C2002/655, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 297 (5 February 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 LARKIN

C2002/655

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

and

AUSTRALIAN RAILROAD GROUP EMPLOYMENT
PTY LIMITED

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of an industrial dispute re log of claims -
wages and working conditions

SYDNEY

2.37 PM, MONDAY, 21 JANUARY 2002

THIS HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BY VIDEOCONFERENCE IN SYDNEY

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: May I take appearances, please?

PN2

MR D. SWEET: If it please the Commission, I appear on behalf of the CEPU in this matter.

PN3

MR S. HEATHCOTE: Commissioner, I appear for ARGE.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Sweet.

PN5

MR SWEET: Commissioner, firstly an apology for the latter matter, unfortunately I have an unexpected appearance before Commissioner Raffaelli at 3 o'clock, so if it please the Commission I might have to excuse myself after this hearing.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: What you are referring is to the conference we have on another file, a conference in relation to the parties' discussions and negotiations.

PN7

MR SWEET: Yes, that's right, Commissioner.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN9

MR SWEET: Thank you. Commissioner, we seek that the Commission make a finding of an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. The parties to the dispute are the CEPU and the Australian Railway Group Employment Pty Limited whose head office is in Perth, Western Australia. The facts giving rise to the dispute are contained in an affidavit signed by Mr Peter Tighe, divisional secretary of the Electrical Division of the CEPU dated 18 January 2002. If I may, I would like to tender a copy of that affidavit, Commissioner, and quickly take you through it.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sweet, because we are in a vide conference, have you forwarded a copy of the material to all the parties?

PN11

MR SWEET: No, I haven't, and my apologies. I certainly will send it. What I might do is just read it out to Mr Heathcote in case he has any problem with anything in the affidavit.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: And then you will forward it.

PN13

MR SWEET: Yes, I will send a copy to Mr Heathcote.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Heathcote, do you have any objection to that course of action at all?

PN15

MR HEATHCOTE: No, Commissioner, I think that's satisfactory.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: I will mark the document exhibit S1.

EXHIBIT #S1 AFFIDAVIT OF MR P. TIGHE

PN17

MR SWEET: Commissioner, I will take Mr Heathcote through it because it also essentially establishes in our view the dispute finding in any event so it is probably worth going through. I apologise for not forwarding a copy to Mr Heathcote, especially as it was signed on 18 January, although it might not have made it to Perth from Friday to Monday, but anyway, my apologies. Mr Tighe says that he is the national secretary of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia which is a duly registered organisation under the Workplace Relations Act and is authorised to act on behalf of the CEPU, Electrical Division.

PN18

The second point in Mr Tighe's affidavit is that on 21 September 2001, and I will use the abbreviation CEPU, he served by registered mail a letter of demand and a log of claims for rates of wages and conditions of employment in the transport industry on the organisations listed in annexure A as attached, and that was the Australian Railroad Group Pty Limited, Commissioner.

PN19

The third point in his affidavit is that on 7 January 2002 the CEPU lodged a notification of an alleged industrial dispute by registered mail pursuant to section 99 of the Workplace Relations Act at the Sydney registry. The fourth point is that on 11 January 2002 the Deputy Industrial Registrar of the Sydney registry of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission advised by facsimile a date, time and place for the hearing of this matter which was 21 January 2002. The fifth point in the affidavit is that on 14 January 2002 the CEPU set the hearing details by registered mail to the parties listed in the attached annexure which is again the Australian Railway Group Employment Pty Limited.

PN20

Commissioner, that is the content of the affidavit and that, we say, is the prima facie case of the existence of an industrial dispute, that is, that a log of claims and a letter of demand have been placed before the employer, the letter of demand and log of claims were served by registered mail. The letter of demand of 21 December 2001 gave the employer seven days to comply with the demands. To date the Australian Railway Group has not acceded to the demands contained in the log of claims and we say, Commissioner, that brings into existence an industrial dispute.

PN21

Again, and it is all in the affidavit, on 7 January 2001 the union notified the registry in Sydney under section 99 of the Act of the notification of an industrial dispute and the matter has been listed and the parties obviously have been advised of the hearing date. Commissioner, we say that Australian Railway Group Employment Pty Limited employs persons who are eligible to become members of the CEPU and who are actually members of the union. On the basis of Australian Railway Group Employment Pty Limited's refusal to accede to the log of claims contained with the letter of demand, we say that there is an industrial dispute in existence and we so ask the Commission to find. Unless there is anything else the Commission would like to ask, we would ask that a dispute be found and the parties be directed into conciliation in this matter.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Sweet. I will hear from Mr Heathcote. Yes, Mr Heathcote.

PN23

MR HEATHCOTE: Commissioner, the respondent ARGE does not dispute any of the facts contained in the affidavit that Mr Sweet read to you. Essentially we acknowledge having received the demand and confirm that we have acceded to the claim that the union has made. There is no dispute between us as to whether the CEPU has members or has people that they are entitled to enrol as members in our employ. On that basis we would agree with Mr Sweet's course of action that a dispute be found and the matter be directed into conciliation.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Heathcote. Nothing further, Mr Sweet?

PN25

MR SWEET: Not unless the Commission has any questions, Commissioner.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. This matter concerns a log of claims served by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia on Australian Railroad Group Employment Pty Limited. Details of the service are set out in papers on the Commission's file and material filed in exhibit S1 in the proceedings today.

PN27

The CEPU submits that a finding of an industrial dispute be made pursuant to section 101 of the Act. Having considered the documents which form the basis of the notification of dispute under section 99 of the Act and having heard the parties in the proceedings today, I now make a finding of an industrial dispute in the meaning of the Act in relation to the log of claims and the letter of demand served by the CEPU on 21 December 2001. The parties to the dispute are on the one hand the CEPU and on the other hand ARGE. The matters in dispute are contained in the log of claims and the letter of demand of 21 December 2001 which are attached to the notification of the industrial dispute.

PN28

I will make a record of finding in respect to the decision. I will refer the parties into conference in relation to the matters in issue. The matter will be listed again on the application of any party to the dispute. On that basis, gentlemen, that file is now closed.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #S1 AFFIDAVIT OF MR P. TIGHE PN17