve it. Yes, Mr Dwyer?

PN242

MR DWYER: Can I just clarify a couple of issues, Commissioner? First of all, Ms Carruthers keeps talking about EBAs. the trialling situation of the 19-day month was granted in 2000, pre the Olympics. Now, she's going on to say that we can't vary the agreement because it's part of the EBA. RTBU1 is not part of the EBA whatsoever. It's an agreement signed by the Guards Secretary of the City sub-branch and by the Train Crewing Manager of State Rail. It's not a certified document. It's not a legally binding document, Commissioner. It was an agreement for working arrangements at that time. So to say that we've got to vary it as part of the EBA process is just nonsense. It's not part of the EBA process whatsoever. It's a working document that, as we would submit, Commissioner, may change in accordance with working requirements. So there's no legal technicality on it.

PN243

I'm pleased, Commissioner, that the ambiguity has been raised. I would like to know, Commissioner, if the RTBU can explain to me what exactly RTBU1 means and how does it operate because I'm sure that I will find several State Rail officers who have been in the organisation for some time would totally debate the union's interpretation of what it means.

PN244

THE COMMISSIONER: That's the problem, each one has their own ideas of what it means.

PN245

MR DWYER: Well, Commissioner, we have no rules at the moment. People just come in and swap as they feel like it basically. Now, Ms Carruthers went on to talk about family obligations and partners working for the same organisation. Commissioner, if you look at SRA5, that has an attachment there, at point 5:

PN246

Swaps for the second week will be restricted to one swap per day.

PN247

Look at point 3 too. How many swaps do people want in a day? We're saying they can have a swap a day so if people have problems they can swap in a day. They can have one swap a day. They can't come to work, have one swap then swap with another then swap with another and swap with another and that is what is happening. According to the union's understanding of the agreement, that's how it's worked. We don't mind people coming in and having one swap per day.

PN248

What we're putting up is, very simply: "You get your roster at the beginning of the fortnight, you know what you're working, if you have personal arrangements and can arrange to swap, please tell the rostering officer before the fortnight commences so we can alter the roster. Then, if you come in with a personal matter during the time of that second week, if you have a problem, you can have a swap on the day, but you can't then go and swap with someone else and someone else and someone else". That's all we're saying, Commissioner.

PN249

So Ms Carruthers' argument that we're not accommodating our duty to relations and family care commitments, and so forth - we believe we are, 3. We believe we are. We're making what's available to people at one per day, not five and six as they're taking now. That's the case too that the rostering officers can then plan the swaps. They know who wants to swap, who wants to do something else, and they don't get these things just coming at them out of the blue all the time. People have personal crises, yes, and there are many policies to accommodate those. In addition we're saying they can have a swap a day. So to say that we're not being reasonable, I think, is just a little bit over the top.

PN250

More importantly, Commissioner, Ms Carruthers goes on to say that everything is negotiable. We've been trying to negotiate this since August last year and that's shown by nine exhibits that State Rail has put forward in relation to correspondence. I just refer the Commission to SRA2:

PN251

Regarding swaps ...(reads)... non-negotiable.

PN252

The trial was set in November. Again, we kept on trying and trying and trying. Not once, Commissioner, has the union put forward any changes, or suggested changes, that they were prepared to live with, not one. SRA5, Commissioner, shows how we have moved from our original position in August to the revised position in January 2002. Yet nothing is coming forth from the union. So to say that they are prepared to negotiate, Commissioner - here we are in July, nearly 12 months down the track, and we've seen nothing.

PN253

Also, Commissioner, I refer to the number of swaps and the 19-day month. Ms Carruthers is right. Those 26,000 swaps have occurred before the 19-day month. It's a problem now. When we get into the 19-day month we believe, and the experts in rostering for State Rail are telling me, that it will get worse.

PN254

Now, with 26,000 swaps in 36 weeks, Commissioner, just on a 20-day working, it has proved very clearly that RTBU1 doesn't work properly. It is not clear enough and it's not understandable enough for both sides. They have one view, obviously we have another view. We will be in conflict until we can come up with something that is reasonable. We are saying we have put up something that's reasonable. The union haven't come back to us. They have not put forward one position to say, "Well, yes, it's negotiable". They've said it's non-negotiable and kept on coming back claiming that we're trying to damage the 19-day month.

PN255

It's true State Rail didn't want the 19-day month but it was granted and was given for a reason. Now we have rosters to introduce it and we will live with the 19-day month trial. All we're saying, Commissioner, is that, with or without the 19-day month, these swaps have now become just beyond manageable proportions. We just can't live with up to 30,000 roster alterations just for swapping in 12 months. No other organisation surely would have to put up with it. We must be able to manage our organisation.

PN256

Staffing numbers, Commissioner: we've worked with the same number of officers we have - I think we've added to the section some couple of years ago to accommodate award changes and what-not with alterations. With this now coming to us, Commissioner, we have nowhere to go. We just can't live with the way this is going. We're going to have an industrial dispute with our rostering officers - no doubt about that - unless we can come up with some arrangements, unless someone can clearly explain what this means, because we don't accept what the union says and obviously they don't accept what we believe, and we're saying, "Okay, let's have something new". We've put up a proposal. No-one has given us a comment back on it.

PN257

So, Commissioner, we're seeking the assistance of this Commission in accord with your recommendation. We're quite happy to sit down but we've got to have some honesty and some acceptance by the RTBU that the current position that State Rail is living with is just unworkable and there has got to be a little bit of give. I think we've given a fair bit and are trying to come to something under SRA5, yet there is nothing coming back from the union. If the Commission pleases.

PN258

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Yes, Ms Carruthers?

PN259

MS CARRUTHERS: I hope I'm not stretching the friendship here, Commissioner. Can I make a couple of points in relation to SRA5? There were discussions under the auspices of the Labor Council between the RTBU and SRA concerning changes to the document to try to iron out some of the ambiguities. The difficulty is that the way it's been set out by SRA is, in its view, unilateral. It won't actually negotiate and talk to us about arrangements or proposals that the union had put forward. It is not true to say that we're not prepared to discuss it. We're prepared to discuss it under the auspices of the Labor Council. SRA have held to themselves a particular view as to how this is to work and what we say is that while they maintain that position we will maintain the agreement. If it please the Commission.

PN260

MR DWYER: That's not correct, Commissioner. We've got no proposals from the union.

PN261

THE COMMISSIONER: Do the parties have any objection if we go into conference?

PN262

MR DWYER: No, Commissioner.

PN263

MS CARRUTHERS: No, Commissioner.

PN264

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, we will adjourn into conference.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [3.47pm]

RESUMES [5.08pm]

PN265

THE COMMISSIONER: There have been lengthy discussions between the parties about this particular problem and I have put forward a process if you like to propose which seemed to be acceptable to resolve the concerns currently being expressed. It does, of course, involve a third party being available that week in the Commission and seeing if that is at all possible. If not, let's look at another mechanism.

PN266

(1) The Commission will contact the Trades and Labor Council to resurrect an immediate discussion forum of and between the parties under an initial Commission with Trades and Labor Council representation of joint chairmanship.

PN267

(2) Both parties in the meantime will address concerns they individually have regarding the overall introduction of the 19-day roster trial period with a view to then becoming agenda items for the forum which has been indicated in point (1) above.

PN268

(3) It is agreed by both parties that the introduction of the trial period to commence on Sunday, 14 July, 2002 is inevitable and as such the current agreement between the parties should remain in force until the meeting as indicated in point (1) above has had the opportunity to commence and to discuss in an orderly fashion mechanisms required to handle those individual concerns which are raised by the parties as in point (2) above. As well, a mechanism will be required to be in place to address the as yet unenvisaged problems which may occur during the trial period and will also become a forum topic.

PN269

(4) The Commission will prepare for the parties as soon as possible a terms of reference.

PN270

MR DWYER: Could I just raise one issue, Commissioner, so that we are very clear. You talked about concerns we have about the 19-day month, does that also allow us to put our current concerns about the arrangements we have with swapping?

PN271

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, and the other side have raised some problems which I think certainly need to be raised. There may be, for instance, a general item or a topic which may be of concern to one individual party which may require some subheadings under it. Well, take swaps, you have raised it as a problem, what do you mean by swaps? One thing I think is wording of the current agreement, that's a general item under the heading of Swaps, and one of the concerns you have raised, I can quite easily see that that will be in need of subheadings as well. It's a problem that is being addressed but what problems could there occur, other problems could occur as a result, and that's on the ability to change the rosters.

PN272

Now, I envisage that the meeting initially will only take one day. It needs to address the mechanisms which are going to be there for a problem which is already in train, namely, the roster is being introduced, it's working by the time we get together. It will be one or two days. It's working to quickly put in place something there in the mechanism to handle the problems. Are there any other items?

PN273

MR DWYER: No, I just wanted to clarify that because that's the big issue with us, as I think you would understand.

PN274

THE COMMISSIONER: I think we have clarified that. Ms Carruthers?

PN275

MS CARRUTHERS: Nothing more, Commissioner.

PN276

THE COMMISSIONER: I will undertake to immediately get in touch with the Trades and Labor Council to see if we can arrange this forum. It might help if the parties could indicate your availability next week.

PN277

MR DWYER: We will be available whenever you are, Commissioner.

PN278

MS CARRUTHERS: Commissioner, we will need to get in touch with the working party delegates to make sure that those from the depot who feel strongly about it are able to be there. I assume we will have the co-operation of SRA to do that.

PN279

THE COMMISSIONER: I am looking at Wednesday, Thursday of next week, the 17th, 18th. That's subject to somebody being available from the TLC. It will be in the Commission.

PN280

MR DWYER: Yes, thank you, Commissioner.

PN281

MS CARRUTHERS: Yes.

PN282

THE COMMISSIONER: If there is nothing further from the parties, this Commission stands adjourned.

ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [5.16pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #SRA1 DOCUMENT HEADED 19-MONTH TRIAL GUARDS PN87
EXHIBIT #SRA2 LETTER FROM RTBU TRAIN GUARDS DIVISION TO MS G. GREGORY DATED 22/11/2001 PN91
EXHIBIT #SRA3 LETTER FROM MR DWYER TO MR LEWOCKI DATED 11/01/2002 PN98
EXHIBIT #SRA4 LETTER FROM UNION TO SRA DATED 17/01/2002 PN105
EXHIBIT #SRA5 LETTER FROM SRA TO UNION DATED 15/02/2002 PN110
EXHIBIT #SRA6 LETTER FROM UNION TO SRA DATED 15/02/2002 PN119
EXHIBIT #SRA7 LETTER FROM STATE RAIL TO MR LEWOCKI DATED 03/05/2002 PN127
EXHIBIT #SRA8 LETTER FROM RTBU TO DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE, STATE RAIL AUTHORITY, DATED 09/05/2002 PN135
EXHIBIT #SRA9 SRA CALCULATIONS ON SWAPPING ARRANGEMENTS PN157