AG2001/6544, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 399 (12 February 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 7, ANZ House 13 Grenfell St ADELAIDE SA 5000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER McCUTCHEON

AG2001/6544

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LJ of the Act
by Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering,
Printing and Kindred Industries Union Food and
Confectionery Division South Australia Region and
Others for certification of Facilities Maintenance
(Transfield Services) Certified Agreement 2001

ADELAIDE

12.02 PM, FRIDAY, 25 JANUARY 2002

Continued from 9.11.01

THIS HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BY VIDEO CONFERENCE IN ADELAIDE

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I will take the appearances please, gentlemen.

PN139

MR G. MUNROE: Yes, if the Commission may, I might offer my apologies to the Commission at the same time, Mr Commissioner. It is entirely my fault and I extend my apologies to Mr Fleineo also. I appear for the CEPU Electrical Division.

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Munroe.

PN141

MR J. GRESTY: Yes, sir, if it pleases the Commission I appear on behalf of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Gresty. Mr Fleineo, you appear for the company?

PN143

MR B. FLEINEO: Yes, I appear for Transfield Services Australia Pty Ltd.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Now, this matter had previously been before the Commission at which time - I think on 9 November at which time Mr Deakin appeared and Mr Lean appeared. So what has happened since then, gentlemen? Can either of you enlighten me?

PN145

MR MUNROE: Well, if the Commission pleases it was to come back before the Commission for a further hearing and there was some confusion at that time as to dates and times also. The CEPU was ready to make its submission at that time but as things fell into place it was adjourned until today's date and time. There has been no contact with the company since that time and indeed up until now so the matter is that we are prepared to make a submission to the Commission on the matter and see where the matter - and just see where it falls from there if the Commission pleases.

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So you have had no discussions with Mr Fleineo since November?

PN147

MR MUNROE: No, I believe from what Mr Deakin indicated to me was that the company was fairly fixed in its thoughts in relation to award respondency and that we would be required to mount an argument as to why we believed that other awards should be included in that agreement.

PN148

THE COMMISSIONER: But isn't the reality that I'm faced with is that I've been presented with an agreement which appears to conform to the act and I have affidavits from Mr Watson, Mr Smith that tend to support the agreement. Is your position now, Mr Munroe, that I should not certify this agreement?

PN149

MR MUNROE: Yes. Well, I believe that that was our position that was put to the Commission previously.

PN150

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, where does that leave the men?

PN151

MR MUNROE: Well, hopefully today's hearing may see the proceeding forward with the matter and not having spoken to Transfield as in relation to the operative date in the increases flowing from the previously agreed dates all we are seeking, Mr Commissioner, is the inclusion of the appropriate awards that we would believe is necessary in at least to ensure that the electricians and plumbers employed by Transfield Services are not disadvantaged by the certification of this agreement.

PN152

THE COMMISSIONER: But, Mr Munroe, the problem I've got is that here is an agreement signed by the various unions and signed by Mr Fleineo. It represents an arrangement entered into between the parties. My only role and function here today is to either approve it or not approve it. I have no power to vary it.

PN153

MR MUNROE: Well, we would ask then that the agreement not be approved in the manner that has been presented to the Commission and we would place our argument on the fact that we believe that our members employed by Transfields would suffer a disadvantage if the document was certified as it is.

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: So where is the disadvantage?

PN155

MR MUNROE: The disadvantage lays in the terms and provisions that are available to electricians employed by Transfields that are held in the Electrical Contracting Industry SA Award and they may under the present document, it may just to go the fares and travel but if there are matters in the document you know that deliver a disadvantage when using that particular state award as the benchmark then I think that there needs to be a full explanation you know of the omissions from the document as it relates to the award but certainly the fares and travel is one that would affect our members and certainly plumbing members, plumbing division members employed by Transfield.

PN156

THE COMMISSIONER: But that then leads me to ask why it was signed on behalf of the electrical division and the plumbing division.

PN157

MR MUNROE: I believe that the signature that appears on there is certainly the secretary of the electrical division. I believe it may be Mr Smith as secretary of the plumbing division and I may only assume rightly or wrongly, Mr Commissioner, that those signatures were applied to the document in the belief that the negotiations that were entered into were in fact delivered and it is only when closer perusal of the document, I make no excuse for the document not being perused closely enough to have picked up the omissions, the four signatures were applied, that the negotiations, that I'm assured from Mr Deakin that the negotiations were along the lines that the appropriate awards would be included in the final document and unfortunately it is after the signatures were applied that the omission of those awards or the naming of those awards became apparent.

PN158

I believe that Mr Deakin had further talks with the company and they proved unsuccessful in receiving consent to have the appropriate awards inserted. In relation to our plumbing division or the plumbers employed by Transfields it certainly wouldn't deliver a disadvantage there in as much as that the Metal Industry Award as nominated by the agreement - - -

PN159

THE COMMISSIONER: Where is that mentioned in the agreement?

PN160

MR GRESTY: If I could assist you, sir, I think it is in the company's statutory declaration where they have nominated the Metal Engineering and Associated Industry Award. It does not appear in any of the unions statutory declarations.

PN161

MR MUNROE: Thank you, Mr Gresty. That is certainly where it is indicated and that is what alerted us. Also I must say, Mr Commissioner, that there was an omission in relation to the appropriate award as it pertained to electricians and plumbers employed by. As I was saying, the Metal Industry Award as indicated by the company as being the parent award for the document in fact carries an exclusion where it would not reach out and cover plumbers employed by Transfield Services. We have another position also to put in relation to the electricians and the electrical work that is being conducted by Transfield Services in that Transfield are a licensed electrical contractor in South Australia.

PN162

They have the necessary licences and certification issued by the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs in Adelaide and it carries a certification to the effect that as certified as Transfield Pty Ltd as being licensed to carry out the business of a plumbing contractor, a gas-fitter contractor or an electrical contractor under the provisions of the relevant state act and that licence in itself was issued on 17 September 1998. We believe that those licence registrations are indeed still current but that will form part of the submission saying that there should be a noting of our electrical contracting industry award in the document.

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: I can understand that. I think Mr Deakin indicated that last time. My dilemma is this. If I uphold what you are putting that will deprive all of the employees of the benefits of this new agreement.

PN164

MR MUNROE: Well, I don't think that we can hold any responsibility for that, Mr Commissioner, because - - -

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not saying you are responsible for it but that will be the effect of it.

PN166

MR MUNROE: Yes. I'm - - -

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: What does that do in the workplace?

PN168

MR MUNROE: Well, in the workplace I would imagine that it would delay the delivery of outcomes of the enterprise agreement but I think that those outcomes must be delayed until we do reach consensus with the company on the applicable awards because we would certainly make strong submissions either to this Commission or elsewhere in relation to the disadvantage that would be suffered by employees of Transfield in relation to the electrical and plumbing work. Certainly in the case of the plumbers where there is no respondency to the nominated parent award and in the case of electrical trades people employed by Transfield to certain allowances that are not carried in the Metal and Engineering Industries Award.

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the interesting thing is Mr Watson's affidavit says no award applies.

PN170

MR GRESTY: That is correct, sir.

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: So the two of you are at odds.

PN172

MR MUNROE: Well, if there's no award applying it seems to be a very strange document then as to whether or not it is capable of being certified.

PN173

MR GRESTY: Perhaps if I could - - -

PN174

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Gresty.

PN175

MR GRESTY: My recollection of the situation, and I think starting from the basis that the agreement with all its alleged imperfection has been endorsed by the management. That is a fact. There was no and there is no parent award reference in the agreement and there never has been in this agreement or the previous one. It was a stand-alone agreement. I believe and Mr Fleineo can better perhaps give a company's view but I think it was at the company's insistence that the company put in the Metal Engineering and Associated Industries Award to assist the Commission when the Commission applies the no-disadvantage test because Mr Munroe is perfectly correct that throughout all the negotiations the three unions sought to have reference made to the three awards which were all construction awards and there was no agreement reached on that position, no more than there was any agreement reached with respect to applying the Metal Engineering and Associated Industries Award as being the appropriate award to apply for the no-disadvantage test.

PN176

The problem we have now, sir, is that if the award is refused certification it will deny the people the benefits, albeit somewhat meagre from the current agreement, but I don't think we can have a situation where the two unions we would apply construction standards and for the metal employees we would apply the non-construction award.

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: But is this company involved in construction? It says the agreement shall apply to the provision of facilities management and associated property maintenance on industrial and commercial properties that are controlled by agencies of the Government of South Australia.

PN178

MR GRESTY: I would have to say that we would have a difficulty in establishing the scale of work carried out as being one that would sit well within the on-site construction award. That would give us a problem but nevertheless I don't think the Commission could overlook a situation where two people could be travelling to a job covered by this agreement, one person getting paid a travelling allowance and the other person not. So I don't think there is or has been any reference in the document to parent awards and it is not indicated certainly in our statutory declaration. I think again repeating myself it is an effort made by the company to afford the Commission an award that the company believes is an appropriate measure for that disadvantage test.

PN179

THE COMMISSIONER: So I take it your position is that you oppose the certification?

PN180

MR GRESTY: No, I've no instructions to do that, sir, no instructions whatever.

PN181

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN182

MR GRESTY: The one thing I would be opposing is that if there are going to be differing award references that those award references would have to be identical otherwise parts of the work force getting the benefits of the EBA would have those benefits offset by losing them by not having them apply in a non-construction award, sir.

PN183

MR MUNROE: Well, if the Commission pleases, I may have to put this also to the Commission by substantiating our position on it but I think it is becoming slightly clearer if the Commission pleases as to where the metals may be coming from and that is that there are awards that deliver benefits that their award unfortunately does not carry. Transfield I believe when they took over operations for the facilities management for the state government were paying under the terms and conditions of the State Government Metals and Instrumentalities Award and they continued to do that up until the negotiations started on this current document and I believe that it was pointed out that that particular award could not and should not apply to Transfield.

PN184

I believe that that may have been accepted by the company and I think that they may have been convinced during negotiations that that was in fact a state government award - sorry, an award that covers state government agencies even though they were doing that work they could not access it.

PN185

THE COMMISSIONER: But it might have been the term of the contract that they continue to reward the people according to the award they were under.

PN186

MR MUNROE: That they continued to pay under, yes. That may well have been the case, not having seen what the terms of the contract were.

PN187

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the terms of the Electrical Contracting Industry Award would not have applied to those employees while they were working for the state government.

PN188

MR MUNROE: Not the state government agencies as state government employees, no, but transferring - - -

PN189

THE COMMISSIONER: So what has changed?

PN190

MR MUNROE: Transferring to a private employer to a private contractor who has no respondency to that award, it may have been as we agree not knowing the terms of Transfield's contract to the state government, it may have been a carry-over of the terms and conditions of that particular award would continue to apply and surely that would have been negotiated during the course of the sale process or the tendering process. Coming in to an enterprise agreement where we believe that awards are to be nominated, what award that this enterprise agreement varies the terms and conditions of in relation to flexibility and other matters must be identified.

PN191

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let us assume I accept that argument and decline to certify the agreement.

PN192

MR MUNROE: Yes.

PN193

THE COMMISSIONER: And Mr Fleineo declines to discuss the matter with you or agree to vary it, we end up with these employees being paid under an old agreement until such time as a new one is made.

PN194

MR MUNROE: Yes.

PN195

THE COMMISSIONER: So who wins?

PN196

MR MUNROE: Well, I think in the end what would win would be common sense because if a matter came before the Commission and we stood before the Commission and argued the fares and travel allowance has not been paid and they were in breach of the award and we bring it forward as a dispute, putting aside the jurisdictional arguments.

PN197

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, if you went to the court and sought to enforce the Electrical Contracting Award.

PN198

MR MUNROE: Yes, and then if the company then put an argument forward you know that: there is a grey area because this award is not named in our agreement and we believe it is this, we are back where we were at step one and I believe that step one should be corrected before we move on to certification and unfortunately it may delay.

PN199

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, but my point is I can't correct it. I have no power. You either agree or you don't agree.

PN200

MR MUNROE: Yes.

PN201

THE COMMISSIONER: An at this stage you are saying: we don't agree.

PN202

MR MUNROE: Yes.

PN203

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, in a sense you are saying to me: well we revoke the agreement which we signed on the document.

PN204

MR MUNROE: No, I don't think that we - revoking, our desire to revoke may be a little bit out of place. What we are saying is is that the Commission should not certify this document because there are deficiencies in it.

PN205

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN206

MR MUNROE: One is that it does not nominate a parent award that the terms and conditions of the certified agreement will rely on either to vary or to in fact substantiate and also that the agreement as such may deliver a disadvantage to the employees covered by it. Now, Mr Gresty has made some reference to the construction awards. This is a contracting industry award, yes, and the same with the plumbers award but they also carry classifications in those awards that cater for both workshop and service activities of any company respondent to the award.

PN207

If the fares and travel section of our contracting industry award are read in total it may be that that allowance may never be payable by the operations of Transfield, not knowing whether the employees start from the workshop or the depot or whether in fact they start on site and that is the only distinction there as to as to whether or not they are starting on site or starting at the workshop as to whether or not those allowances are payable. If they are captive in the workshop and possibly metals employees may be captive in the workshop, there is no amount payable. So there is no differentiation and once again we can make no apologies for our awards, both federal and state, carrying allowances you know that compensate for disabilities of the nature that is associated with travelling to places other than the workshop or depot.

PN208

I think as you have indicated, Mr Commissioner, that that may not be the argument. You know the argument may be as to whether or not the document itself is in fact certifiable.

PN209

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, all right, Mr Munroe. Perhaps I will hear from Mr Fleineo at this stage. Mr Fleineo, what is your position in all of this?

PN210

MR FLEINEO: Commissioner, our position has not changed from the previous view but I would just like to go over a few points to help explain some of the areas. What has been discussed by the union parties with yourself has thrown a fair bit of light on the situation but I would just like to confirm the history of the agreement being a stand-alone agreement and that was done because we had different groups of employees and it is virtually impractical to provide anything other than common conditions across all those groups. For that reason the original agreement was set up as a stand-alone agreement. This renewal is seeking to retain the same concept.

PN211

Can I just also go back to the previous one? The previous agreement did provide the same provisions that the employees enjoyed as government employees with negotiated additional benefits that were to be incorporated in the agreement as the agreement was to apply for a period of 3 years. Apart from incremental wage increases what was done on the initial agreement was to determine an all-up encompassing rate which covered employees for disability payments that they had previously enjoyed and it also catered for the relevant payments between skill levels of each of the individuals.

PN212

As I say that is a concept is sought to be applied in the renewal of this agreement and therefore there are no awards nominated as parent awards for the agreement. Mr Gresty explained it and I think the words he used were probably pretty right that the issue that we are now trying to put to explain is the reason why the Metal Engineering and Associated Industry Award is brought to consideration is merely to complete the question required to be addressed in part 7 of the statutory declaration. In other words that award has been nominated as the relevant award for the purpose of part 7.1(b) of the statutory declaration.

PN213

Now, it is considered by us to be the relevant award because it is that award or single and state awards that covered the entitlements of the majority of the employees that we had when they were engaged by the government. The matter as raised by CEPU Electrical Division of a fares and travel entitlement I've just advise for the information of the Commission that all these employees, they are all trades people and they all operate as well as working as a team, they can operate individually and work from their own service vans. The incidence of fares and travel as I understand it will be minimal as these people have company vehicles to take them to location to and from - in the purpose or in the course of their duty.

PN214

Now, referring to the situation of employees themselves they are as you have understood currently receiving the last payment that was applicable under the agreement that expired on 30 June and they have not received any additional payments that would normally be afforded to them upon certification of this agreement.

PN215

THE COMMISSIONER: Back to July of last year.

PN216

MR FLEINEO: Yes, yes. This agreement proposes that there be an incremental increase in their rate of pay from 1 July but until certification that cannot be provided to the employees. If the agreement is not certified and we finish up going into new negotiations with the representatives of the employees then only the future can determine what payments these employees might get. Final, sir, I would just confirm that it was on 31 August that the employees concerned voted. They agreed by a valid majority to accept the conditions of the agreement. As I explained they did have full understanding of the conditions of the agreement because they had been working under a similar agreement for the 3 years hence.

PN217

The items that were renegotiated and included in the new and proposed agreement were discussed at great length with the employees, if not with the employees as a whole group then with representatives of the employees and they had the opportunity to report in full to those employees. Consequently it was on 31 August that the employees accepted the terms of the agreement and our position is that we would seek that the Commission certify this agreement in the terms of the application.

PN218

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Fleineo.

PN219

MR FLEINEO: Thank you.

PN220

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Munroe, does that change your position at all?

PN221

MR MUNROE: No, it certainly does not, Mr Commissioner.

PN222

THE COMMISSIONER: If I can get it clear in my mind you are saying the Commission should refuse to certify this agreement on the basis that it does not pass the no-disadvantage test?

PN223

MR MUNROE: Yes, it does not pass the no-disadvantage test but I must also take you past what Mr Fleineo has also said is the company supplies a vehicle, yes, and does alter the quantum of the fares and travel payable but working from a band does not alleviate the payment allowance in total. So there is a payment to be made under our award, even if the company does supply transport. Now - - -

PN224

THE COMMISSIONER: Tell me this, Mr Munroe, have you been down and spoken to the men, the actual men who were involved and voted to accept this agreement?

PN225

MR MUNROE: That was what I was just about to put to the Commission too. When Mr Fleineo said that the employees accepted the agreement, it was accepted I'm assured by Mr Deakin on the fact that the appropriate award was to be included or to be adhered to or to be observed and I'm assured by Mr Deakin that that was the understanding of our members employed by Transfield - - -

PN226

THE COMMISSIONER: Was Mr Deakin present?

PN227

MR MUNROE: Was?

PN228

THE COMMISSIONER: Present at those meetings?

PN229

MR MUNROE: Mr Deakin I believe addressed the employees.

PN230

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, why ever did he sign the document?

PN231

MR MUNROE: Because he was under the impression also that the spirit of the negotiations that the company entered into was going to be complied with and in fact I think Mr Gresty pointed out it is the statutory declarations where the awards were to be noted. If Mr Fleineo says you know it is a stand-alone agreement, you know, well I don't know what section of the Act deals with stand-alone agreements. I still contend that it does not comply with the provisions of the Act.

PN232

THE COMMISSIONER: We've never had an affidavit from the CEPU.

PN233

MR MUNROE: The reason that the affidavit or the second declaration has not been supplied is because of the question of the award respondency.

PN234

THE COMMISSIONER: Would you be able to show to the Commission exactly where this agreement does not pass the no-disadvantage test?

PN235

MR MUNROE: I think that if we could have some time to spend on it, yes, I'm sure that you know Mr Deakin and myself could go through it and put that to the Commission.

PN236

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, would you be prepared to do it in the form of an affidavit and provide a copy to Mr Fleineo?

PN237

MR MUNROE: Yes, we could do that.

PN238

THE COMMISSIONER: How quickly could you do that?

PN239

MR MUNROE: Well, Mr Deakin is on leave I believe until the end of next week and it would be inappropriate you know for the matter to proceed to that before Mr Deakin is able to have some input to the preparation of that document.

PN240

THE COMMISSIONER: My worry is there's 7 months back pay sitting there for these men and Mr Fleineo has quite rightly said it won't be paid until the agreement is certified.

PN241

MR MUNROE: Well, as I said, Mr Commissioner, you know we can hold no responsibility for that. If the document is brought forward - - -

PN242

THE COMMISSIONER: No, but I have a real concern the agreement will fall to the ground.

PN243

MR MUNROE: If it does that then I'm sure that we will be back around the table negotiating the transfer of services you know to get an agreement up that carries what we believe are the legal requirements of the act.

PN244

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you accept any validity in Mr Fleineo's remarks that with a diverse work force that it was not unreasonable for him to try and look for some uniformity amongst all of the individuals?

PN245

MR MUNROE: If Transfields were in the manufacturing business, if they were manufacturing whatever, hinges, and they employed an electrician to maintain their machinery on their premises where they were manufacturing these hinges then we say yes, the appropriate award that would apply there would be the Metal and Associated Industries Award but unfortunately Transfields are not in the business of making hinges. They are in the business of contracting out electrical and other labour to the state government under a contract that they've entered into. They meet the definition of a contractor and to recognise that they've registered as an electrical contractor.

PN246

THE COMMISSIONER: No. Well, I think you have answered the question but I would have thought from a practical industrial relations point of view an employer would be more comfortable with some uniform conditions across his work force rather than have to pay an electrician and you might have a fitter and an electrician in the same van, pay one something different to the other because an award, the common rule award applied to the occupation of one of them but not to the other one.

PN247

MR MUNROE: Well, we can't either make any apologies for maybe being a bit more diligent in the structure of our awards to ensure that those disabilities are recompensed.

PN248

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let me say this. Mr Fleineo, I'm of the view that if Mr shows in an affidavit which you will get a copy of that this agreement does not pass the no-disadvantage test then I will be unable to certify it. That is a matter of regret but that is reality. That is what the Act requires. So what I want you to do, Mr Munroe, is put that affidavit together as quickly as you possibly can, get it across to Mr Fleineo and to Mr Gresty, see if you can have some talks about it. If those talks don't achieve anything then I would like the matter relisted as a matter of urgency whereupon I will provide the parties with my decision on the material that I've received today.

PN249

MR MUNROE: Well, we would not wish the Commission to base any decision on certification of the document purely on an affidavit that we will supply outlining where our concerns are in relation to - - -

PN250

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it will be on the affidavit and the submissions you have made to date.

PN251

MR MUNROE: Well, we would seek to make further submissions if the Commission - - -

PN252

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you will have leave to do that.

PN253

MR MUNROE: Yes, and those submissions will be based on the activities.

PN254

THE COMMISSIONER: But remember quite clearly I can't vary this agreement. That is the reality you are in.

PN255

MR MUNROE: I'm quite aware of that section of the Act, Mr Commissioner.

PN256

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it is the same in the state jurisdiction. The parties either have an agreement or they don't. That is it.

PN257

MR MUNROE: Yes.

PN258

THE COMMISSIONER: Our days of being able to jiggle them around have gone.

PN259

MR MUNROE: I must say reading the transcript and also having spoken to Mr Deakin prior to him going on leave before Christmas I formed the opinion that we were hornswoggled in relation to this document where the negotiations that Mr Deakin was conducting with this company led him to believe quite clearly that the appropriate awards would be recognised on the day of certification and in fact it was the back-flip of the company that set the cat among the pigeons and we are trying to remedy what we believe were genuine negotiations to reach a genuine agreement in the spirit - - -

PN260

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that is something you have got to take up with Mr Fleineo.

PN261

MR MUNROE: Yes.

PN262

THE COMMISSIONER: But what you are going to have to show to me is whether or not the terms of this agreement taken overall don't pass the disadvantage test.

PN263

MR MUNROE: Rest assured, Mr Commissioner, we will be lifting up every dot and every crossed T and looking underneath in there.

PN264

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, would you as quickly as you can to Mr Fleineo and to Mr Gresty and would you keep my associate informed of the progress because I want to relist it as quickly as possible.

PN265

MR MUNROE: Yes. I will be able to contact your associate later this afternoon.

PN266

THE COMMISSIONER: We will try Monday.

PN267

MR MUNROE: And give some indication when Mr Deakin is going to be available. I have no - - -

PN268

THE COMMISSIONER: Try Monday because my associate is away at the moment.

PN269

MR MUNROE: Of course.

PN270

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right, Mr Fleineo, that is what I propose to do so I will now adjourn these proceedings to await further advice either from you in respect of discussions you might have had with Mr Munroe and Mr Gresty or advice from Mr Munroe as to a relisting. Thank you.

PN271

MR FLEINEO: Thank you, Commissioner, and I can be in contact with your office directly on that. Thank you.

PN272

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, please, yes, and I do apologise for the amount of time you had to spend sitting in that court room today.

PN273

MR FLEINEO: Not a problem, thank you.

PN274

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [12.40pm]