C2002/4058, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 3818 (26 September 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

VICE PRESIDENT ROSS

C2002/4058

PLUMBING INDUSTRY (NEW SOUTH WALES)
AWARD 1999

Application under section 33 of the Act
for review of the above award on the Commission's
own motion

SYDNEY

11.20 AM, THURSDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2002

PN1

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Can I have the appearances, please?

PN2

MR J. COONEY: I appear on behalf of the CEPU, your Honour.

PN3

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN4

MR C. HARNATH: I appear on behalf of the Master Plumbers and Mechanical Services Association of Australia.

PN5

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Cooney, can you stop flicking your papers because we can't hear what anyone else is saying because it picks up on the microphone. Sorry, Mr Harnath, can you put it on the record again?

PN6

MR HARNATH: Thank you, your Honour. I appear for the Master Plumbers and Mechanical Services Association of Australia.

PN7

MR P. VERBERNE: Thank you. I appear on behalf of the Air-Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors Association of Victoria.

PN8

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Verberne. The purpose of this hearing is to deal with correspondence that was sent out by the Commission on 23 August and also on 10 September 2002. That correspondence outlines the following process to bring about the finalisation of the simplification of the Plumbing Industry (New South Wales) Award 1999. Briefly, what is proposed is that the roping in award to that parent award would be set aside, and the employers respondent to all of the roping in awards would be transferred as named respondents to the parent award.

PN9

The roping in awards would then be set aside. We wrote to all the parties to the roping in awards, telling them that was what we were proposing to do and that today's hearing would give them an opportunity to voice any objection to that process. We discovered that a number of those letters were returned with an indication that the businesses were no longer in operation at that address. We did a search of the White Pages, or my associate did, and there was no current listing under the names of the businesses we had been given that were respondent to the roping in awards.

PN10

I wrote to the parties on 10 September indicating briefly that that had happened, and that in relation to those businesses where the letters had been returned, we would propose to exclude them from this process. So, in other words, their roping in award would be set aside and they would not be transferred, as it were, as named respondents to the parent award. We would do that unless a party could wish to object to that course. For example, you might have information suggesting that that business is in operation but at a different address or something of that nature.

PN11

So the purpose of today's hearing is to hear from the parties about two matters - firstly, whether you have any objection to the general process and if you do, why, of setting aside the roping in awards and transferring the named respondents to those awards to the parent award, and, secondly, whether you believe any of the employers identified in the correspondence sent on 10 September should be retained as respondents to the award. Mr Cooney, I might hear from you first. What do you wish to say about those two issues?

PN12

MR COONEY: We have no objection to either of those two issues, your Honour.

PN13

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay, so that would mean I would set aside all of the roping in awards, and I would transfer all of the respondents to those awards to the parent award, or as respondent to the parent award except for those entities which are attached to the correspondence I sent out on 10 September.

PN14

MR COONEY: Yes, your Honour.

PN15

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay. Mr Verberne?

PN16

MR VERBERNE: In regard to the company I'm representing, your Honour, no objection, that is, All Staff.

PN17

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay, and Mr Harnath?

PN18

MR HARNATH: Your Honour, in general, there is no objection, in fact, to the process that the Commission is undertaking in these matters, ..... involved proceedings with .....

PN19

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Look, Mr Harnath, we can't hear you. Can you twist one of those around and if I could just encourage Mr Cooney to stop flicking the pages for a couple of minutes, then we will be able to make some progress. Mr Harnath, yes?

PN20

MR HARNATH: Your Honour, is that - - -

PN21

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is fine.

PN22

MR HARNATH: We are involved in the process leading to the simplification of the awards and a general understanding of the process for the respondency list. The letter that the Commission did send on 10 September raises an issue that we wish to put on the record. Given that we are following the process that the Commission is undertaking, we are seeking, I guess in effect, an assurance that any parties that were on a lead reserve list - as you specified in that document, there were a number crossed out - would not, in any way, be finally joined to the current award.

PN23

Why I do that, your Honour, is not that - those ones there that are already crossed out - it is a matter that there may well still be, because of this onerous task, there may still be one or two left that somehow have still slipped through the net.

PN24

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the short answer to that is, no, they won't be. Anyone that is on the lead reserve list to a roping in award will not be transferred to the parent award.

PN25

MR HARNATH: Thank you, your Honour. That would be our understanding as well and we accept that. On that basis, your Honour, we have no objection to the two propositions that the Commission have put and we look forward to the final orders being made.

PN26

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay. Well, on the basis of the views expressed by each of the parties, I will undertake the steps I've outlined, that is, that the roping in awards will be set aside; the respondents to those awards will be transferred, as it were, by way of variation to the parent award - they will be listed as respondent to the parent award - except those employer respondents to the roping in award that are set out in the attachment to the letter of 10 September, or are listed as lead reserve parties to any of the roping in orders. The steps that I'm taking in relation to the order varying the parent award will be in part-settlement of the various disputes that provide the jurisdictional basis for the roping in awards.

PN27

If there's nothing further, I will issue those orders next week and I will adjourn that matter. Thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.27am]