C2002/3327, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 3013 (7 August 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 CARGILL

C2002/3327
C2002/3328

CHULLORA PRINTING AWARD 2001

Applications under section 113 of the Act
by Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering,
Printing and Kindred Industries Union to
vary the above award re safety net review -
wages May 2001 and 2002

SYDNEY

9.41 AM, TUESDAY, 23 JULY 2002

Adjourned sine die

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I have the appearances, please?

PN2

MS K. COTIS: If it please the Commission, I appear on behalf of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.

PN3

MR M. FLETCHER: If the Commission pleases, I appear on behalf of the respondent.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Fletcher. Yes, Ms Cotis?

PN5

MS COTIS: Thank you, Commissioner. The matters before you today are two section 113 applications which have been made by the AMWU in relation to the 2001 and 2002 Safety Net Review decisions in relation to Chullora Printing Award 2001. Commissioner, the union has prepared copies of the order in relation to both of the years safety net increases and on 10 June 2002 a copy of the order together with a copy of the notice of listing for today's hearing was faxed to the sole employer respondent to this award. A copy of those orders were also emailed to your chambers a couple of weeks ago, Commissioner.

PN6

After having some discussions with Mr Fletcher we have finalised the orders that have been forwarded to you and rather than going through the orders in any detail, Commissioner, I was just going to make a few brief comments in relation to the increases if that is suitable and those comments simply are that in both of the orders Item 1 in schedule A relate to wage increases and those increases in relation to the 2001 order have been increased by $13, $15 and $17 where appropriate.

PN7

In fact, Commissioner, I should just deal with the 2001 order first, sorry to confuse you, I think that might just make it a bit more straightforward. So Item 3 of the order is simply a meal allowance, the order for 2001 that is, which has been increased by 11.5 percent and that increase is in line with the relevant 2001 CPI figures. Just moving on to the 2002 order, Commissioner - - -

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just stop you, Ms Cotis, there is no point two in the order, an oversight or is there something missing.

PN9

MS COTIS: Yes, there must be, Commissioner.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: It goes from one to three.

PN11

MS COTIS: Yes, I should change that point three to point two.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: So the meal allowance point should be point two is that it?

PN13

MS COTIS: That's right, thank you, Commissioner. I think the same will apply to the 2002 order actually. Yes it does, you should change that item as well. So, Commissioner, in relation to the 2002 order Item 1 in schedule A, are again pay rates which have been increased by $18, and Item 2 is again the meal allowance which has been increased by 3.5 percent which is line with the relevant 2002 CPI figure.

PN14

In relation to all of these increases the union gives all necessary undertakings in relation to absorption as regarding these increases and finally, Commissioner, in schedule B, both of the orders relate to the operative date that the union is seeking from the first pay period on or after today's date. If it please the Commission.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Cotis, just in relation to the date, not of the actual date of effect of the order but in relation to the date of effect of the increases. At the moment the award has got a staggered increase of wages and in fact the 2000 safety net decision increases don't come into play until 3 May 2003. I mean, is there some agreement is there that somehow these increases will - maybe I should hear from Mr Fletcher about this.

PN16

MR FLETCHER: Commissioner, we have no objection to the variation sought by the union. I think the view that we would take care of that, the current state of the award is that in using the principles in regard to previous wage increases whereby there will not be an effect on the wages actually paid.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, certainly you can do that, Mr Fletcher. But I suppose my difficulty is that in 11.3 at the moment the 2000 increase hasn't even come into effect.

PN18

MR FLETCHER: The order would effectively be that 11.3 would be deleted and would be replaced.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that would have to be reflected. Is that reflected in the order?

PN20

MR FLETCHER: It is reflected in the 2002 increase and it should probably have been reflected in 2001 increase rather than the 2002 increase because obviously the first order is going to delete them all and replace them with a new 11.1 and the second one which will replace that 11.1. But effectively those three clauses will be deleted and replaced by just one clause.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm just wondering practically how this is going to work because you're actually asking me to do two orders, both effective from the one date, one of which is going to wipe out one of them aren't you, both orders are saying they are coming into effect from the first pay period commencing on or after 23 July, today. The first order in fact is never going to have any effect because the second one is going to immediately wipe it out, isn't that right?

PN22

MR FLETCHER: That's correct, Commissioner.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm just wondering from a practical point of view I think that's going to cause all sorts of confusion if I actually do two orders, maybe we just do one order arising out of the 2002 and maybe the absorption clause can somehow reflect it, I'm just not sure, I just think that there will be problems if I try and do two orders effective on the one day and one will have no effect.

PN24

MR FLETCHER: I mean, I'm happy with that approach, Commissioner, I'm happy with either approach, obviously, the end thing will be both parties want the award what effectively is the 2002 order and how we administer and go about doing that.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: At the end of the day you'll end up with the figures that are in the 2002 order and you're prepared to say on behalf of the company that under principle 8C that it's by consent and it is not resulting in any actual increase in wage rates. Yes, it is just really a case of how we go about doing it, maybe we might inquire with our publications area as to whether it actually is going to cause difficulties if we have two orders and if it is then we can perhaps just do one order provided that's right with both of you.

PN26

So you will end up with the same end result but just maybe less confusing, I'm not sure, see normally these things don't come through like that you do one order here and then another there because it just means that one order won't have any effect which makes it rather useless. Anyway, is there anything you wanted to add, Ms Cotis?

PN27

MS COTIS: I would just say, Commissioner, the reason that the union has made application for both increases and therefore have prepared two orders is that in our view we don't believe that the 2002 increase can be effective without the 2001 increase having been effected and that's the reason why.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: There is no difficulty with you making the application and obviously I have to grant the application, there's no problem with that, I'm thinking of the practicalities of the piece of paper that comes out at the end which if we have two pieces of paper, my concern is that one will have absolutely no effect and will just confuse everyone, because do you understand that it will, I won't go through it again.

PN29

MS COTIS: No, I do understand what you're saying, Commissioner, I suppose I'm thinking of maintaining the history of the increases that's all without having a trace of an order. But look, Commissioner, I don't want to complicate it any further and I'm happy for you to deal with it in the way that you think fit.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: What we'll do is you've made the application, I can indicate that after hearing from you both I'm satisfied that the applications are in accordance with the statement of principles. I'm also satisfied that both applications can be granted at the one time because of the effect of principle 8C of the safety net principles which is that although there hasn't been a 12 month delay in between the two matters, both are by consent and they are not going to result in an actual increase wage rates paid.

PN31

The date of effect of the order will be from the first pay period to commence on or after today's date which is 23 July 2002, whether or not there is one or two orders at the end of the day well, as I say, get some advice from our publications area and see what should happen, so there maybe one or there maybe two. But essentially they will be in the terms that you've put in, Ms Cotis, just with the variation to the numbers. So if there is nothing further the matters are now adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [9.53am]