C2001/5869, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 486 (18 February 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 VT02308

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER BLAIR

C2001/5869

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL,
ELECTRONIC, ENERGY,
INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING
AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF
AUSTRALIA

and

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re TechPost organisation/structural
review issues

MELBOURNE

8.34 AM, THURSDAY, 31 JANUARY 2002

Continued from 6.12.01

PN100

MR J. ELLERY: If the Commission pleases I appear on behalf of the CEPU. With me today, on my right, MR B. STABB, MR S. CONLON and MR T. GUALANO. If the Commission pleases.

PN101

MR R. FURLAN: If the Commission pleases, I appear in this matter together with MR E. HENDRICKSON on behalf of the Australian Postal Corporation and Commissioner, I might note that if this matter is to proceed into conference I would be proposing to include MR R. BETT, the Manager of TechPost, in those discussions.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Now, the matter is being called on today because the Commission did receive correspondence from the CEPU, from Mr Ellery, indicating there appears to be some difficulties in the parties coming to some understandings arising from the last time the matter was before the Commission and there was a request in the correspondence to have the matter brought back on. Mr Ellery.

PN103

MR ELLERY: Thank you, Commissioner. Yes, we are back here today as a result of that letter that I wrote to you and also I guess in line with the outcomes of the 6 December hearing that we first came to you with the problem. I guess it is probably worthwhile summarising. On 6 December we were asked to go away and develop a proposal and we were given timelines to do that. That proposal was intended to be done by Mr Stabb, assisted by members of the Australia Post T&S sub branch and that proposal was basically a formal proposal that had been previously verbalised at a number of meetings.

PN104

However, on 7 December there was a little bit of a spanner thrown into the works of that development of that proposal and Mr Stabb was advised by his manager that his previous off shift arrangements were not to be renewed in the new year. That put some serious problems on our timelines that we were asked to follow up with and Mr Stabb advised that he had work credits to his manager and would, if going back on shift in the new year, have to resolve that by 1 January. Subsequently Mr Stabb was off and using up those work credits - it is a bit like a sort of flexitime arrangement. He had got a positive credit and he was off until early January and he is now, as we speak, back on a full rotating shift arrangement which is making it particularly difficult.

PN105

We couldn't quite achieve a formal proposal to Australia Post. However, we did advise you of that via a letter prior to Christmas and I actually haven't got a copy of that letter here but it sort of gave some circumstances there why we couldn't do it. Despite this, however, Mr Stabb has in his own time further developed the original verbal proposal that was made round about August of last year and it is here and if you wish I can actually table that formally. I do believe that you might have a copy of it, however. So the actual formal proposal is that one there. It is all done.

EXHIBIT #CEPU7 FORMAL PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BY MR STABB

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: I have this one on file actually.

PN107

MR ELLERY: Yes.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN109

MR ELLERY: We were then asked by - we were originally asked by 14 January to actually provide Australia Post with a copy of that and as I sort of outlined before, the timelines weren't able to be kept and subsequently to that, on 14 January we received a letter that basically was Australia Post's TechPost proposal which included costings. That complete proposal I haven't got a complete copy of. However, I have the front sheet of it copied. I would assume that Australia Post would have a copy able to be tabled. If not, I have a complete proposal there. However, the front page was pretty clear in that Australia Post intended - no matter what we did - intended to progress and I will quote:

PN110

Having received no material from the CEPU, we intend to progress our structural re-alignment proposal.

PN111

So from that letter of 14 January, Australia Post made it absolutely clear that they were marching on. We were, however, to have a follow up meeting at which both proposals were meant to be discussed between the parties and that was scheduled for 21 January. That was a Monday. The problem at that meeting was that Mr Stabb was actually on an RDO and Australia Post, for reasons still really unknown to ourselves, weren't prepared to pay Mr Stabb for the period of that meeting even though Mr Stabb did attend that meeting in his own time. These are the sorts of things that have been going on over the last couple of months.

PN112

However we re-scheduled a meeting when Mr Stabb was on day shift and that subsequently occurred on 23 January. The purpose of that meeting was to look at both of our proposals but it was also to include a presentation that Australia Post had been trying - and I must say they were trying to give us a presentation just prior to Christmas about what they termed "future network changes" and that was kind of like a consultative arrangement that was put into that 23 January meeting. But as we sort of found out, the future network proposal really does have a significant effect on the CEPU developed proposal for TechPost and going a little bit deeper into it, the Future Post proposal really talks about in the worst case scenario basically having a very minimal amount of technical staff in what is known as "north of the Yarra".

PN113

Our CEPU proposal, as well as the costings, had a structural part of it that suggested that we would see it smart to be aligned - for the whole TechPost function to be kept together and aligned with the current technical manager north of the Yarra. So we were basically hit with a bombshell on 23 January. It is pretty clear that the future of the Melbourne Mail Centre and the State Mail Centre, where a number of our technical staff are, is under a serious cloud and that main piece of information was absolutely vital to our proposal.

PN114

Commissioner, it has become blatantly obvious that Australia Post have had something up their sleeve for some time. In fact we had a meeting on 23 August last year when Mr Stabb first verbalised his proposal on keeping TechPost together and having it under the control of the Tech Manager north of the Yarra. We presented that proposal or that verbal proposal on 23 August to Mr Hendrickson and in fact some other Australia Post managers were there at the time. From that period and the only subsequent meeting after that, one that was held in late October, we contend that Australia Post clearly had no intention from that time on of taking our proposal, no matter how much we developed it, seriously.

PN115

Can I say, Commissioner, I believe we have been hoodwinked. We have been kept in the dark. We have been - I won't say what we have been fed but we have really been kept in the dark about future network changes and to make matters worse, the current Future Network proposal includes what is known as a parcels facility out at Ardeer and quite honestly we are not guaranteed of that being maintained by Australia Post Tech Staff. So what we are picking up unfortunately at the moment in these times when we are meant to be consultative in line with the EBA is that we are heading for a fairly combative sort of time over the next year or so and I don't particularly want to see that occur but that is what is appearing to us to be on the cards.

PN116

Yesterday we met with our TechPost members during their lunch time. We had a meeting outside the premises down at TechPost in Port Melbourne. Their clear directive to us was to continue with the plan of keeping TechPost together. They saw that if it was broken up, again as what we have raised with you before, they saw that it would be a death by a thousand cuts, divide and conquer and distribute the various parts to the wind to be blown away. I will say, Commissioner, that their resolve was made even stronger by those events that I have outlined over the previous couple of months and we reported on those and they, quite frankly, were pretty angry about where it is headed.

PN117

Even then out came a snippet of information that really backs up the intent of Australia Post's 14 January letter where they intend to progress their structural alignment proposal. It was reported to us that already someone from the transport area where the Australia Post TechPost proposal places some of these staff, they have already been in discussion with TechPost people about budgets. So clearly they are marching on no matter what we do. They are determined absolutely to pursue the break up of TechPost despite opposition from their staff and a really good true assessment of what our proposal means to Australia Post.

PN118

So, Commissioner, it might sound like a tale of woe but quite frankly we have felt we have been pretty harshly treated in this whole show. We have tried to be positive, constructive. We have tried to do something that develops a really good proposal that keeps all these people that you see behind me and their representatives together in a functioning unit that is invaluable to Australia Post's future. However there seems to have been a number of road blocks put in the way of that occurring. So with those comments I do have some other documents which may be worthwhile being tabled perhaps later in conference if you wish or - yes, I will do that. But if the Commission pleases, I will sit down and let Australia Post have a go.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Ellery. Yes, Mr Furlan.

PN120

MR FURLAN: Commissioner, I might just deal initially with the issue of the consultative arrangements that were in place and perhaps clarify some aspects that were alluded to or referred to specifically by Mr Ellery. I then intend to address the issue of the discussions that took place with the union on 23 January and also specifically draw the Commission's attention to the formal Australia Post proposal relating to the re-alignment of TechPost functions or technical workshop functions.

PN121

Mr Ellery contended that one of the issues preventing the union from developing a formal proposal within the timelines that had been agreed on 6 December was the fact that on 7 December Mr Stabb had been advised by his manager that his previous work arrangements entailing work on day shift would cease and he therefore, having had some work credits available, took those credits and ceased work from the period of December through to early January and was therefore unavailable to provide any - or develop any specific proposals.

PN122

Just in relation to that, Commissioner, whilst those circumstances of Mr Stabb taking leave credits is correct, I think there is an issue that needs clarification. On 4 December Mr Stabb advised his manager at Dandenong Letters Centre that he had decided to return to duty and he had reconciled his time sheets and was in credit and intended to take his credit and therefore was indicating that he would take leave from the date of his advice - that is 4 December - through to a date after 31 December. So there are two aspects, Commissioner, and I can provide a copy of that for information purposes.

EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 4 ADVICE FROM MR STABB REGARDING LEAVE

PN123

MR FURLAN: There are two aspects in relation to that, Commissioner. The first is that the initiative for cessation of those particular work arrangements and the commencement of leave were at the initiative of Mr Stabb and secondly that initiative was taken prior to the hearing on 6 December of last year in this Commission. So therefore it was within the knowledge of certainly Mr Stabb that he would be proceeding on leave and would be therefore not at work in the period in which it was agreed following the 6 December meeting that certain commitments to provide information were made.

PN124

Turning, Commissioner, then to the issue of Australia Post's alleged refusal to consider payment for Mr Stabb to attend the meeting that had been arranged for 21 January of this year. I can indicate to the Commission that Australia Post did offer to Mr Stabb the opportunity to alter or swap his rostered day off to another date and therefore to treat him on the acceptance of that offer as on duty for the purposes of the meeting of 21 January. Mr Stabb, for reasons of his own, declined to accept that offer and the position of the union was that unless Mr Stabb was paid for that day - and I would assume that the payment was on the basis that he was coming in on a non-rostered day which would normally be some form of overtime payment, whether that be in terms of direct payment or time in lieu - that the union was not willing to participate in a meeting.

PN125

So in that context, Commissioner, it is not Australia Post that has been an obstacle to the progressing of this matter. The third aspect in terms of consultation, Commissioner, relates to the CEPU's claim that Australia Post, at the meeting that did take place on 23 January, did communicate a number of network changes that were proposed and other network changes that were under consideration. Mr Ellery of the union contends that this comprised a "bombshell". It was something that I think he characterised as Australia Post "having material up its sleeve". Commissioner, I can clearly rebut that. It was a matter that Australia Post had been seeking to have discussions with the union about for some time. In fact I believe on 13 December Australia Post wrote to the union seeking to progress consultation on network changes and I will provide the Commission with a copy of that communication.

EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 5 LETTER FROM AUSTRALIA POST TO THE UNION SEEKING TO PROGRESS CONSULTATION

PN126

MR FURLAN: Commissioner, I won't read through that particular correspondence in detail. I merely direct your attention to the last paragraph on the first page which commences:

PN127

In order to progress consultation on the network changes, I have attached an outline of the changes planned for mail and parcel processing operations.

PN128

The advice goes on to say that Australia Post proposed to provide a briefing of the union of those changes and that was in the context, Commissioner, that the union had advised that they were not available for a consultative meeting which had been scheduled to take place on 13 December because of concerns about Mr Stabb's future arrangements which I take to mean the work arrangements or leave arrangements for purposes of attendance at meetings. So this letter was written following a cancellation of a proposed consultative meeting. The letter provided some information about the network changes and also proposed a further meeting to be re-scheduled prior to Christmas.

PN129

Now that meeting did not take place, Commissioner, until in effect 23 January due to the unavailability of the union. But in the context of the matters being discussed on 23 January of this year constituting a bombshell, I might direct the Commission's attention to the attachments to this letter in AP5 and the first attachment sets out a number of stages of changes and transfer of functions and staffing to various facilities, essentially from - the stage 1 transfers essentially from Melbourne City Mail Centre to Dandenong Letters Centre. Stage 2, the flat mail optical character reader equipment being installed at Dandenong Letters Centre with the consequential cessation of large letter operations at State Mail Centre and stage 3, the establishment of a parcels site at Ardeer in October 2003.

PN130

The consequential impact of that, Commissioner, being the closure of existing parcels centres in the metropolitan network and the movement of large parcel processing operations from those sites to Ardeer - to the new parcels centre and similarly the cessation of small letter processing operations at State Mail Centre and the movement of that function to Ardeer. Commissioner, the second attachment to AP5 comprises a staff information bulletin which outlined a number of those aspects that I have dealt with and also in the middle of that first page, under the heading "Relocation Options for MCMC" highlighted that there were three options under consideration in terms of residual standard letter processing functions at Melbourne City Mail Centre and those three options entailed either movement of that work to State Mail Centre once State Mail Centre work had been reallocated elsewhere in the network.

PN131

The second option was to move those functions to Ardeer with a specific letter processing operation in conjunction or in addition to the parcels operation and the third option was to move all of the residual standard letter processing performed at Melbourne to Dandenong Letters Centre. The indication was that a decision would be made on a preferred option in the February/March period. Now that had been communicated and provided to the union on 13 December in the advice provided by Australia Post. So it could hardly be characterised to be a bombshell on 23 January. Incidentally, Commissioner, this staff information bulletin formally issued to staff on 19 January of this year. So at the stage that this was provided to the union it was still in a draft form as a staff information bulletin and had not been formally communicated to staff.

PN132

In relation to the substantive discussions that occurred on 23 January, Commissioner, Australia Post had, as Mr Ellery indicated, provided the union with its formal proposal on 14 January of this year as had been agreed as part of the outcomes of the 6 December hearing before you. At that time we had not received any material from the union and therefore provided our proposal as the only proposal that was to be the subject of discussions, not having received any communication from the union at that stage. Commissioner, I have provided the Commission with a copy of this document so I don't intend to tender it.

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

PN134

MR FURLAN: But I would seek to perhaps outline a number of the aspects in that document that are different to the specific proposal that Australia Post had put forward in the proceedings before you on 6 December in exhibit Australia Post 1. In that exhibit, Commissioner, there was - I think it is the second last - no, I am sorry, on the last page of that exhibit a colour chart outlined Australia Post's proposal. If I could request the Commission to examine the colour chart proposal that was attached to Australia Post's letter to the CEPU of 14 January of this year in conjunction with that AP1 exhibit - - -

[9.01am]

PN135

THE COMMISSIONER: That is the one that is headed TechPost Transport Chart, Attachment Number 1?

PN136

MR FURLAN: That is right, Commissioner.

PN137

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thanks.

PN138

MR FURLAN: You will note in comparing the two charts, Commissioner, that Australia Post's proposal of 14 January did incorporate a number of changes compared to its position outlined in Australia Post 1. Essentially, Commissioner, the main changes related to the placement of certain functions which were in - on the right hand side of the Australia Post 1 exhibit chart and entailed the alignment of those positions into the transport side which is the left hand side, Commissioner. Specifically there are three positions of mechanical in Australia Post 1 exhibit which is in yellow on the right hand side of the chart. You will note that in Australia Post's proposal of 14 January those positions have been aligned under the "Image Support Group" in the transport operations on the left hand side of the chart.

PN139

So in other words those positions have been integrated into the bulk of the workshop group that had been aligned to transport. Similarly there were two carpentry positions which were on the right hand side of the chart in AP1 under "Facility Maintenance" in a bright pink colouring. It is in AP1.

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: Are we looking at the chart that I just mentioned, TechPost transport chart?

PN141

MR FURLAN: Commissioner, the chart that I am looking at is the last page of Australia Post 1, exhibit AP1.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: Which is the pretty pink one?

PN143

MR FURLAN: The one headed "Facility Maintenance" on the right hand side - the top right hand side of the chart, the last page.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, okay. I have got that.

PN145

MR FURLAN: So that grouping of carpentry positions was originally intended to be allocated to Australia Post's facilities. In other words one was to go to north for maintenance purposes which would have been the Melbourne Letters group. The other was to go south to Dandenong Letters Centre. Those two positions under the Australia Post proposal of 14 January have also been aligned within the bulk of the engineering workshop function. That is the left hand side of the chart in Australia Post's letter of 14 January. Similarly a position which had been included in the administrative group which is the green shaded group in the right hand side of Australia Post exhibit 1, the chart on the last page of that exhibit, that position which is the very last position on that chart has also been allocated under Australia Post's 14 January proposal to the transport grouping on the left hand side of Australia Post's letter of 14 January and the chart attached to that.

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN147

MR FURLAN: That position, Commissioner, comprises a postal trades officer and whilst the person was within the administrative group, the nominal designation of that person was within the trades group, so therefore aligned more appropriately to the trades function.

PN148

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just ask with the proposed changes to TechPost and the proposed changes to your network and the establishment of Ardeer and so forth, and the possible demise of State and Melbourne Mail Centres, what impact does that have, if any, on the proposals to TechPost?

PN149

MR FURLAN: Right, yes, I was intending to address that specifically but I will - - -

PN150

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, sorry, I am getting ahead of you there, am I?

PN151

MR FURLAN: Only marginally, Commissioner, but I will address that specific matter.

PN152

THE COMMISSIONER: Normally people would be more polite and say, "Well, you are well ahead of us, Commissioner".

PN153

MR FURLAN: Well, I retract the "marginal" reference, Commissioner, you are well ahead of me.

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN155

MR FURLAN: But I will catch up in due course. Commissioner, all of those changes have taken into consideration the position put by the union that there was some synergy in retaining certain functions within a single grouping. The difference of view that Australia Post and the union have in relation to the realignments that are proposed is that the union's view is that all of the current TechPost functions should sit under one manager, their proposal is the Technical Services Manager for Melbourne Letters. Australia Post's view is that there is no sense in that particular alignment from an organisational viewpoint and from a functional viewpoint and we say that almost in disregard of whether or not there will be future changes to the Melbourne Letters group. Whether or not those changes are to occur, our position would be identical.

PN156

We contend that the alignment of the technical workshop's functions with the transport fleet services area is warranted because the transport fleet services area actually has the accountability for ULD distribution and management throughout our network and the majority of functions within that technical workshops group relate to the ULD repair and distribution function. Similarly with the street posting box functions, again repair, maintenance and installation activities are undertaken by the technical work group there and the management of the SPB maintenance arrangements and coordination with delivery and transport who actually service - the transport area actually services those SPBs - is done through the transport fleet services.

PN157

So in an organisational and functional sense, transport fleet services manage that function in the broad sense. This particular technical work group provide a service that relates to that area and in organisational alignment terms, the fit is pretty well spot on. The other aspects of alignment, Commissioner, relate to the technical installation team and I think both Australia Post and the union in a broad sense are agreed that those staff who are actually technicians who install technical equipment are appropriately aligned within the facility technical group. The difference of views obviously is that the union believes that all the other groups should also align.

PN158

THE COMMISSIONER: Should be there, yes.

PN159

MR FURLAN: In relation to the administrative and managerial group which comprises four positions, Australia Post and the union are agreed that those positions are not required under either proposal but the union is not contending that there need be a specific managerial and administrative support group related to any continuing functions performed by the technical work groups.

PN160

THE COMMISSIONER: It might be safe to assume that the union might believe that there would be no need for managerial at all.

PN161

MR FURLAN: Well, that is certainly not entailed in their proposal, Commissioner.

PN162

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, but I see Mr Stabb nodding in agreement there.

PN163

MR FURLAN: Well, Commissioner, we are certainly agreed that in terms of a rationalisation of alignment for the purposes of organisational structuring does not require a continuation of the existing managerial and administrative support group. The fourth area of focus, Commissioner, comprises the electrical group which comprise five positions, five people. The proposed Australia Post approach is to align those positions to the information technology services area as the majority - the significant majority of functions that that group perform relate to installation of cabling, functions to do with scales and also with PCs. With closed circuit TV cameras also, Commissioner, all of which functions are within the accountability of the information technology services area.

PN164

Our proposal, Commissioner, looks at the issue of alignment of functions to functional areas that have accountability for those core functions on which these technical work groups are currently engaged and distributes and aligns those technical work groups in a way which fits organisationally with Australia Post's current and future requirements. The union's proposal to align all of TechPost operations currently to the Technical Services Manager at Melbourne Letters does not make organisational sense, is impractical and is an inefficient and inappropriate alignment of resources. The reality is that the Technical Services Manager has accountability for equipment and machine performance and some building services work within a facility but more critically with machine and equipment performance.

PN165

None of the groups to which I have been referring at TechPost, with the exception of the installation team, have an alignment with equipment performance of the type of equipment that is core equipment in a mail centre and in relation to the installation team which does have that alignment, our proposal is that that group is aligned to the Technical Services Management in the Mail Centre. Whether that is with the Melbourne Letters Group or with the Dandenong Letters Centre is an issue that is dependent on the work requirements and the resource allocation that the network requires.

PN166

As Mr Ellery indicated, we were unable to reach agreement on the issues related to the restructuring and certainly it is our view that the union's proposal does not provide the benefits, either in organisational terms or in efficiency terms, that we believe are incorporated in our proposal.

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: Have both parties sat down together and collectively analysed both positions?

PN168

MR FURLAN: Well, Commissioner, I can indicate that we did provide the union with a formal copy of our position.

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN170

MR FURLAN: We have received today a formal copy of the union's position. The union's position was discussed at the meeting with us on 23 January - - -

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: But then this other issue of the reorganisation came in.

PN172

MR FURLAN: Yes, well the union adopted the view that there had been in effect a decision to close Melbourne Letters.

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN174

MR FURLAN: And we clearly indicated that first of all there had not been such a decision - a decision was imminent but it has not been taken - and secondly, in any event, our views were not predicated on a particular decision being taken either way, that our views were predicated on other matters. We did discuss the costings that we had identified and in effect and perhaps unsurprisingly the union were relying on our costings as also part of their proposal. So I suppose in that sense, Commissioner, we are agreed that some of the costing benefits have been appropriately identified.

PN175

We are in disagreement about the alignment of the functions but as I have indicated - as I have tried to indicate through that perhaps rather torturous comparison of organisation charts, our proposal has been modified in the light of the union's views about synergies and better alignment of functions but overall, having taken into account the union's views, we believed that our proposal was the best outcome that also looked after staff interests because as a result of implementation of this proposal all technical trades staff would be deployed into positions.

PN176

There would be no loss of income, no loss of earnings in the sense of base salaries etcetera, classification levels, and that the result would be a better organisational alignment and a long term future which was perhaps more assured than the future of some other staff in the network currently. If the Commission pleases.

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. What the Commission proposes to do is understanding that there is a modified proposal put forward by Australia Post but still no overall agreement with the CEPU concerning the TechPost area, it is going to provide the parties with one more opportunity to see whether or not they can reach some agreement. There will be a report back to this Commission at 1.30 next Friday, 8 February. The Commission would have to say that at that time if there is no agreement between the parties, then the Commission is going to have to decide what role, if any, it continues to play.

PN178

The issue of the reorganisation of the network, at this point the Commission would have to accept the point that whatever may apply there, the proposed reorganisation of TechPost is a reorganisation that appears to be able to stand on its own and is not reliant upon what may happen in the network overall. But the parties are to meet and are to meet as often as possible between now and Friday 8 February. As indicated, there will be a report back at 1.30. The Commission is hopeful that there has been some movement. The Commission is hopeful that the parties will be able to reach some understandings and the Commission will hear what progress, if any, has been made on 8 February. The Commission will stand adjourned until then at 1.30. Thank you.

PN179

Sorry. In the interim, in the upcoming week, Australia Post are not to take any activity at all in regards to implementing their proposals for the changes to TechPost. In the Commission's view that would provide, at this stage, a breathing space for both parties to focus on reaching an agreement rather than one party being distracted by what may be happening in another area. Is that clear?

PN180

MR FURLAN: Yes, Commissioner, I might just note that it would not be our intention to proceed with any actions pending the consultation process through this Commission.

PN181

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Furlan. Thank you. Yes, Mr Ellery?

PN182

MR ELLERY: Commissioner, this again sort of highlights a bit of a drama in terms of Bernard's arrangements in terms of release from night shift and stuff like that. That is one of the big reasons why we really haven't progressed as we should have.

PN183

THE COMMISSIONER: Maybe I can allay anything that you may - any fears that you may have. In the week leading up to 8 February Mr Stabb is to be made available full time for the purposes of conferring with his union and his members. That doesn't mean an open ticket in terms of stop work meetings and so forth but he is to be made available full time to confer with his members and with his union officials and in whatever meetings will occur with Australia Post. Does that assist?

PN184

MR ELLERY: Yes.

PN185

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Okay. The Commission will stand adjourned until 8 February.

ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY, 8 FEBRUARY 2002 [9.23am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #CEPU7 FORMAL PROPOSAL DEVELOPED BY MR STABB PN106
EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 4 ADVICE FROM MR STABB REGARDING LEAVE PN123
EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 5 LETTER FROM AUSTRALIA POST TO THE UNION SEEKING TO PROGRESS CONSULTATION PN126