C2002/5075, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 4727 (25 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 VT710

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER GAY

C2002/5075

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
(PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES) AWARD 2001

Application under section 113 of the Act
by the Managers and Professionals Association
re application to vary Schedule A and Schedule B
of the award

MELBOURNE

10.02 AM, TUESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2002

PN1

MR M. BUTLER: I appear for the Managers and Professionals Association.

PN2

MR P. VITALE: I seek leave to appear on behalf of Accenture Australia Limited and with me is MS J. MAXWELL.

PN3

MR BUTLER: The Association, Commissioner - - -

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Vitale, I am sorry, I didn't quite hear it, who it is for whom you appear. Could you - - -

PN5

MR VITALE: For Accenture Australia Limited.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, of course. All right. Now this is your application, Mr Butler, is that right?

PN7

MR BUTLER: Yes.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Well perhaps you can tell me about it.

PN9

MR BUTLER: This is an application to vary the Information Technology Industry (Professional Employees) Award to vary schedule A and to delete schedule B of the award. The application, Commissioner, follows a variation to a finding of dispute in matter 2001/3177, that was made by Senior Deputy President Kaufman on 24 July 2002, to include and dispute 2001/3177 Accenture Australia Limited of 141 Walker Street, North Sydney. Commissioner, by way of background to this matter, the Information Technology Industry (Professional Employees) Award 2001 was made by Senior Deputy President Kaufman on 29 November 2001 and the print is 812692CRA.

PN10

At that time the award was - at the time that the award was made, Commissioner, there was, in respect of Accenture only a dispute finding in respect of the professional engineers, which is one of the two classification streams that are contained in the award. There are two classification streams of professional engineers and what are known as professional information technology employees. Therefore, the new award that was made by SDP Kaufman, at the time, provided for a schedule B, which is the schedule B currently in the award, that restricted Accenture's coverage to that of professional engineers.

PN11

The association now, Commissioner, wishes to extend that coverage in the case of Accenture to include the classification stream of professional information technology employee. And that is at the heart of the application. The association, Commissioner, has attempted to progress discussions with Accenture, going back to 24 July 2001, when C No.2001/3177 a notification of an alleged industrial dispute was first before the Commission. On that occasion it was before Senior Deputy President Duncan. Unfortunately we have not been able to seriously address the issues and that is why the association, at this stage, has made the application.

PN12

There is no agreement to the application. In our submission, the Information Technology Industry (Professional Employees) Award covers most of the major employers in the IT industry. In our submission, the award is the safety net. And the association seeks that it now apply, in all its respects, to Accenture. Turning to the application, Commissioner, clause 1 of the application seeks to vary a schedule A, employees bound by the award, to include Accenture Australia Limited of 141 Walker Street, North Sydney, New South Wales 2060, and to delete in its entirety the schedule B application of award to Accenture Australia Limited.

PN13

Commissioner, at this stage, perhaps if I, by way of background, just stop there and - - -

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. There is one issue that I neglected to pursue with you, Mr Butler. Mr Vitale makes an application for leave. Do you have something to say about his application for leave?

PN15

MR BUTLER: I don't oppose an application for leave, Commissioner.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Vitale, why is it that leave should be granted on this occasion?

PN17

MR VITALE: Commissioner, this is a matter where Accenture have been advised and represented by my firm and in particular myself on this matter from the outset, from the service of the log of claims. It is a matter where Accenture has, other than the engineer's award to which Mr Butler has already referred, Accenture as a professional service firm is not experienced in industrial - matters in the Industrial Relations Commission and has called on the expertise of myself and my firm. Discussions have progressed. We have had quite useful dealings with Mr Butler in the past. We see no disadvantage to him in that respect.

PN18

We feel that there may be some disadvantage in terms of the expertise contained within Accenture, in industrial matters. Commissioner, we don't seek to take an excessively technical approach to these matters. We are really here to try and assist the process, if that is at all possible. And we simply seek to assist the processes of the Commission.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right, Mr Vitale. I will make a note of the way you have described your application, so that it can be thought that there are special circumstances and accepting what you say, I will grant leave.

PN20

MR VITALE: Yes, thank you.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Vitale.

PN22

MR VITALE: Commissioner, Mr Butler has made some comment about the time that this matter has taken to get to this point. And from Accenture's perspective, I am instructed to say, that to the extent that he feels there is any difficulty or to the extent that he feels he may have been misled about some of those discussions, then Accenture apologises in that respect. This company is a little different to just about every other respondent to this award. Every other respondent to this award, I think I can say almost without exception, is responsible for the creation of either hardware or computer hardware or software. I notice the latest roping-in award, I think it is the latest roping-in award, also ropes in a number of telephone manufacturers, mobile phone manufacturers as respondents, as well.

PN23

Accenture's business is essentially different. It is a consultancy and business strategy organisation. It does work with some of the other companies that are respondents to this award, to implement systems, but it is essentially a business of a quite different nature. There is acknowledgment by the company that it has a proportion of employees, currently estimated at around about one third, that are appropriately covered by this award. The issue for Accenture and what we would now seek to progress with the union is the issues of clarifying the scope of the coverage of the award. It has, as Mr Butler has described, four broad classification streams in respect of IT professional employees.

PN24

Given particularly the difference between Accenture's business and the business of the other respondents, the issue for my client is that its job classifications don't necessarily fit neatly with the classifications under the award. It has various levels such as analysts, consultants, managers and senior managers in addition to the executive levels which wouldn't fall within the scope of this award. But those first four levels, there would be within those some people who are appropriately covered and others who are not. And - - -

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Should there be a special schedule drafted for Accenture?

PN26

MR VITALE: Well that is the objective that we would like to work towards, Commissioner, yes. And I think that is something that the union has entertained in other cases. And it is certainly an approach that we would favour. We would be looking to agree with the union on not just the job descriptions but the particular functions that would be appropriately covered within Accenture. As we say, the company's position at the moment is that it is a bit difficult to apply this award as one size fits all, to this company. And, appreciating that it is possible to say well it either applies or it doesn't, I think we are interested in trying to get some clarity about all of that before the need to have a fight about arises, if indeed that arises.

PN27

So I could make some comments on the record, if the Commission or Mr Butler wanted me to, about some of the reasons why there have been delays in those discussions.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Well I am not really - I must say, I didn't take Mr Butler's submission and it might be that I missed a sentence or two but I hadn't, particularly in relation to your earlier comment that then preceded that apology, that I hadn't thought that Mr Butler was heavily immersed in any accusations or - there may well have been a delay and often things, when they come here, aren't always going swimmingly, that is really the nature of the place. But, certainly, unless someone wants to show the other side as being possums, it is of no interest to me. The interest will be in that the issues, the actuality of the issues and the parties positions that they are adopting in respect of them.

PN29

But, all right. So there is no need for you to do that. It may be relevant later for some reason, because someone needs to show the other side haven't been comporting themselves in a desirable way. But, even then, I won't be too interested in that because, only because, in this case, it seems that there are some real issues.

PN30

MR VITALE: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. And Mr Butler, of course, is his usual reserved and generous self. And I thank the Commission for that. So in essence that is really the position of the company. We, I am instructed, are now in a position to move discussions on that type of schedule or other means of more clearly defining the coverage. And we propose that there be some direction to confer, within a short period, on that.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Vitale, would it be useful for there to be a conference now?

PN32

MR VITALE: I think that would be useful, Commissioner.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, I will give you the opportunity, later on, should you want to take it up, Mr Butler, of going back on the record. So we will now go off the record.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.15am]

RESUMED [11.03am]

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, gentlemen.

PN35

MR BUTLER: If the Commission pleases, now the parties have met and have determined a couple of meetings to progress this matter, at which the company will be presenting a proposal for consideration by the Association. And after those two meetings, the Association will certainly be in a position to know if there is a reasonable opportunity of reaching a consent position.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN37

MR BUTLER: But notwithstanding that, we, at this stage, would still like a report back date, particularly if it appears as that we are not going to reach an agreement, then we would like to expedite the matter.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank - - -

PN39

MR BUTLER: At this stage, Commissioner, the meeting dates are - the last meeting date is 11 December. So any time after that.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. And Mr Vitale, there is no need, I take it, for you to add anything to that.

PN41

MR VITALE: No, Commissioner.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, look, we might do the timetabling off the record.

OFF THE RECORD

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: We have discussed the matter and the parties, as it is indicated by Mr Butler, propose to meet and I am going to schedule the report back hearing on Thursday, 12 December at 10 o'clock. And the parties will liaise about - I will list it for Melbourne presently, but it may - there will be some flexibility about that in - with television hearings and so on. The Commission is adjourned until that time.

ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2002 [11.07am]