C2002/5698, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 5053 (13 December 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 VT965
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON

C2002/5698

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING,
PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION

and

BHP WESTERNPORT

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the
Act of a dispute re alleged employers
proposal to dismiss an AMWU shop steward and
the removal of allowances contrary to the
EBA proposed outsourcing of the mobile
plant department and unjustified warnings
to all AMWU and ETU shop stewards

MELBOURNE

1.03PM, MONDAY, 2 DECEMBER 2002

PN1

MR M. ADDISON: I appear on behalf of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, together with MS L. POPE, one of the stewards from the site.

PN2

MR B. SHARP: I seek leave to appear on behalf of the ETU.

PN3

MR G. PARMENTER: I appear on behalf of BHP Steel and with me is MS M. FERSCH.

PN4

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the application for leave to intervene?

PN5

MR PARMENTER: No, your Honour.

PN6

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted. Mr Addison?

PN7

MR ADDISON: Yes, thanks, your Honour. Your Honour, the matters we bring before the Commission this afternoon for some assistance with relate to the unilateral withdrawal of allowances from our members by BHP. We see a direct contravention of the recently concluded Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. Your Honour is particularly familiar with the terms of that agreement, but just to remind you, 4.3.3 of the agreement specifically provides that:

PN8

Existing over award payments and conditions of employment shall continue to apply as of there were a term of disagreement, except where expressly stipulated terms of disagreement provide otherwise.

PN9

Your Honour, members at the BHP Western Port site have been in receipt of a whole range of various allowances for many, many years. The company has sought to remove those allowances. We see it in direct contravention of the agreement. We have had discussions with the company with regard to that matter. The company's position is that their position is their position and they are not resiling from that position at all. We are clearly in dispute with regard to that matter. We have been unable to resolve the matter at the work site and therefore notified the Commission of this dispute in an attempt to see if your Honour could help the parties to resolve it.

PN10

The second issue relates to an AMWU - I think the notification said Shop Steward, but John Carr is in fact the co-delegate and has been a long term co-delegate with the AMWU on the site for many, many, many years. Mr Carr suffered a workplace injury some years ago and Mr Carr has been on light bench work duties since, I believe, about 1996 or 1997. Mr Carr works an eight hour day and works normally, only in a light capacity. Mr Carr's substantive classification is a boilermaker but he is on lighter duties than would be normal.

PN11

On 1 November this year Mr Carr suffered another injury, hurt his back. He went to see the doctor at Western Port, the company doctor, who sent him home. Mr Carr went to his own doctor who issued a certificate for a period of time. Mr Carr returned to work, on my instruction, around about 11 or 12 November with a clearance, a medical clearance, from his doctor to resume his normal duties which would be light bench work duties. Prior to Mr Carr returning to work on the 11th, he was in receipt of a letter from Ms Fersch which indicated to him that he had been off work and that the company considered the absence to be unauthorised leave.

PN12

Understanding that was the BHP doctor that sent Mr Carr home in the first instance, we find that somewhat difficult to swallow. However Ms Fersch indicated that Mr Carr was on unauthorised leave and indicated that, from her point of view, that he had abandoned his employment. That was clearly not the case and never the case. Mr Carr returned, as I say, on about 12 November with a clearance, full medical clearance. He presented at work, was told by his supervisor not to start work, but to attend the medical centre.

PN13

Mr Carr thought that was bit strange, but nevertheless attended the medical centre, had a discussion with the BHP doctor who said, in his opinion, Mr Carr was not fit to resume his normal light bench work and indicated that Mr Carr was fit for clerical work. Mr Carr returned to the workshop, went to see his supervisor again with regard to picking some clerical work up, was told it was not available and to go home. Mr Carr went home, waited a couple of days, rang up to find out what was happening, was told that there was still no work available in the clerical area and to stay at home.

PN14

On 18 November Mr Carr received another letter from Ms Fersch which outlined some of his employment history and which informed Mr Carr that he would be dismissed from BHP's employment on the basis that he was suffering a degenerative injury, and the company's intention was to terminate Mr Carr's employment effective 27 December of this year.

PN15

You will be provided with payment in lieu of the balance of your notice period during the week beginning 2 December 2002.

PN16

which is of course this week. Now we say, your Honour, there is absolutely no basis and no justification for this action on the part of the company. The company have said that they will assist Mr Carr in getting or applying for a permanent disability pension. Mr Carr, as I have indicated, has been on a specific work regime for a number of years and there is no reason why Mr Carr cannot continue to work in that regime into the future. His doctor has cleared him medically to be able to do that work into the future.

PN17

It seems to us that this is a clear, dare we use the term "set up", by BHP. It is the BHP doctor in cahoots with the BHP Industrial Relations Manager who seem to be setting up a circumstance where a long term delegate of the AMWU is being terminated for no just cause. Now BHP has indicated that this matter should be pursued through at 170CE because it is their intention to carry through. We say that that is completely contrary to the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement in terms of the rehabilitation provisions which are at 1.6 of the agreement on page 9.

PN18

It is in complete contravention of the employment security provisions which are at page 15 of the agreement, and it is certainly contrary to numerous discussions that were had, I think in this very courtroom, your Honour, with you present, with regard to the sick leave provisions contained within the agreement. Your Honour would no doubt recall that we discussed those provisions for many, many, many hours and the spirit in which that agreement was finally arrived at, we say the company is in complete contravention.

PN19

With regard to the third issue, your Honour, that deals with the mobile plant department. Your Honour would recall that it was agreed that there would be a maintenance review through the course of the agreement. That maintenance review would identify ways to improve the service of provision of services, maintenance services to the plant over the course of the agreement, and that may result in various activities, outsourcing, redundancies, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The mobile plant department has never been part of the maintenance review.

PN20

At no time has a task group - I think they call the groups on the maintenance review task groups. At no time has a task group been set up to deal with the mobile plant group. There have been no discussions with regard to improvements in terms of the mobile plant group through the maintenance review. We have simply been informed by the company that the company intends to outsource the mobile plant group. Once again, your Honour, we see a complete contravention of the agreement in terms of both its full provisions for a maintenance review and its formal provision of employment security, etcetera.

PN21

We say that the outsourcing would be in complete breach of them and also obviously in complete breach of the spirit in which the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement was put together in this room. Your Honour, the third issue that - the fourth issue, I should say, that is in dispute between the parties is the issuing of warnings to shop stewards on the site. Your Honour, it is true to say that not all of the shop stewards have been issued a warning, I think they might have missed one or possibly two, but a number of the shop stewards have had warnings and warnings for what we say are ridiculous things.

PN22

For instance, one of the shop stewards was in a bit of an altercation with a contractor on the site. During the course of that argument which they were having the shop steward referred to the contractor as a "scumbag" and that was done in the context that the contracting firm had in fact breached various provisions and various protocols that had been in place on the site for a large number of years. The company issued a warning against the shop steward for those words. Now we say that that is a ridiculous proposition, particularly when this particular shop steward was referred to by a manager not a couple of days previous as a "brick" and also Ms Fersch herself, in a meeting with various stewards and management people, referred to the tradespeople at BHP Western Port as all being "feral".

PN23

It is, we say, a ridiculous proposition that the company can make statements such at these and the shop stewards can't and the shop stewards get warnings for such comments. Once again, particularly given the actions against Mr Carr, we are particularly cynical about employers who issue warnings for silly reasons because we all know where two or three warnings end up and we are particularly cynical and particularly worried with regard to the developments that seem to be occurring on the site.

PN24

Your Honour, as I said earlier, we have been unable to resolve these issues at site. We have brought them to the Commission for assistance in resolution. We are happy to go into conference and go through these issues and see if we can reach some resolution on them. If we are unable to, it would be our intention this afternoon, your Honour, to seek some directions from the Commission with regard to the matters. I might leave my address at that and seek that we go into conference once Mr Parmenter has had an opportunity to respond. If the Commission pleases.

PN25

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Sharp?

PN26

MR SHARP: Your Honour, I would just say we fully concur with my friend's comments in relation to these matters, and we are seeking the Commission's assistance in these matters as well as the ETU as well as the NUW? have been unable to successfully resolve these matters.

PN27

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Parmenter.

PN28

MR PARMENTER: Your Honour, we are comfortable going into conference but I guess there is some matters that we would like to put in transcript before we get there. And just taking the matters in the order that Mr Addison presented them. And starting with the allowances, there are a number of roles or duties on-site that attract an additional payment, in the form of an allowance. And examples of that include leading hands, planning trades etcetera. During September this year an audit was conducted of allowances that were paid to employees. And that audit showed that a number of employees were being paid allowances incorrectly. Examples of the incorrect payment included people receiving two separate allowances, for example, planning trade and leading hand, and people receiving allowances when they are not actually performing the task.

PN29

So those people who were being paid incorrectly, were identified and departments have been progressively changing the allowances paid to employees to correctly reflect the duties that they are performing. The over award payment situation hasn't changed. It is not a case of the company unilaterally withdrawing allowances. Allowances still apply where the person is performing the work for which the allowance is paid. So I guess that was explained to the unions, both the AMWU and the CEPU in a letter dated 31 October. And I will just read from that. I can hand up copies of that if the parties don't have a copy.

PN30

So it was addressed to - the letter was addressed to Mr Hayes, with a copy to Ms Pope. And just in the first paragraph, there, it says, that third sentence in, it says:

PN31

During the review a number of discrepancies were found with the following allowances...(reads)... were not applicable and as such were either altered to the appropriate allowance rate or removed.

PN32

So we say, your Honour, that the company is simply applying the award and the EBA payments correctly. The next matter that was raised was in relation to Mr Carr. Mr Carr is employed at BHP Steel as a boilermaker in the maintenance services department. The dispute resolution procedure contained in the current certified agreement, clearly indicates that the company is able to proceed with terminations regardless of a dispute being raised. As Mr Addison said, Mr Carr's latest injury occurred on 1 November. He attended a company doctor and was sent home for that day. My understanding is that he was due to return the following day.

PN33

As Mr Carr didn't return to work and didn't notify his supervision, the letter that Mr Addison referred to was forwarded to his home address. It appeared, at first instance, that it may have been an abandonment of employment. After reviewing Mr Carr's file and history, it became apparent that his continued light duties were putting him at risk of further injury and needed revision. Mr Carr was cleared by his own treating doctor to resume light bench work on 11 November. And on his return to work Mr Carr was sent to the company medical centre as part of the process to manage rehabilitation and return to work.

PN34

The company doctor confirmed Mr Carr's restrictions of no activities involving lifting of more than five to 10 kilos, no bending or twisting. Following his visit to the medical centre, Mr Carr was advised that the maintenance services department had no work to suit his restrictions. He was sent home on a paid basis and advised that he would be contacted within 48 hours, as the department would try and find suitable work across the site. Mr Carr was subsequently advised not to return to work as there were no suitable duties on site to meet his restrictions.

PN35

Prior to 1 November, Mr Carr's work on restricted duties comprised approximately 25 per cent of the boilermaker's role. The company wrote to Mr Carr on 18 November advising him of the situation. I have a copy of that letter available and I will hand it up.

PN36

MR ADDISON: That is the 18 November letter?

PN37

MR PARMENTER: Yes. So, if I can just read from the letter, commencing in the third paragraph down, the letter says:

PN38

In considering your past history and taking the company's obligations into consideration...(reads)... if no evidence has been put forward that would alter this course of action.

PN39

The company also wrote, as indicated in that letter, to Mr Carr's treating practitioners seeking assurance that Mr Carr's condition would enable him to resume light bench work without risk of further injury. I have got these letters here. I can tender them. There are two letters, your Honour, one to a Dr Neil Gordon and one to a Ms Lyn Buller. Dr Gordon, I understand is Mr Carr's treating doctor and Ms Buller is Mr Carr's physiotherapist. Essentially the text of the letters are very similar. If I can just take you to some of the paragraphs in the letter to Dr Gordon. In the second paragraph the letter reads:

PN40

As part of our injury management program we require all employees to participate in a return to work program regardless of whether their absence is a result of personal or work injury. This program is designed to reintroduce the employee into the workplace in a controlled manner to ensure the employee is not put at risk of further injury or aggravation of their condition.

PN41

A bit further down the page, in the fourth paragraph, the sentence starting:

PN42

In your report dated 14 June 1998 you comment that John Carr continues to suffer from low back pain and leg pain and that the medication and physiotherapy is managing to keep him at work.

PN43

We also received a report around the same time from John's physiotherapist, Lynn Buller who indicated in her prognosis of John's situation that:

PN44

A degeneration of the symptomatic weight-bearing joints would develop over time. Given the latest incident it is apparent that this degeneration is occurring and the treatment is no longer effect in keeping John at work since he can no longer cope with the light duties that have been assigned without the risk of further aggravation.

PN45

Also note in our files that our rehabilitation officer has written to both yourself and Lynn Buller in the last 14 months seeking an update regarding John's treatment and assistance in managing John's continuing rehabilitation. This request included a detailed work assessment of John's restricted duties as conducted by our site physiotherapist. I note there was no response to this request.

PN46

The company is now in a difficult position in deciding what to do with John's employment as it is apparent his incapacity renders him incapable of undertaking light bench duties without the risk of further aggravation to his condition and there is no other suitable work available for him. Therefore unless we receive advice from you indicating that John's condition will improve to the extent that he can resume light bench work on an ongoing basis without further risk or aggravation his employment will be terminated effected 27 December.

PN47

The last paragraph reads:

PN48

If we do not hear from you within this time frame we will assume that you consider John's condition and present incapacity as ongoing and as such have no objection to our proposed action to terminate his employment due to the fact that we have no other suitable work or alternative duties available for him that will not expose him to further risk or injury.

PN49

In response to those letters, Mr Carr's treating doctor visited the site on Friday, 22 November to review and discuss the work requirements. The visit included discussion with the company medical officer, rehabilitation coordinator visiting Mr Carr's workplace and discussion with his supervision regarding his duties. Following the visit Mr Carr's treating doctor - and that is Dr Gordon, advised that he could not give the assurances required by the company. Dr Gordon stated that Mr Carr was prone to soft tissue injuries and he would not be able to provide any written assurances.

PN50

Based on the information to date, the company is proposing to continue with the termination of Mr Carr.

[1.30pm]

PN51

Mr Carr has been given notice and indicated that the notice would be paid in lieu, and I guess that is all we seek to say on that matter at this stage, your Honour. With respect to the maintenance review, or sorry, the outsourcing of the mobile plant department, we have a mobile equipment workshop on site which services mobile equipment such as press carriers, Kenworth truck forklifts etcetera. The company is currently in the process of replacing the existing 32-tonne forklifts.

PN52

During the maintenance review process, as you would be aware, your Honour, the company uses message cards to communicate the progress of the review to the work force via supervision. Message card 8 contained an update of the - on the mobile workshop. I will just hand up a copy of that, because it is - one of the arguments put forward by Mr Addison was that there had been no discussion or no notice of the mobile plant or where the matter stood.

PN53

If you turn that card over on to the second page quite clearly the forklift fleet and maintenance proposal, there is a column there, just going through those dot points, it says:

PN54

It makes good sense to preserve scarce capital. Where possible we will use lease and maintain arrangements when they are commercially ...(reads)... for the rest of our mobile equipment.

PN55

So the decision to replace the forklifts and to implement a full-maintained lease arrangement through MLA for all mobile equipment was announced to employees and the unions on 31 October as to the introduction of change requirements in the certified agreement. I have a copy - - -

PN56

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it part of the maintenance review?

PN57

MR PARMENTER: Sorry?

PN58

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it part of the maintenance review?

PN59

MR PARMENTER: Mr Addison is correct when he says that there has been no task teams established.

PN60

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN61

MR PARMENTER: It is certainly a parallel project, and we would argue that it is part of the review to the extent that the changes have been announced at this stage.

PN62

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So why hasn't it got a task team?

PN63

MR PARMENTER: I beg your pardon, your Honour?

PN64

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Why hasn't it got a task team?

PN65

MR PARMENTER: Not every matter that is being considered by the maintenance review has a task. Most matters do, but some don't.

PN66

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay.

PN67

MR PARMENTER: On 31 October the company wrote to - or initially in the morning of the 31st the employees of the mobile equipment workshop received a presentation as to the proposal to outsource the work in that area, the maintenance work in that area, and at the same time the unions were advised by letter and also provided with a copy of the information pack which was provided to employees. I will just - if I can just hand up a copy of that letter and the information pack.

PN68

A copy of the letter went to each of the unions, the AMWU, the ETU and the AWU. The covering letter picks out some of the key points, if you like, of the decision, and gives a very brief summary of the announcement. The information pack contains much more detail about what had been decided and the announcement. If we can just go to page 2 of that information pack, it gives an outline to the employees who will be affected and talks about the impact on those people, and some of the selected paragraphs read:

PN69

The change to an MLA lease will result in all 15 positions, one trade assistant, 14 trades positions, in Westernport's mobile ...(reads)... depend on the resource needs of the plant.

PN70

As indicated from the information pack, your Honour, part of the initial announcement outlined the options that were available to affected employees and what the company was proposing to do to assist those employees. Following the announcement the AMWU indicated that they wanted to dispute the decision. The company has requested details of exactly what is being disputed on several occasions during maintenance review consultative meetings on 1 November, 15 November, 22 November.

PN71

Following the initial request on 1 November, Ms Pope advised that she would outline the AMWUs specific concerns in the week commencing 4 November. However, that has not been forthcoming. There is just a little bit further to this matter; the company has arranged for MLA to hold discussions on site with employees, and those discussions occurred on 8 November. I understand that some employees have applied for positions with MLA and interviews were conducted last week.

PN72

The company is keen to progress discussions with employees to implement some voluntary arrangements to try and minimise any impact. Examples might include transfers to operator roles, for which we have had several inquiries from people in the area. The last matter related to warnings, my understanding that the original notification related to two warnings which were issued. One of those warnings was for a specific incident, and that was the warning to Mr Snooks which Mr Addison spoke about, and the other one, the other warning that I was of the understanding was being disputed was a warning that was issued to Mr Connelly.

PN73

However, Mr Addison didn't speak about that, so I am not clear as to where that is at.

PN74

MR ADDISON: You are right.

PN75

MR PARMENTER: I just wanted to point out, your Honour, not all delegates have been issued with warnings. There have been a number of incidents on site in recent months which have led to disciplinary action involving a diverse range of incidents and employees. There is no targeting of delegates occurring on site. Just quickly - - -

PN76

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What was the reason? There have been two warnings, have there?

PN77

MR PARMENTER: Yes.

PN78

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And what was the reason for the one?

PN79

MR ADDISON: The other warning, as I understand it, your Honour, dealt with inappropriate e-mail use where an employee issued an e-mail to his fellow employees and was given a warning. We contrast that with the fact that the AWU site delegate has absolute freedom of e-mail use on this site, has never had a warning, and issues e-mails probably more often than you, your Honour, in an office environment.

PN80

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are contesting what, warnings to three people or two?

PN81

MR ADDISON: Three, your Honour.

PN82

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So what was the third one?

PN83

MR ADDISON: The third warning deals with a warning to a person who allegedly attempted to run over a supervisor during the picket line and dispute some months ago.

PN84

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Parmenter.

PN85

MR PARMENTER: Your Honour, with respect to the third warning that Mr Addison referred to, we weren't aware that that was being disputed, certainly not today, and we haven't come prepared to discuss the matter. With respect to the other warnings, the warning that was issued to Mr Snooks, I would just like to paint a bit of background before getting to the specific incident. Following the stoppage that occurred in May and June this year the company implemented a number of initiatives aimed at reintegrating employees to the workplace and to avoid complaints or issues of an EO type nature.

PN86

Some of those initiatives, or an initiative included workplace bullying sessions that we ran on site. There were several incidents involving trades employees who returned to work during the dispute. It includes behaviour such as refusing to talk to those employees, threatening letters to the homes of some of those employees and their neighbours, copies of which are available, an incident where an employee's coffee cup was placed in a urinal, graffiti and various name-calling.

PN87

So, some of those incidents have been investigated, whereas others haven't, as the employee concerned or involved hasn't wanted to progress the matter. In this specific incident involving Mr Snooks, it had its beginnings in the dispute around the use of contractors, as Mr Addison said. During the course of the dispute Mr Snooks approached an employee who had arranged the use of contractors regarding the work being performed by those contractors.

PN88

During their exchange Mr Snooks called Mr Sheard, who was the other employee, a scumbag, and walked off. The exchange occurred in public in front of other employees and the employee raised the issue as it wasn't the first time that this type of behaviour had occurred to him, wasn't the first time that he had been called names or been subject to other unacceptable behaviour. He basically said he had had enough. In his view and in the view of one of the witnesses present it wasn't a case of - it wasn't so much as case of what was said, but how it was said to him.

PN89

Following an investigation, Mr Snooks was issued with a warning which related specifically to that incident. The final matter raised on the application was the warning, or final warning issued to Mr Conlon who is an ETU delegate on site. Mr Conlon was issued with a final warning due to his inappropriate use of the e-mail system. The final warning related to a series of incidents around the use of the e-mail system. On 26 July the company sent a reminder to all e-mail users reconfirming acceptable e-mail practices, and rather than give you a stream of e-mails I will just give you a bit of information and then perhaps we can go into private conference.

PN90

On 26 July Mr Conlon had sent an e-mail to a number of mail users regarding contractor usage. Later that day Mr Conlon was sent a reminder of the e-mail usage policy and practice. On 30 July Mr Conlon sought some clarification of what part of the policy he had breached, and Ms Fersch replied in detail as to what had been breached. On 17 September Mr Conlon forwarded an e-mail complaining of a BHP update which was responded to by Ms Fersch.

PN91

On 25 September Mr Conlon forwarded an e-mail from an ex-employee to all mail users. In his note he comments - in his covering note he comments "Don't shoot the messenger", which implies that he realised that on-forwarding the e-mail was a deliberate breach of policy and the content would offend others. So the final warning was issued to Mr Conlon given that he was aware of the policy and the requirements, he had been warned on several occasions by Ms Fersch about e-mail usage and he continued to ignore those warnings. That is all we have at this stage, your Honour.

PN92

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I will adjourn into conference, but I will take a five-minute adjournment before we start.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [1.45pm]

RESUMED [3.22pm]

PN93

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There has been a number of issues raised in this matter. They will be dealt with in the following way. In respect of the allowances there will be a hearing on the allowances matter at 10 am on 21 February 2003 here in Melbourne. For the purposes of that hearing the union is to prepare an outline of its submissions and file them in the Registry and serve them on the company on 7 February 2003. The company in turn is to prepare an outline of its submissions and file it in the Registry and serve it on the unions by close of business on 14 February 2003.

PN94

In respect of Mr Carr, there will be an arbitration conducted pursuant to section 111AA of the Act on the issue of whether or not the company should terminate Mr Carr's employment. That hearing will be conducted at 9 am on 16 and 17 December 2002 here in Melbourne, and for the purpose of that section 111AA hearing both the union and the company are to file in the Registry and serve on each other an outline of their submissions and any witness statements and other evidence on which they intend to rely by close of business on 10 December 2002.

PN95

With respect to the maintenance review there will be consultations between the company and the unions as a matter of urgency on the issue of the mobile plant department. In respect of the warnings that have been issued I issue the following recommendation. I recommend the company remove the warning given to Mr Snooks from the file of Mr Snooks and with respect to the warning issued to Mr Conlon I recommend that that remain on his file until the end of March 2003 and then be removed.

PN96

That completes the matter. I will now adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.25pm]