C7521/398, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 3641 (19 September 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114J MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
DX 305 Melbourne Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N VT05552
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER SMITH

C No 75213 of 1998
C No 00553 of 1999
C No 75238 of 1998
C No 36714 of 1999
C No 00595 of 1999
C No 75287 of 1998
C No 00554 of 1999

APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD

Application under section 111(1)(f) of the Act
to set aside the Queensland Post Compulsory
and Higher Education Academic Staff (Conditions
of Employment) Award 1988

QUEENSLAND POST COMPULSORY AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMIC STAFF (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) AWARD 1988

Review under Item 51, Schedule 5, Transitional
WROLA Act 1996 re conditions of employment

APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD

Applications under section 111(1)(f) of the Act
to set aside the South Australian Post Compulsory
and Higher Education Academic Staff (Conditions
of Employment) Award 1989

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN POST COMPULSORY AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMIC STAFF (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) AWARD 1989

Review under Item 51, Schedule 5, Transitional
WROLA Act 1996 re conditions of employment

APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD

Application under section 111(1)(f) of the Act
to set aside the Victorian Post-Compulsory and
Higher Education Academic and Teaching Staff
(Conditions of Employment) Interim Award 1990

VICTORIAN POST-COMPULSORY AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMIC AND TEACHING STAFF (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) INTERIM AWARD 1990

Review under Item 51, Schedule 5, Transitional
WROLA Act 1996 re conditions of employment

MELBOURNE

10.03 AM, MONDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2002

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: I think, as a matter of convenience, I might take appearances again.

PN2

MS E. FLOYD: I appear on behalf of the NTEU and with me I have MR R. BAADER.

PN3

MS C. PUGSLEY: I appear on behalf of the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association and member universities in all three of the matters before you this morning.

PN4

MR M. BOWN: I appear for the University of Melbourne.

PN5

MR S. SMITH: I appear on behalf of Monash University.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Has there been agreement as to how you want the matters to proceed this morning?

PN7

MS FLOYD: We have had some preliminary discussions. I don't know that there is agreement but I would like to propose a course of action and see what people think.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN9

MS FLOYD: I thought that I would tender all of the relevant documents, the draft orders for all three and then there is one matter in dispute across all three and that is the inclusion of a reference to the HECE Award and I thought we could deal with that first and then maybe have - - -

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I have received written material. Is there anything anybody wants to add to that written material?

PN11

MS FLOYD: Well, I certainly wasn't intending to add very much other than perhaps just tender a few documents to clarify some of my points. If that is not necessary, then I am quite happy to - - -

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Does anybody want to add anything to the written material that they have put to me?

PN13

MS PUGSLEY: Commissioner, the most extensive submissions that were filed were in relation to the Queensland Post Compulsory Award because that is the one award in which there remain further outstanding matters at issue in addition to the HECE matter. I proposed to address you for perhaps five minutes in relation to those matters but - - -

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I meant specifically on the question of whether it was read subject to Higher - that is relevant to that, is it, the Queensland Compulsory?

PN15

MS PUGSLEY: There are some other matters at issue in the Queensland Post Compulsory Award as reflected in the length of the submissions that were filed.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN17

MS PUGSLEY: And I was proposing to address you for a short period in relation to those, but the submissions are comprehensive. There are a couple of points I would like to put on the record in relation to the NTEU reply which was sent to our submissions. So I would like the opportunity to do that in due course and - - -

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. I just wondered if there were any additional submissions anybody wants to put on whether or not there is going to be a clause that says this award will be read subject to the Higher Education Contract of Employment Award 1998.

PN19

MS PUGSLEY: No, Commissioner. We have filed submissions in relation to each of the three awards and we stand by those submissions.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN21

MR BOWN: No. I think we have submitted ours as well.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thanks. Yes, Ms Floyd.

PN23

MS FLOYD: Yes, unless you have questions, Commissioner, we stand by what we have written.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Well, it goes in. Now, you want to tender three documents.

PN25

MS FLOYD: Yes, that is right. The first one I would like to tender would be - and I would like to tender some clean copies - - -

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: That is what is known as sweet reason, you see; it goes in.

PN27

MS FLOYD: And I humbly apologise for a few typos that were in the orders that were sent, so I have given you a clean draft of the Victorian Post Compulsory and - Commissioner, I have tendered a copy of the Victorian Post Compulsory draft order along with a comparison table so that you can see where the current award clauses appear or have been deleted in the new award, and I would like that marked.

EXHIBIT #FLOYD1 VICTORIAN POST COMPULSORY DRAFT ORDER AND COMPARISON TABLE

PN28

MS FLOYD: I do intend to just quickly take you through these when they have been marked. The second one is the Queensland Post Compulsory and Higher Education Academic Staff Conditions of Employment Award and likewise a comparison table.

EXHIBIT #FLOYD2 QUEENSLAND POST COMPULSORY AWARD AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMIC STAFF (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) AND COMPARISON TABLE

PN29

MS FLOYD: The third one is the South Australian Post Compulsory Award. I don't have a comparison table to that because it was very complicated.

EXHIBIT #FLOYD3 SOUTH AUSTRALIAN POST COMPULSORY AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMIC STAFF (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) AWARD

PN30

MS FLOYD: If I can just address first of all the Victorian Post Compulsory. As you can see from the comparison table, we have deleted quite a few leave matters from clause 19 down to 22, and 24 and 25, which the parties acknowledged were not allowable as they didn't fall into the personal leave type. I would just like to draw your attention to clause 3 of the Post Compulsory, which is the application and parties bound.

PN31

We don't have a respondency schedule as would be normal in these awards because what we have done is we have got a respondency and an application combined in clause 3, because there was quite a difficulty determining the respondency because this award applied to the old CAEs. Some universities have subsumed parts of those and on one reading of it we could have argued that all of the university was respondent to the award but in the interests of reaching agreement we have come up with clause 3. So is that in keeping with - - -

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, all of those respondents arise out of 32225 of 1988, do they, which is what you have put on the front, the ODN number?

PN33

MS FLOYD: We believe so, Commissioner, because that ODN applied to all of the CAEs at the time.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well.

PN35

MS FLOYD: The other one I would like to draw your attention to, clause 17, is a rewording of the current maternity, adoption and paternity leave, which is clause 12, 13 and 14 in the previous award. We haven't included the test case standard because there was no agreement to do so and in the interests of reaching agreement we agreed to leave the clause with the current entitlements, and we will be seeking a 113 application to vary that in the future and we have agreement to do so. The current parental leave does provide for 12 weeks paid leave for maternity purposes and five for paternity purposes.

PN36

I don't think there is anything else that I need to draw your attention to. Perhaps 5.3, Commissioner. We have said institution means any or all of the respondents to this award, other than the AHEIA, and we probably should include all the NTEU because the NTEU is a respondent but doesn't come under - - -

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: What clause is it, I am sorry?

PN38

MS FLOYD: 5.3.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: And you say and the NTEU.

PN40

MS FLOYD: Yes, because NTEU doesn't come under the definition of institution. We note your comments about clause 6.2, so the underlining will come out of there.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: I have done that for this reason. I have read the materials of the parties and I am always cautious about the potential to alter rights. I understand the submission of the employers that it is not necessary. If that demonstrates to be the case in 12 to 18 months time, they can make an application to remove it as being unnecessary but I wouldn't want nice arguments to arise.

PN42

MS FLOYD: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: But leave is reserved to the employers to seek to have it removed. It is really retained out of an abundance of caution.

PN44

MS FLOYD: Unless there are any other questions, Commissioner, we would commend Floyd1 for your approval.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Pugsley.

PN46

MS PUGSLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. Having disposed of the issue of the proposed clause 6.2, I have no further submissions to make in relation to the Victorian Post Compulsory Award, other than to say that the parties certainly, I think, undertook the task that was given to them with some enthusiasm and thoroughness and that is perhaps demonstrated by the fact that we were able to reach agreement in respect of all save one clause. If the Commission pleases.

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: And it hasn't been easy. Yes.

PN48

MR BOWN: I have been directed to actually put something on record in relation to the respondency issue. If I could just draw your attention to 3.1.12(c), the University of Melbourne disputes the respondency issue in relation to the former VCAH staff, who merged with us in 1 July '97. However, as the NTEU has agreed that they will honour the former VCAH amalgamation agreements and for the simplification of the award, we will not contest the issue at this time but we do reserve our right to explore this matter in future if required. But in relation to all the other matters and now you have actually made a direction in relation to the HECE inclusion, then I think we are happy with the finalisation of the award.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. What are you reserving your position on, whether or not Burnley, Dookie - - -

PN50

MR BOWN: Sorry, it is actually post merger. It is actually in relation to the respondency after these colleges actually merged with the University of Melbourne and became the Melbourne University proper. So it is the actual post merger. We don't necessarily believe that these staff should be respondent to this award. However, in the light of trying to get a finalisation of the agreement and knowing that the NTEU have indicated they will honour the VCAH amalgamation agreement, we are happy to let that slide for the moment.

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I follow. So if I can characterise your submission this way, that narrowing it to those campuses is consistent with the dispute finding but that the legal effect following the merger is something that may give rise to an argument or may not.

PN52

MR BOWN: That is correct.

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I follow. Mr Smith.

PN54

MR SMITH: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. I don't have much more to add, other than to agree with submissions that have been put this morning. We have had a number of discussions, as has already been stated, and we have reached the culmination today in the order that has been presented. There were a number of minor typographical errors, etcetera, we were checking and the only caution I would say is subject to checking this draft order that has been presented today for the typographical errors that we had previously identified that we commend that to the Commission.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. If you could let me know if you find anything as quickly as possible. That is marvellous. Very well. Arising from the item 51 review of the Victorian Post Compulsory and Higher Education Academic and Teaching Staff (Conditions of Employment) Interim Award 1990 - does it still have to be an interim award? I suppose it does if I have just simplified it.

PN56

MS FLOYD: I would say not necessarily. We have had other - I think the HEGSS Award we took "interim" away.

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Any view about that?

PN58

MS PUGSLEY: I don't have a view about that, Commissioner. I am unable to contribute to the debate, I am sorry.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: We will take away "interim".

PN60

MR SMITH: Commissioner, I think we have taken it away in clause 1, the title, the word "interim" has been removed.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. That is true.

PN62

MR SMITH: We have already canvassed that.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: So it remains that is the one I am simplifying and in the title it has been taken away. Thank you. The parties have, after extensive consultation and great effort, reached agreement on all but one matter. That matter relates to clause 6.2, which reads as follows:

PN64

This award will be read subject to the Higher Education Contract of Employment Award 1998 (as varied from time to time).

PN65

The NTEU seek its inclusion on the basis that they believe that it may affect rights and, therefore, it should remain. The employer respondents believe it has no work to do and should be deleted. I have indicated that I propose to include that clause out of an abundance of caution. I would be concerned if any rights were disturbed as a consequence of simplification. But leave is reserved to the employers to seek its deletion upon a reasonable time of experiencing whether or not any arguments arise as to the relationship between the awards. An order will issue. The award will be simplified as from today and the order shall remain in force for a period of 12 months.

PN66

MS FLOYD: The next one I would like to do, Commissioner, would be F3, which is the South Australian, and the reason being that there should be now no disputed matters. I would just like to note clause 3, the incidence and date of operation and the same issues arose with respondency and parts of CAEs going to universities, and it was probably a bit more complicated than Victoria. I will just seek your guidance as to whether we should, as we have in clause 2 and 3, named employees or whether we could just, I guess for privacy's sake, pass that schedule up for the file with the parties having a copy. The reason they are there is so that there is no dispute about which employees actually did transfer from, for instance, in schedule 1, Sturt campus.

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, there is nothing on schedule 2.

PN68

MS FLOYD: No. Schedule 2, the University of Adelaide sent me a very, very late copy, which hasn't been inserted. Sorry about that. We do have that and within seven days we can provide that.

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN70

MS FLOYD: However, I would just seek your guidance as to whether they should go in the award or whether they should maybe just go on the file.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Pugsley, are you representing these two universities?

PN72

MS PUGSLEY: Yes, I am, Commissioner. This is not an issue on which we have had discussion with Ms Floyd before. My understanding is that agreement was reached to name specific employees and that is reflected in draft order. I would have to seek instructions from my member universities as to whether they would consent to the proposal that has been put forward today.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Look, I think, Ms Floyd, they ought to be named.

PN74

MS FLOYD: That is fine. It was really what was your preference, Commissioner.

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. It is not unusual for us to name individuals in dispute findings, for example, and if it really is saving rights, well, then those persons ought to clearly know what rights they have got.

PN76

MS FLOYD: That is fine, and I wasn't reneging on anything that had been agreed. It was just an alternative position that I was putting up.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN78

MS FLOYD: I note clause 18. We have been waiting for quite a long time for the AHEIA to draft its clause. So it is actually not complete, this draft. It was a fairly complicated clause because it had a five page amendment to it and it had to be redrafted. I guess I would seek some guidance whether the AHEIA intends to provide that. So at the moment, there is no clause on long service leave.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN80

MS FLOYD: Clause 19 is the parental leave test case in that format with the retention of paid maternity leave and we have also included parental leave for casuals. I don't have anything else to add to that, Commissioner.

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Pugsley.

PN82

MS PUGSLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. Given that the proposed clause 5.2 in relation to the relationship with the HECE award has been disposed of, I have no submissions to make, other than again to reiterate the amount of work that has been put into this by all the parties to reach agreement. I don't have instructions at this stage in relation to the proposed clause 18, long service leave.

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: That is all right.

PN84

MS PUGSLEY: It may have been agreed that we would provide that clause today. If that was agreed, then I apologise.

PN85

THE COMMISSIONER: You haven't got it.

PN86

MS PUGSLEY: Because I haven't got it. That is not to say that it can't be provided in a realistic time frame and that is something that I will talk to Ms Floyd and Mr Baader about shortly.

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: Fourteen days?

PN88

MS PUGSLEY: Fourteen days, we could accommodate that, Commissioner.

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. This is a matter that seeks to simplify the South Australian Post Compulsory and Higher Education Academic Staff (Conditions of Employment) Award 1989. The parties have reached agreement on the new award and a new award will issue. There are two matters to be provided, firstly, the detail of schedule 2 and, secondly, the detail of clause 18. If they can be lodged in the Australian Industrial Registry within 14 days, an appropriate order will issue following that. Yes, Ms Floyd.

PN90

MS FLOYD: Commissioner, the next one is Floyd2, which is the Queensland Post Compulsory and Higher Education Academic Staff (Conditions of Employment) Award 1988, and there are a number of disputed clauses which I will make submissions on following the comments on the draft from the employers. Once again, I would like to draw your attention to the incidence clause, which gives limited application to Griffith University, the University of Queensland and the Australian Catholic University.

PN91

In clause 6, relationships with other awards, at the time when I did my original submissions, 6.1 was also disputed but on reading the submissions of Mr Williams, they no longer dispute 6.1 and as your decision on 6.2 stands, then 6 is also okay. The parental leave clause is a test case and in Queensland there is no paid parental leave but we have included casuals. I don't wish to make any further comments on the draft, other than my submissions, which I will make on the disputed clauses in the future.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: And your submissions on disputed clause 9 and clause 11.

PN93

MS FLOYD: 9 and 11.

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. In your written submissions.

PN95

MS FLOYD: Yes.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Ms Pugsley.

PN97

MS PUGSLEY: Commissioner, I understand that you are not seeking for the parties to add to the written submissions this morning.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: No. I can read the written submissions, thank you, and have.

PN99

MS PUGSLEY: There are three points that I would briefly like to make. The first is that given that the reference to the HECE Award and the relationship with the HECE Award is now to be included at 6.2, that will result in parts of the proposed new clause 9 being inconsistent with the HECE Award. I can see that you are nodding your head and - - -

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN101

MS PUGSLEY: That does flow from Mr Williams' submissions but, in particular, the fact that clause 9.1.2 seeks to limit probationary period to an initial 12 months followed by a further 12 months if necessary, that is inconsistent with the HECE Award, which did not constrain the period of probation. Again, that is set out in the written submissions. Likewise, the proposed 9.2.2 seeks to limit fixed term employment to a maximum of three years and, again from Mr Williams' written submissions, that is inconsistent with the HECE Award, which, except for research contracts with a maximum of five years, did not see fit to constrain the period of time for which a fixed term contract might run.

PN102

Written submissions were filed by the parties in this matter, followed by a reply from the NTEU. There are two issues arising from the reply. The first is in relation to the proposed clause 11, higher duties allowance, which, as you will recall from reading the written submissions, the NTEU has accepted that establishment positions, which were referred to in the previous award, no longer exist and have sought to extend the allowance for establishment positions to all higher duties positions.

PN103

In the NTEU reply at paragraph 13 it is asserted that there are still requirements to act in positions of higher duties, even though the establishment positions no longer exist. My response to that, Commissioner, is if that is the case, then that is the kind of matter that should be dealt with at enterprise level. It shouldn't be addressed by extending an entitlement that has become obsolete to apply in cases where it didn't previously apply.

[10.30am]

PN104

Finally, in relation to the matter of the probationary period and our argument that 9.1.2, as proposed, should not go into the award the NTEU, in its reply, has asserted at paragraph 9 that the Full Bench decision in PR911718, which is Kocsis v Charles Sturt University case, doesn't support the university's argument that a probationary period should be determined by what is reasonable rather than being confined to 12 months with the possibility of a further 12-month extension.

PN105

I will refer you, Commissioner, to paragraph 17 on page 7 of our submissions in which Mr Williams has set out a quotation from that case which, in my submission, makes it clear that the Full Bench's comments, although they were only dealing with the issue of one academic at one university the comments were not confined to that particular case. I also refer you to paragraph 38 of the Kocsis decision in which the Full Bench in Kocsis referred to the decision of the Full Bench in the Farugi v University of Queensland case.

PN106

Again, we say that is evidence that the Kocsis decision should not be confined to its particular circumstances but has wider implication for the sector and for what is reasonable in relation to probationary periods for academic employees.

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: Because now that the legislation has been amended in relation to the three months there is a possibility, isn't there, that the Commission could decide not to put in any probationary period and just allow the legislation to run and to be applied?

PN108

MS PUGSLEY: Well, Commissioner, that is another point which was made in Mr Williams' submissions that at the time that the Queensland post compulsory award was made the legislation did not refer to probation. We are now operating in a different legislative landscape with relation to probation and Mr Williams makes that point very clearly in his submissions and we stand by that point, if the Commission pleases. Those are my submissions subject to any questions.

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Floyd.

PN110

MR FLOYD: In relation to clause 9 being inconsistent with HECE I would just like to draw the Commission's attention to the savings provision in HECE and it is something that seems to always escape the employers that 4.9 was - sorry, at page 54 of the HECE decision the Bench said:

PN111

We have included as clause 7 of the HECE Award a general savings provision directed to avoiding an unintended diminution of employment conditions. We have preferred that form to the specifics provisions for particular employment types proposed by the NTEU.

PN112

And clause 7 of the HECE Award says:

PN113

Except where a contrary intention expressly appears nothing in this award shall diminish the rights of any employee under any other award.

PN114

So we say that it is able to be inconsistent if it is not a lower standard. I would just like to make some responses to the Kocsis v The Charles Sturt University. Commissioner, do you want a copy of those decisions?

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN116

MR FLOYD: I am just going to speak very briefly. This is particularly with respect to the probation. We say that this decision clearly can be distinguished from the matter in front of you for the following reasons. There have been - was considering a particular employee and a particular position. There was no award provision for that employee. He was given a probationary period of three years. The Bench did not determine that three years was a standard.

PN117

One of the critical factors in that decision was that at the end of probation that employee would have been given tenure. And another strong factor was reliance upon the position classification standards. Now, the employers - or the AHEIA and GO8 have argued successfully and convinced Senior Deputy President Duncan that the PCSs are no longer relevant. And the probationary period encroaches - was very much dependent on what was required of that employee with respect to the classification standards.

PN118

Now, we say that the employers can't go along and argue in the Commission that they are no longer relevant and convince the Commission that there should be new standards developed, which there have been, the parties have developed new standards. So there are no position classification standards from the 1991 award restructuring agreement. The minimum standards for academic levels are - and I will pass up a copy of those. I don't wish to tender it, Commissioner, I am just - just for your information.

PN119

These standards have replaced the position classification standards that were referred to so heavily in the Kocsis decision and it was based on the previous PCSs that the Commission determined that three years was appropriate. These standards bear very little resemblance to the PCS and these are now the standards that have been agreed. It was not the NTEU that argued that the PCSs were not appropriate, it was the employers. Commissioner, I don't wish to day anything else on that matter other than to rely on the earlier, extensive submissions that I have already tendered.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN121

MS PUGSLEY: Commissioner, if I may?

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Ms Pugsley.

PN123

MS PUGSLEY: I promise this is the last comment, but we could go on forever about the Kocsis case. In my submission Ms Floyd's last point about the PCS and the academic award restructuring agreement simply cannot be sustained. In C number 31520 of '98 which was the Academic Salaries Award which was the subject of arbitration in relation to the PCS the issue - - -

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: Before Senior Deputy President Duncan, wasn't it?

PN125

MS PUGSLEY: Indeed. The issue of probation did not arise. It was solely the content of the PCS. That was the only aspect of the 1991 restructuring agreement which his Honour had to determine. So any reference, in my submission, to the 5-year period in the 1991 restructuring agreement having been somehow overtaken or overridden by the fact that the PCS and now the MSALs can't be sustained, Commissioner.

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Ms Floyd. That is all right. I was going to ask you a question so I am glad you are on your feet.

PN127

MR FLOYD: You are right. We could go on forever. I wasn't saying anything other than the PCSs were determined and in fact it came before you, Commissioner, four and a half years ago and still hasn't been - - -

PN128

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN129

MR FLOYD: Still hasn't been completed.

PN130

THE COMMISSIONER: I will raise it with Senior Deputy President Duncan.

PN131

MR FLOYD: The award still hasn't been made. However, I just made the point that the Kocsis decision did rely quite heavily on those PCSs which are no longer relevant.

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Can I ask you this question about the consistency or otherwise with the Higher Education Contract of Employment Award? I understand your submission to the extent that you have a superior benefit. Then, you say, that benefit can be retained and not cut down by the Higher Education Contract of Employment Award. If, in the reasoning, for arriving at certain matters the Full Bench took a view and if there is a clause inconsistent with that view that really goes to the efficacy, if you like, of the clause, is that something I should look at?

PN133

MR FLOYD: Perhaps.

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I follow. Thank you very much. Well, we have dealt with two, I will reflect on the third one briefly. I have heard the extra submissions of the parties today and issue a submission quickly on that. Now, we put aside three days didn't we? Well, congratulations to everybody. It is wonderful for my part to have some time to deal with some other matters that people are imprudent enough to ask me when a decision is coming down. I will reserve my decision in relation to the Queensland Compulsory and Higher Education Academic Staff Conditions of Employment Award and I shall publish orders in relation to the other two matters. Thank you for your assistance and your hard work. The matter is adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.41am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #FLOYD1 VICTORIAN POST COMPULSORY DRAFT ORDER AND COMPARISON TABLE PN28
EXHIBIT #FLOYD2 QUEENSLAND POST COMPULSORY AWARD AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMIC STAFF (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) AND COMPARISON TABLE PN29
EXHIBIT #FLOYD3 SOUTH AUSTRALIAN POST COMPULSORY AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMIC STAFF (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) AWARD PN30