C2002/4619, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 4005 (8 October 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER TOLLEY

C2002/4619

AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE, CLERICAL
AND SERVICES UNION

and

SPI POWERNET

Notification pursuant to Section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re clause 22 - Power Industry
Allowance of GPU Powernet Enterprise Development
Agreement 2000

MELBOURNE

11.34 AM, TUESDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2002

PN1

MR M. RIZZO: I appear on behalf of the ASU and appearing with me is MR J. O'NEILL.

PN2

MS L. RUSSELL: I seek leave to appear for SPI Powernet.

PN3

MR G. BROOMFIELD: I am from SPI Powernet.

PN4

MR N. DREW: I am from SPI Powernet.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Any opposition to leave, Mr Rizzo?

PN6

MR RIZZO: We have a long history with Louise; I think we will be right, Commissioner.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Your answer is, there is no objection to leave.

PN8

MR RIZZO: That is right.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Leave is granted, Ms Russell. I don't want to know about your history. Her husband might have something to say about it. Yes, Mr Rizzo.

PN10

MR RIZZO: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, this dispute is about the power industry allowance and it arises out of the GPU Powernet Enterprise Development Agreement 2000. And just for your notation, Commissioner, the company has since changed its name from GPU Powernet to SPI Powernet. So I refer to the 2000 agreement which talks about GPU Powernet, and I will also refer you in a moment to the current agreement which is the SPI Powernet Agreement 2002. Perhaps if I can hand that to you, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #A1 GPU POWERNET AGREEMENT 2000

PN11

MR RIZZO: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, as I say, this is the GPU Powernet Agreement 2000 and I refer you to the extract, to clauses 22, 23 and 24. In this agreement the parties agreed, Commissioner, to hold a number of reviews. Clause 22 is a power industry allowances review and it is the one that we are concerned with today, and it says:

PN12

During the life of this agreement GPU Powernet and the unions will review the current industry allowances with a view to ensuring parity with the electricity distribution companies. No employee currently receiving an allowance will be disadvantaged as a result of the review.

PN13

And that is essentially the clause that we are in dispute with today. But just to give you the context, Commissioner, if you look at clause 23 and clause 24, you will see that clause 23 is a power technician structural review. We have done that review, completed that review, and agreed on the outcome. And clause 24 is a review of the out of hours service or availability, if you like, and, again, we have done - completed that review. It is this review in relation to power industry allowance clause 22 which, unfortunately, we haven't been able to agree upon. Commissioner, can I refer you to the current agreement which I will hand up a copy of.

EXHIBIT #A2 SPI POWERNET AGREEMENT 2002

PN14

MR RIZZO: Thank you. Commissioner, this was certified by the Commission in May 2002 so it is quite recent. I refer yo uto the next page, Commissioner, which is an extract at clause 25, power industry allowance. Paragraph 2 of clause 25 says:

PN15

The review of the allowances referred to in clause 22 of the previous agreement will be conducted within six months of certification of this agreement and, if an allowance is approved or an allowance is increased, the allowance will be annualised as per the above.

PN16

So the current agreement also refers back to clause 22, Commissioner, which we have nominated as A1. We met with management on a number of occasions to try and come to some resolution and basically had to explore what was, if you like, the industry standard on the payment of the allowance. And, having established that, therefore, did it justify that people - my members at Powernet should receive an increase in the power industry allowance? And I suppose that is where we have come a bit unstuck.

PN17

The company, after doing its research, claims that it is paying the average industry allowance and, therefore, wants to pay no more. And we claim that it is paying under industry standard and, therefore, want the equivalent of the industry standard. And, Commissioner, I will address that issue of the industry standard next but before I go to the next document, Commissioner, let me make this observation; that there is an inherent inconsistency within the company about how the industry allowance is applied, the power industry allowance is applied and I think it is of some consequence to this dispute.

PN18

For example, the people who do get the power industry allowance within Powernet include all the employees in the La Trobe Valley, include all ETU members, and include ASU members who are team leaders, and some other ASU members in the communications group who also get the power industry allowance. The people who don't get the power industry allowance - and this is the group that we are in dispute about - are about 26 ASU members who are largely in the testing area and in what is referred to as the Yarraville lab technicians area. And it is those 26 people that we are in dispute about.

PN19

Now, it just strikes us as somewhat absurd and at least inherently inconsistent that the great bulk of the workforce, whether they be in the La Trobe Valley, the ETU or some of the ASU do get a power industry allowance, but some 26 members of mine don't and we see this as an inconsistent approach by the company. And if they were to increase the power industry allowance for those 26 people at the industry rate, then this dispute obviously would be resolved. Commissioner, just referring to the issue of the industry rate, can I submit the following document.

EXHIBIT #A3 DOCUMENT COMPARING HOW POWER INDUSTRY ALLOWANCE IS PAID IN VARIOUS ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES

PN20

MR RIZZO: Commissioner, this was a document that was prepared by the company and submitted to us a few weeks ago, and it is the company's version of how the power industry allowance is paid in various other companies because if you will recall clause 22 said we needed to compare ourselves to the electricity distribution companies. Commissioner, would you require a minute to just have a look at that document?

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

PN22

MR RIZZO: I will take you through it then, Commissioner. Commissioner, according to the company - and we agree with some of the statements and facts in this document - at AGL they don't pay a power industry allowance but it is true, as the document says, that in 1999 the ASU put a claim for a power industry allowance to be paid, but the ASU dropped the claim and as a trade-off got a pay increase in lieu of the agreed amount. And, therefore, the people that we are concerned with at AGL earn between 51,000 and 67,000 per annum.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: How does that compare with - - -

PN24

MR RIZZO: With Powernet?

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN26

MR RIZZO: Yes, Commissioner. With Powernet, the testers at Powernet are paid 59,682 per annum. So it is substantially less, if you like, from the top rate which is 67,000 at AGL. With United Energy, the company claims - which is at least true to the extent that United Energy no longer directly employs testers, it does so - it does employ a contractor, but our understanding is that these people are also paid a power industry allowance. At TXU which is another distribution company, they do pay their testers a power industry allowance of $41.36 per week but the company claims that even when you add this altogether with the power industry allowance, at TXU they only get 55,703 per annum which is some $4000 less than what they get at Powernet.

PN27

At Powercor, Commissioner, which I think is probably the one that we are going to concentrate on, the company's research shows that a senior tester who also gets a power industry allowance gets some $62,335 per annum. And I suppose that is the figure that we are saying is the industry standard, that $62,335 paid to the Powercor testers. If you look over the page, Commissioner, and I apologise for the handwritten stuff, but in my handwriting the information that the company has supplied to me, the power industry allowances were $2858 per year.

PN28

If one added that $2858 to the base rate of 59,682, one would get the total of 62,540. And that 62,540 is very much equivalent to 62,335 at Powercor. And we would say that that power industry allowance of 2800 should be added to the base rate, and in our view that would settle the matter. The company says that, as I said at the outset, that it is not prepared to increase the power industry allowance for those 26 people, despite the fact that three-quarters of its workforce does get a power industry allowance because it would cost them the 2858, obviously multiplied by 26 people, which I think is 75,000 odd, and then when you add on super, according to the company it is around 82,000.

PN29

So that is the kernel of the dispute, Commissioner, about this power industry allowance at $2,800 being paid to those 26 ASU members.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Rizzo, I just us back to the back page of exhibit A3, please.

PN31

MR RIZZO: Yes.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: If the - if your figures are right, I am not saying they are wrong, $62,540 - - -

PN33

MR RIZZO: Yes.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - why do you say that is an average, because you have got a total, top end of the remuneration for AGL 67 - sorry, 67, 55,700 for TXU and Powercor 56,245.

PN35

MR RIZZO: Yes. That Powercor figure - the Powercor figure I am taking, Commissioner, is page 1 of A3, which is under the bold heading of Senior Tester and if you see that Senior Tester - - -

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, it is all right, that explains it yes, thank you. Yes.

PN37

MR RIZZO: Yes, it says:

PN38

Plus the lines allowance equals 62,335.

PN39

And that is the rate that I am using, Commissioner, as the basis for our claim. I know the company has put that 56,245 there for Powercor, but in our view that is not correct. So in fact, if you are comparing apples with apples, we say that the three rates you need to look at are the 67,000 at AGL, the 62,335 at Powercor and the 59,682 at Powernet. And as I say, if you add the 2858 from the power industry allowance to the base rate of Powernet you get the approximate value of Powercor but not obviously the value - but nowhere near the value of AGL, which is sitting around 67,000 as the top rate.

PN40

So we are not going to claim AGL, Commissioner, we will claim what the industry standard should be somewhere around the senior tester at Powercor. Commissioner, just further documentation to inform the Commissioner properly.

EXHIBIT #A4 POWER TECHNICIANS STRUCTURE REVIEW

PN41

MR RIZZO: Commissioner, we had a review called the Power Technicians Structure Review, which was mentioned in clause 23 of A1. As I say, we settled this issue. Why I raise this with you at this point is to point out to you that page 3 of this document, Commissioner, it is actually page 6 of the document itself but the third page of A4, if you like at the top of that page the last sentence before the bold, it says:

PN42

Base rates were reviewed to ensure they were exclusive of allowances.

PN43

Now, let me just inform you about this. We deliberately took the allowances out of the review because we knew that we were going to treat allowances separately, in a different review, okay. Now, the company is now saying if you look at things in a global sense that the Powernet guys are doing okay, but we assert that it was never meant to be seen in a global sense that the allowances were specifically removed and put under a different review, and I don't think - I think the company's claim to be treating this in a global sense, is unfair. Commissioner, the final document which I will submit to you - - -

EXHIBIT #A5 EXTRACT FROM POWER TECHNICIANS STRUCTURE REVIEW

PN44

MR RIZZO: Commissioner, this is again an extract from the review which has now been called A4. And the purpose of this document is to illustrate this point, and if I can - I am sorry for the waxing and waning but if I can refer you back to A3 at Powercor, senior tester, it says that "Senior tester" etcetera, etcetera:

PN45

...62,335, the senior testers are...(reads)... comparable to the SPI Powernet team leader is secondary.

PN46

Now, the company claims that it doesn't want to afford the power industry allowance increase to these 26 odd people because the senior tester at Powercor supposedly undertakes supervisory functions, and we agree that it does take supervisory functions, but we assert that also the testers at Powernet undertake supervisory functions. And if I refer you to A5, Commissioner, which I have just handed up, the first page is Level 3, Senior Tests, and right at the bottom dot point it says:

PN47

Act for team leader and perform leadership role.

PN48

So it does have a supervisory component. And the second page is Level 3, Senior Coms, or communications, and dot 5 from the bottom again says:

PN49

Acts in team leader role in their absence.

PN50

So again it has a supervisory role. We assert then that given that the testers of Powernet perform very similar functions to the testers at Powercor, including the supervisory function, that the power industry allowance should be attached to their base rate, and that, as I say, would pretty much put them on parity with the Powercor people. Now, can I refer you, Commissioner, to A1 and the word "parity". If you look at A1, clause 22, Power Industry Allowances, it says:

PN51

GPU Powernet and unions will review the current industry allowances with a view to ensuring parity with electricity distribution companies.

PN52

Now parity, according to the dictionary, does not mean the average or the middling range as the company has claimed, parity means the same, equal to, and we assert that contrary to what you hear, I suspect, from the company, that they want to not be at the top of the range and not at the bottom range but somewhere in the middle, we assert that parity suggests that it should be equal to the industry standard. Now, we couldn't claim that the industry standard is AGL at 67,000, but we haven't done that. In the interests of getting a resolution we claim that the industry standard is the Powercor one.

PN53

And finally, Commissioner, there is not only inherent inconsistency the way that Powernet applies the power industry allowance, but it is somewhat of an irony the way it may be applied in the future. And here I refer you back, Commissioner, to A2, which is the extract from the current Powernet agreement. And I refer you to clause 25, Power Industry Allowance. And I will just read this, because it is of note. It says:

PN54

It is agreed that from the date of certification of this agreement those employees in receipt of the power industry ...(reads)... hourly rate and being paid for all purposes.

PN55

And I suppose it is the next sentence that I want you to note, Commissioner, it says:

PN56

New employees will commence at the new annualised pay rate.

PN57

Now, what that strongly suggests to us is that any new person who comes along to Powernet will get the power industry allowance because it will be an annualised rate that will apply to employees. And the irony is this, that while the receptionist - a new receptionist who comes on board tomorrow might get the power industry allowance as a new employee under clause 25 of the EBA, my 26 members who should be getting the power industry allowance are being denied the power industry allowance. And mind you, most of these people have anywhere between 10 and 30 years service with the company.

PN58

And it just strikes us as somewhat obscure that new employees will get the annualised power industry allowance, but long standing employees will not. And it is also understanding that trainees will also get the power industry allowance and again long established employees will not. And I suppose that adds to the irony and the inconsistency that I mentioned earlier in my submission. And, Commissioner, just for your clarification, because I know at previous hearings you have asked this question of myself, I refer you to the third page in A2 which is clause 10 of the Disputes Resolution Procedure and I refer you to step 4, Commissioner, where it says:

PN59

If still unresolved the matter will be referred to the IRC for resolution and the parties shall abide by any outcome.

PN60

Now, it is the ASUs view that we will abide by an outcome of the Commission and I understand it is also the employers view, although obviously they will speak for themselves, but as far as your jurisdiction is concerned, Commissioner, we believe that the EBA makes that clear. In summary, Commissioner, what we are saying is this, we have successfully completed two reviews under the 2000 EBAs and come to a resolution. Unfortunately this one on the power industry allowance we have not concluded successfully and therefore seeking assistance from the Commission.

PN61

We say that the company is mistaken in saying that parity equals the middling range, or the average range for the industry allowance. We are saying that parity under clause 22 of the 2000 agreement means equal to. Equal to we could have interpreted as AGL at 67,000, we haven't, but we have certainly - our analysis shows that it is equal to the Powercor rate at 62,500 odd. That would be the outcome that we would be seeking from the Commission. If the Commission pleases.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Rizzo. When you are ready, Ms Russell.

PN63

MS RUSSELL: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, there is just a couple of what we would see as gaps in the history that I would like to go through. Commissioner, perhaps starting off with the power industry allowance, which is obviously the matter that the parties are in dispute about. The history of that is that there were three allowances under what is colloquially still called the EEEE Award, The Power and Energy Award and those three allowances were the Power Station Allowance, the Lines Allowance and the Workshops Allowance.

PN64

Commissioner, without going into what each of those allowances were paid for, the reason why is self explanatory, the lines allowance was for people who worked on lines, the power station you had to be in a power station, workshops allowance you needed to be working in a workshop. Now, what - so there were various people, obviously, who received that allowance, depending on whether there was an entitlement or not. What Powernet decided to do was to look at the people who were in receipt of those allowances, and because those allowances had a different rate that attached to them what it was looking to do was to come up with one allowance, which is the power industry allowance, and then to annualise it.

PN65

One of the reasons it did that, obviously, was to make it administratively easy to put into place. Now, you wouldn't be surprised, Commissioner, given the nature of those allowances, that the people who received those allowances were, with a couple of exceptions, members of the CEPU because those were the people who were involved in work that meant they had an entitlement to those allowances. So the result of the review was the - with the CEPU was that the power industry allowance was paid to employees who had been in receipt of one of those allowances.

PN66

Now, with the ASU the only groups that had - the only people who have received one of those allowances and therefore had an entitlement are two groups, there are, on my instructions, three ASU members who did in the dark and distant history of the electricity industry work in a workshop and therefore they had been getting the workshop allowance, so what - Powernet took the position that with those people clearly they were not going to be disadvantaged and notwithstanding they now no longer work in a workshop and would not currently have an entitlement that those three ASU members would get the power industry allowance.

[12.01pm]

PN67

Now, the only other ASU employees who get the power industry allowance from my instructions are team leaders and the reason that the team leaders get paid the allowance is to make sure that they area not disadvantage in respect of the people that they are supervising. So the group that Mr Rizzo is talking about have never been in receipt of any of the allowances which, in essence, make up the power industry allowance. The next issue is really the review that the parties undertook and what was the aim of that review.

PN68

Now, Mr Rizzo says that the way that the review was supposed to work was that if a distribution company was paying the power industry allowance to people performing similar work to his members then that meant that Power Net should then pay that allowance to his members. Commissioner, Power Net has a different view about what the aim of the review was and I actually have a document which is headed draft terms of reference that I would like to hand up.

EXHIBIT #R1 DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE

PN69

MS RUSSELL: Now, Commissioner, although it is headed draft terms of reference my instructions are that the terms of reference agreed by the unions and where the parties were at was that after they had agreed on the draft terms of reference they had nominated people to go onto the review. This was at the stage when the review was going to involve the CEPU and the ASU. Mr Rizzo has then explained the history of how the parties got involved in dealing with other matters and the review got delayed for some time.

PN70

The front page of the document basically just sets out the various allowances, which I have referred to before. Commissioner, if I can take you to the second page and what we say is important, is that the first paragraph on the second page and the one after that starts to talk about what is it that the review team is going to be doing and you will see, Commissioner, it talks about:

PN71

...The review team should examine which of the above allowances are paid by each of the Melbourne distribution companies and the relevant amounts payable together with the rationale for the payment to particular categories of employees.

PN72

So Commissioner, we say that what the review team was looking at, not surprisingly, number one, was: is there an entitlement to the allowance. How gets it. And that comes back to the earlier issue of is somebody currently in receipt of one of those other allowances so that they would then have an entitlement to the power industry allowance. The next paragraph talks about, okay, if the review team looks at extending the allowance to somebody who is not currently in receipt of the allowance, the review team should determine and explain the rationale of the extension and the annual cost increases that would apply to the employer.

PN73

And, Commissioner, what we say there is, well, the second stage of the process after you have looked at: is there an entitlement or not, is to say, okay, irrespective of the entitlement position, what is being paid by the distribution companies and having a look at the cost of then applying the allowance but also having a look at what people are being paid in an overall sense.

PN74

Now, Commissioner, so the first reason that Power Net hasn't - isn't prepared to pay this allowance to the people that Mr Rizzo represents is that it says there is no entitlement, but while it obviously hasn't sought to do anything about people who might have had it for historical reasons, that there is not an entitlement to any of the allowances that make up the power industry allowance. Now, the second - what appears to be sort of the alternative claim by Mr Rizzo is, well, these people are in fact not being paid the average of the wages in the other distribution companies and, Commissioner, maths is not my strong point but - - -

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: It is not mine, either, Ms - - -

PN76

MS RUSSELL: - - - the company tells me that if you add up all those classifications that are on the second page of A3 and divide them you actually come up with a figure of 60,372. Now, Commissioner, I raise that - - -

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: 63,000 - - -

PN78

MS RUSSELL: Sorry, 60,372 which means that the Power Net employees are around the average, now Commissioner, but to some extent we say that is really a side show, but Mr Rizzo does, from we are sitting, appears really to be saying: these people should get a wage increase. And he is looking for various justifications. As I said, on the first one we say, well, there is no entitlement to the allowance. On the second one, if the justification is well, pay the average, we say we are doing that, if - and it appears to be the third justification why Power Net should pay it is that really it is a claim for these people to be paid the same as the senior tester.

PN79

Well, that is really in the nature of a work value claim, Commissioner. And, Commissioner, we say that it is not a comparison of like jobs. Mr Rizzo has admitted that - and understood Power Net's position that we say that the senior tester at Powercor is more of a managerial coordination function and therefore it is not directly comparable with the Power Net position. Now, Mr Rizzo handed up a document A5 - - -

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN81

MS RUSSELL: - - - and took you to the reference to the fact that these two Power Net positions are involved in a supervisory role and say to you, well, that can leave the Commission to conclude that these jobs are comparable. What Mr Rizzo didn't tell you, Commissioner, is that when people - when the Power Net employees perform these jobs they actually get a - they get an acting - a higher duties allowance. So, yes, they might perform those jobs but they are then paid a higher duties allowance.

PN82

So their substantive wage does not encompass the performance of those duties which we say reinforces our position that you are not comparing jobs that are the same. Commissioner, from Power Net's position, it sees that really this is an attempt to get a further wage increase by whatever means the ASU can try and see to justify it, Commissioner. Commissioner, the employees we are talking about have had an increase, on my instructions, of around 8.5 per cent over two years under the enterprise agreement.

PN83

There was then another 4.2 per cent which came out of the structure review and there is now a claim for an additional $2,848 from the power industry allowance. Now, Commissioner, we say that there is no basis for these employees to receive the increase. No basis in that there is no entitlement. No basis if we are looking at some sort of claim based on an average of positions across the industry and no basis if there is a claim based on a comparison between the senior tester and the Power Net role.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Ms Russell. Yes?

PN85

MS RUSSELL: Commissioner, I just don't want to harp on this point, but I should perhaps have mentioned at the beginning that one of the difficulties we have had today is that my client was not actually provided with a copy of either the notification from the union or the notice of listing. Now, I understand that that may just be because - - -

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Not from the Commission.

PN87

MS RUSSELL: No. It certainly wasn't the fault of the Commission. I may just have been that the fax number provided to the Commission by the union was incorrect. Commissioner, obviously those things happen but I just mention that obviously in terms of the company being able to - - -

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: The fax numbers supplied were SPI Power Pty Ltd 0386357334.

PN89

MS RUSSELL: No - - -

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: When you give my associate the right one, well make sure you will get it next time.

PN91

MS RUSSELL: So, Commissioner, I mentioned that - - -

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN93

MS RUSSELL: Obviously these things happen, but in terms of where this matter might go, if the union is looking for some sort of formal arbitration on the matter, then Commissioner, we would need - well, first of all we need to understand exactly what it is they are asking you for because my understanding it was a section - - -

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: It is pretty clear what they are asking me for. To give them a quid.

PN95

MS RUSSELL: Well, that might be clear, Commissioner. I am just not clear whether they are asking for it under section 99 or they are asking for it under the disputes procedure.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN97

MS RUSSELL: Now you might say to me, it doesn't matter but - - -

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it does matter - - -

PN99

MS RUSSELL: From our point of view - - -

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - and Mr Rizzo did say the disputes procedure in the agreement empowered the Commission.

PN101

MS RUSSELL: He did, Commissioner. The only question I had about that was my original understanding was that it had been notified - - -

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, under 99, yes.

PN103

MS RUSSELL: - - - under section 99, but because we don't have the notice, but anyway, that is probably depending where we get from - where we get to today, Commissioner - something for the future.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I can tell you now - I can tell you both now the Commissioner won't be making any hasty decisions today without hearing fuller argument from the parties.

PN105

MS RUSSELL: If the Commission pleases.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Rizzo.

PN107

MR RIZZO: Commissioner, just briefly to some of Ms Russell's assertions. She says that these people have had no entitlement in the past. That is true of some of these people but she neglected to mention that all my members in La Trobe Valley do get the allowance and neglected to mention that trainees who also have no history of the allowance, also get the allowance. Secondly, Ms Russell talked about that on average - if you average it all out - - -

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just stop you there. Are you aware of how many trainees there are in SPI?

PN109

MR RIZZO: There is only a handful, Commissioner.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: A big hand or a little hand?

PN111

MR RIZZO: Four, five, six - - -

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: Half a dozen?

PN113

MR RIZZO: Five.

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN115

MR RIZZO: Yes, five or six, at best, Commissioner. Secondly, Ms Russell talks about the issue of average and that if you average it out you get 60,372, well, that may be the case but we are not - as I pointed out the Commission, the enterprise agreement 2000 does not talk about average. It talks about parity with the distribution companies. There is a big difference between average and parity and I think I have already explained to you what we see as parities and mind you, we haven't even gone to the stop of the standard, which is AGL.

PN116

And also with respect to Ms Russell, I think again they are looking at this in a global sense. She says that there has been an 8 per cent wage increase from the EBA, yes, there has, but you know, that is irrelevant. I mean, people have got that because the EBA has specified it. And people got a 4.2 per cent wage increase from the power technician review, yes, that is correct, but only a few people got that increase. In order to qualify for that increase, Commissioner, you had to be not at the top of the band.

PN117

Anyone who was the top of the band did not receive that increase at all. So in fact, only a minority of people got that increase. So, we reassert, Commissioner, that we are not here for some fishing expedition as has been characterised to get some sort of wage increase, we are here out of a legitimate section of the EBA mentioned in both 2000 and 2002 which talked about that we need to go for a review. We have gone for a review.

PN118

The parties differ. We say to you that we believe these people are entitled to the power industry allowance. The claim that we are making is a just one in that it compares us to, if you like, the standard in the distribution companies, and just to clarify what the ASU wants as an outcome of these proceedings, yes, we do want the power industry allowance of 2,815-odd dollars to be applied to these 26 members of mine who are not getting it, Commissioner.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: And what section of the Workplace Relations Act do you say the Commission should operate under?

PN120

MR RIZZO: Well, I would say it is under the dispute resolution procedure which I think comes under 170LW, Commissioner. And I think there is no dispute in my mind as to the jurisdiction that the Commission would have in making such a determination.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't think Ms Russell intimated there was, but she might not admit it.

PN122

MR RIZZO: Yes, thanks, Commissioner.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Last game Ms Russell.

PN124

MS RUSSELL: No, Commissioner. There is probably not a lot more I need to say. If it is that the matter is being brought before you under section 170LW then presumably if that is not what is currently before you there will be an application made by the ASU - - -

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: I intend to issue - - -

PN126

MS RUSSELL: - - - which will be faxed to us which we can have a look at.

PN127

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - directions to the parties in here to be fair.

PN128

MS RUSSELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN129

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I have heard your submission pursuant to section 99 Mr Rizzo, and the Commission, pursuant to section 111(1T) of the Act directs that, one, the ASU, under its proper name will notify a matter to the Commission for the attention of the Commission as constituted currently in this matter pursuant to section 170LW about the review and the hopeful outcome of that review and will notify SPI and its legal advisers simultaneously. And at the same time, I would expect an outline of submissions - all submissions, sent to the other side.

PN130

I would expect that to be done within the next five days. Ms Russell, when your clients receive the notification with the accompanying information from Mr Rizzo, you have got seven days to respond.

PN131

MS RUSSELL: Yes, Commissioner.

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: Put it my diary please.

PN133

MR RIZZO: Commissioner, can I inform you that I am going on leave as of next week and will be on leave for three weeks between 30 September and - - -

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: We have just given Ms Russell three weeks then?

PN135

MR RIZZO: Well, I don't know. I am just informing you, Commissioner, because you are looking at your diary there.

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: No, yes, fair enough, yes.

PN137

MR RIZZO: And I won't be back on deck until 21 October. So it is a three week period.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: 21 October. Well, do you think you can get that information out in the interim, or can another member of your organisation give that information to Ms Russell while you are on leave?

PN139

MR RIZZO: I am pretty sure that - what is today, Tuesday - - -

PN140

MS RUSSELL: 24th - - -

PN141

MR RIZZO: If it is not five days, Commissioner, it won't be past a week - - -

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, yes.

PN143

MR RIZZO: - - - I can have that to Ms Russell.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Ms Russell.

PN145

MS RUSSELL: Commissioner, just while we are dealing with people's annual leave commitments - - -

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: You are going too, are you?

PN147

MS RUSSELL: Yes.

PN148

THE COMMISSIONER: Some people have all the luck.

PN149

MS RUSSELL: On 25 October. So just in terms of if, Commissioner, you are trying to find a date when the two of us might both be at work - - -

PN150

THE COMMISSIONER: So, you are going off on 25 October?

PN151

MS RUSSELL: Yes.

PN152

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So I have got the 22nd, the 23rd and the 24th, is that what you are telling me?

PN153

MS RUSSELL: Yes, Commissioner.

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks very much for that. You have made my mind up. The matter will be brought before the Commission for final arguments at 10 am on Wednesday, 23 October. My associate will send out a listing after my associate has received the listing from the ASU so that everything is above-board.

PN155

MS RUSSELL: Commissioner, I am not sure whether there is likely to be any evidence, but it has just occurred to me just so that we try and expedite things and don't - - -

PN156

THE COMMISSIONER: I would leave it - - -

PN157

MS RUSSELL: - - - cut into my annual leave.

PN158

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I would leave a day aside, yes.

PN159

MS RUSSELL: Okay, and Commissioner, if there is going to be evidence, would you expect the parties to at least put an outline of that evidence in?

PN160

THE COMMISSIONER: I would expect the parties to extend the normal courtesies, yes.

PN161

MS RUSSELL: Yes.

PN162

THE COMMISSIONER: Otherwise I will adjourn the matter if either side don't do it.

PN163

MS RUSSELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN164

MR RIZZO: Sorry Commissioner. I just missed that last bit, sorry.

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: If you intend to call witness evidence - - -

PN166

MR RIZZO: Yes.

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - in addition to a written submission - - -

PN168

MR RIZZO: Right, yes.

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - you should send an outline of witness evidence to either side in exchange.

PN170

MR RIZZO: Yes.

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: As normal.

PN172

MR RIZZO: Yes, fair enough. Thank you.

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: I am sure I have got no problem with the parties or the Commission in respect to the courtesies. Anything else? All done. All right. I will see you on the 23rd. The Commission is adjourned.

ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2002 [12.21pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #A1 GPU POWERNET AGREEMENT 2000 PN11
EXHIBIT #A2 SPI POWERNET AGREEMENT 2002 PN14
EXHIBIT #A3 DOCUMENT COMPARING HOW POWER INDUSTRY ALLOWANCE IS PAID IN VARIOUS ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES PN20
EXHIBIT #A4 POWER TECHNICIANS STRUCTURE REVIEW PN41
EXHIBIT #A5 EXTRACT FROM POWER TECHNICIANS STRUCTURE REVIEW PN44
EXHIBIT #R1 DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE PN69