AG2002/4378, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 4450 (12 November 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


O/N VT605

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER FOGGO

AG2002/4378

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LK of the Act
by TRW Space and Electronics Overseas Inc
and Another for certification of the TRW
Space and Electronics Overseas Inc Enterprise
Agreement 2002

MELBOURNE

9.30 AM, THURSDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2002

This Transcript was prepared from a tape
recorded by Telstra ConferLink

THIS HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BY VIDEO CONFERENCE
IN MELBOURNE

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Bourke, we have you on line?

PN2

MR BOURKE: Yes, certainly, Commissioner. Good morning.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: And Mr Scamp is it?

PN4

MR SCHAMP: Schamp.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, how do I pronounce your name?

PN6

MR SCHAMP: Shamp.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Schamp. All right. And do we have an employee representative?

PN8

MR JACKSON: Yes, we do, Peter Jackson.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Peter Jackson is there.

PN10

MR JACKSON: Yes, I am here.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, thank you. All right, Mr Bourke.

PN12

MR BOURKE: Yes, Commissioner. Thanks for availing everybody of the chance to do this as quickly as you did. Commissioner, this is an application for certification of a division 2 agreement. You have - the parties have been identified for you. Larry Schamp the site manager of TRW Space and Electronics and Peter Jackson, the employee rep. Commissioner, the terms of the agreement were reached between the company and the employees covered by the Space Tracking Industry Award. And my understanding is that this is largely a rolling over of a previous agreement.

PN13

Commissioner, the parties have prepared statutory declarations and they believe that these meet all the requirements of the Act, the regulations and the rules of the Commission. And they further believe that the requirements of 170LK and section 170LT have been met, specifically, that the agreement doesn't disadvantage employees covered by it, although you will have noticed that we have identified overtime as an issue where there is a specific disadvantage. And you should have in front of you a table that the company has prepared which indicates that because of the high base rates that apply on the site that the different calculation of overtime doesn't constitute a global disadvantage for that reason.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that going to be attached to the agreement or the parties will keep that and we will have it on file?

PN15

MR BOURKE: I don't have instructions on that, Commissioner. Mr Schamp will probably have no problems with that being attached but he can comment on that after.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't necessarily say it has to but just as long as the parties - if there is any reconciliation that needs to be done at any stage that the parties have easy access to that table.

PN17

MR BOURKE: I think it should certainly be kept on the file, Commissioner.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right.

PN19

MR BOURKE: Commissioner, the parties also believe that the agreement and an explanation of the terms of the agreement occurred in accordance with the Act and that all employees understood the document before they voted on it. The agreement does contain a dispute settlement procedure and it sets out a period of operation and in clause 5 that is stated that it will expire on 30 June. Excuse me while I kill that phone, Commissioner. When you are not in the Commission you don't think of things like that.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Exactly.

PN21

MR BOURKE: And it is due to expire on 30 June 2005. And Commissioner, notwithstanding any questions you might have for the parties, can I ask that you certify the agreement in the terms sought.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Mr Jackson, I would like to ask you a few questions. Were you involved in the negotiation of the previous agreement?

PN23

MR JACKSON: Yes, I was.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. How many of these have you been involved in?

PN25

MR JACKSON: Since the very first one, so.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: What number are we up to now?

PN27

MR JACKSON: Three - three or four I think it is.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. And I note that there is 15 employees who are all bound by the agreement. Briefly explain to me how you went about getting feedback from those employees on the negotiations.

PN29

MR JACKSON: We had private discussions separate with management and then we also had timeline discussions with the management here where we sat down and went over different issues in the award and in the agreement, anywhere we thought there may have been discrepancies or otherwise, and then both parties went away and discussed it again. We all came back and in a group effort worked out what was amicable between both parties and came to a total agreement.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Does everyone understand the table that has been prepared in relation to the no disadvantage test and the overtime issue?

PN31

MR JACKSON: Yes.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. And given that you have outlined that there were joint discussions and separate discussions between and with each of the parties, I take it there was no coercion in relation to any of these matters?

PN33

MR JACKSON: No, not that I am aware of.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: I think you would probably would be made aware of it. All right. Were there any issues that came up during the negotiations where your claims as employees were met by management?

PN35

MR JACKSON: I am not sure.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, were there any changes that you sought to have made or negotiated from the first draft that you had of the agreement?

PN37

MR JACKSON: There was a few added - salary sacrifice issues which have been added to the agreement in - - -

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: The employees wanted those?

PN39

MR JACKSON: Yes. And that was fine. There was a wage issue over equal pay for equal work which was a discussion. We ended up with an arbitrator involved. And between that and the management of the company here we came to an agreement on an exchange rate or base rate which worked out to keep us in line with our American counterparts here with a difference being viable for them working overseas, which we all accepted and understood that. It was just based on working the same job and basically earning the same wage. And it has worked out amicable for both parties.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, good. Mr Schamp, are there any issues that you wish to raise?

PN41

MR SCHAMP: No, none at all. I think we have a very equitable agreement here for the Aussies.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: For the Aussies?

PN43

MR SCHAMP: Yes.

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I hope so. Now, Mr Schamp, what do you want to do with the document that outlines the issues to do with calculation of overtime, given the higher base rate? Do you want that left on the file, so that if there is any problems further down the track it can be referred to?

PN45

MR SCHAMP: Yes, I think that is a good idea.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, we will do that. How long did the negotiations take, overall, Mr Schamp?

PN47

MR SCHAMP: About a year. We started about last August, September.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Has it been a frustration that it took so long?

PN49

MR SCHAMP: Well, at times it was frustrating but we reached a very amicable agreement and I think everybody is quite happy.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. I take it that there are no casuals who are covered by this agreement, to be the nature of the work at Pine Gap?

PN51

MR SCHAMP: There is one casual employee that is covered by this.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: I beg your pardon. There is one.

PN53

MR SCHAMP: Yes.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. But all the rest are - - -

PN55

MR JACKSON: All the rest are - - -

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - permanent.

PN57

MR JACKSON: Permanent, yes.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Thank you. Well, it may have taken a year but at long last you got there. And all the documentation has been filed in time. I am satisfied, on the basis of the statutory declarations which have been signed by Mr Schamp for the company and Mr Jackson for the employees, together with the submissions of the parties this morning, that the requirements of the Act have been met and that the rules of the Commission have been complied with. Accordingly, the TRW Space and Electronics Overseas Inc Enterprise Agreement 2002 is certified. The agreement will come into force from today's date, 24 October 2002, and consistent with the terms of the agreement reached between the parties, shall remain in force until 30 June 2005.

PN59

Has the agreement already been implemented?

PN60

MR SCHAMP: No, not really.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I just asked because the Commission, through the provisions of the Act, will not make the actual certification of the agreement retrospective but, in many cases, there is an agreement that as soon as agreement is reached, the benefits will flow to both sides. But I take it that this will come into operation from the first pay day on or after today's date.

PN62

MR SCHAMP: There are a couple of items called out that will be retroactive to 1 July.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, that is an agreement between the parties and that doesn't concern the Commission. All right. I hope that the agreement proceeds until June 2005 with very little problems. And in any case, you have the dispute resolution procedures to operate, if it does. There being nothing else, these proceedings are concluded and the parties will be provided with a copy of the transcript.

PN64

MR BOURKE: Thanks, Commissioner.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, good morning.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY