C0025/398, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 74 (2 January 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY

C No 00253 of 1998

APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW PURSUANT TO
ITEM 51 SCHEDULE 5 TRANSITIONAL WROLA
ACT 1996 OF THE HOTEL MANAGERIAL STAFF
(FEDERAL) AWARD 1974 RE CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT

SYDNEY

9.36 AM, FRIDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2001

Continued from 1.11.01

Adjourned sine die

PN123

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good morning. Is there any change in appearances? I see Mr Mimo is not here. On the last occasion that we sat Mr Mimo indicated that he probably would not be able to be in attendance today but thought that he would have somebody here from his office to attend. It appears that nobody is going to attend. Now, I have received, in accordance with the directions, a submission from the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union which is a very comprehensive document, and I thank the LHMU for that.

PN124

I've also received from the Australian Hotels Association what has been described as an outline of submissions which simply proposes certain amendments which are more a matter of form, I suppose, than substance. except perhaps the Salary for Managerial Staff in clause 20.1.1. I'm not aware that I have received any submissions from the Club Managers Association of Australia. Perhaps, Mr Cooper, you might just tell me if I'm wrong about that?

PN125

MR COOPER: Your Honour, no, we haven't filed formally any response to the directions and there's a good reason for that. We sent some correspondence to the Commission and to the AHA outlining our position on that matter. As you would appreciate the history of this particular matter, there has been some constructive work completed by Dan Edmonds from the AHA and we've had a series of meetings and discussions.

PN126

On 1 November I sought a little more time to formulate a counter-proposal to forward to the AHA. I did that on 13 November and I attached a copy to the Commission. On that last occasion we made it very clear that we were crystallising the issues of concern and it came down to the exemption issue.

PN127

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: As I understand, that is the only area of dispute, isn't it?

PN128

MR COOPER: That's correct, that's right.

PN129

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I just clarify with Mr Swancott that that is the only interest that Mr Swancott has in the matter as well.

PN130

MR SWANCOTT: Well, your Honour, I understood in fact there were two issues of substance in this dispute. If it may assist, I have a table which Mr Cooper has seen and which represents our understanding of the issues in dispute. The second issue is the question of the definition of "hotel manager".

PN131

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, yes; but I think that is probably not as contentious as the issue of the exemption clause, is it?

PN132

MR SWANCOTT: It is directly related to that issue, of course. There are two documents. One is headed "Exemption Clause Proposal" and the other is head "Classification Definition Proposals".

PN133

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but you in fact, as I understood it, wrapped that in with your submission about the exemption clause.

PN134

MR SWANCOTT: Yes.

PN135

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that's what I mean. It is part and parcel of the exemption clause as such.

PN136

MR SWANCOTT: What my submission doesn't do is set out exactly the competing clauses and what the document headed "Classification Definition Proposals" does is indicate that in fact the disagreement between the AHA on the one hand and the two unions on the other is in the definition of "hotel manager". The underlined italicised position that CMAA and the LHMU agree on reinforces the submissions that I put in writing; in other words, the true distinction between managerial, on the one hand, and somebody with a title on the other.

PN137

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN138

MR SWANCOTT: Whereas with the second document, the "Exemption Clause Proposal", the differences there are somewhat more extensive, if you like, in that the third column, which represents the unions' position, is that that first 20.1.1. exemption be deleted altogether and that the final paragraph which dealt with 20.3 has been expanded on in a way that is dealt with in the Hospitality Award which, as our written submission pointed out, was approved and in fact strongly recommended by the Full Bench in the Clark Sperry exemptions case. Thank you, your Honour.

PN139

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, Mr Swancott.

PN140

Sorry, Mr Cooper - I just wanted to clarify what the understanding of the LHMU was about the area of dispute or contentious issues.

PN141

MR COOPER: That's all right, your Honour.

PN142

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could I just clarify with you: do you have any objection to the LHMU having leave to intervene?

PN143

MR COOPER: Certainly not, your Honour.

PN144

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Unfortunately Mr Mimo is not here and the AHA is not represented but, on reading Mr Swancott's submissions, it seems to me that there is a genuine or real interest in the LHMU that could be affected by the outcome in this proceeding and on that basis I'll grant leave to the LHMU to be joined.

PN145

MR SWANCOTT: Thank you, your Honour.

PN146

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps, before I finish that then, I might mark the two documents that have been handed up. First of all the Exemption Clause Proposal Table. I'll mark that exhibit LHMU1. The Classification Definition Proposals I'll mark as LHMU2.

EXHIBIT #LHMU1 EXEMPTION CLAUSE PROPOSAL TABLE

EXHIBIT #LHMU2 CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION PROPOSALS

PN147

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, so perhaps I can let you continue, Mr Cooper, where you left off?

PN148

MR COOPER: Thank you, your Honour - I don't think you're going to be very happy with me though, in continuing. The story thus far is that Dan and I have been constructively working towards it. Rocky Mimo has not been involved in any discussions whatsoever.

PN149

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He represents the AHA, doesn't he?

PN150

MR COOPER: He does. He's simply an advocate who stands up here and relays the messages; but just so we have an understanding - - -

PN151

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That might be demeaning of an advocate.

PN152

MR COOPER: If he came along here this morning it would have to be understood that he would have no detailed knowledge of what Dan and I have got up to. After that last hearing on 1 November Dan and I had a private discussion and he indicated that we should be able to work something out on this exemption business.

PN153

So, as scheduled and as I informed you on the last occasion I would be forwarding as document in response to that, I did that on 13 November and forwarded to your associate a copy of that document. I made a follow-up call to the AHAs office in Canberra. I was able to speak to a gentleman by the name of David Cass and I said I was having a problem getting he email; it looked as if they had removed Dan from their system. He informed me, no, they had received it; and on the 14th I said I was keen to enter into discussions with someone from the AHA to pick up where Dan and I had left off. Mr Cass informed me that he was simply keeping Dan's seat warm and he would talk to others in authority to see where we were going with the matter. That was about it. That's my offer to have - - -

PN154

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: When was that?

PN155

MR COOPER: 14 November. There was a short phone call a couple of days later to indicate that they would be responding to the Commission's directions; but there was no discussion, no response to my request to have negotiations with them. So I don't know this Richard Mulcahy, I don't know David Cass. I've only spoken to David Cass on the telephone. It's a bit of a dilemma, if we're serious about negotiating a simplified award and then moving on to the next stage later on of bringing that award up to relevance in the industry - - -

PN156

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's in relation to rates of pay, is it, and classification?

PN157

MR COOPER: No, your Honour. Well, the first part - you've got the current award; just simplify that. The next stage is to modernise it, to make it relevant to the award - I think Mr Edmonds said to you on the last occasion that they were engaging consultants and consulting with their State Branches - to get rid of that old salary structure ultimately.

PN158

Now, due to the lack of response - and I don't know if they're hearing me or not but I've been standing before this Commission, and through email messages, saying that exemptions are a real problem for us. My executive was not overly keen to be involved in this award.

PN159

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I just indicate to you - and I haven't formed any concluded opinion about this - that it does seem to me that there is some tension between the concept of a minimum rates award and the idea of exemptions at a rate that is not all that far above what the minimum rate is, relatively speaking.

PN160

So it does seem to me that something needs to be done about the exemption clause and it really probably should be done with all of the parties involved rather than the two unions. I think AHA does have to be involved in that. As I say, after reading the very comprehensive submissions in respect of Mr Swancott, it seems to me that it is a matter that ought to be dealt with now and it may well have to be dealt with as a section 113 matter in addition to the award simplification.

PN161

MR COOPER: Can I inform you, your Honour, that this morning I've lodged a section 113 application to set the award aside.

PN162

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I haven't received that as yet.

PN163

MR COOPER: No, I did it this morning at the Registry. Now, the basis for lodging that is any lack of discussions about exemption rates; but the grounds that we've stated are that the award fails to comply with section 88A, B and C and I think that's what you're alluding to, that this award does not provide a fair and equitable minimum rate set of wages and conditions. I also believe that it's contrary to item 51, an award containing obsolete provisions.

PN164

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps it doesn't need to be set aside, does it, to overcome that problem? You could use the section 113 application, for example, to vary the provisions relating to exemption or have it deleted or that part of it revoked, or something like that. As I say, I haven't formed any concluded views about this but perhaps that are ways in which you can still preserve your approach to the award but deal with that aspect of it.

PN165

MR COOPER: The other ground that we've stated here - there are three grounds, of course, and the third one is "any other reason the Commission deems appropriate" - is that the award is not able to be varied due to the exhaustion of the ambit claim that was lodged back in 1975.

PN166

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that's a fairly fundamental issue, yes.

PN167

MR COOPER: Yes, I thought so, yes. I've searched high and low in our archives and I can't seem to uncover the original log of claims that created the dispute; and I think the dispute number is 00389 of 1975. I'm making the assumption - we've come across this dilemma once before - - -

PN168

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So 1975?

PN169

MR COOPER: Yes, since the 1974 award.

PN170

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Wasn't there something done in 1998?

PN171

MR COOPER: I think that was the last time it was varied by the National Wage Case. I think that's what that was about. I'm taking a punt that the ambit really needs to be re-hashed.

PN172

So our process was that, in a simple exercise that became too difficult and may have fallen over on one aspect, it may be prudent for us to serve a fresh log of claims to do the whole exercise again and get to the stage of having a modernised award, not simplifying an old award; because what would happen in the next National Wage Case is that we probably wouldn't be able to vary that award anyway if we're out of ambit.

PN173

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but would anybody's interests be adversely affected by setting it aside? We don't want to go into this in any detail now but - - -

PN174

MR COOPER: Apparently the exemption rate stands at 24,000 and the AHA, at their convenience, uses that against our organisation when we mount unfair dismissal cases. They argue the jurisdictional point saying, well, it doesn't apply.

PN175

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There are a couple of cases here that it doesn't come under the unfair dismissal jurisdiction anyway.

PN176

MR COOPER: No, we've alluded to Killaranda but, of course, they run that jurisdictional argument and say they're not Federal Award employees. That's the dilemma, particularly in Queensland we've run across that problem. So there are a lot of people disadvantaged out there at the moment and their rights are being curtailed and that situation will continue.

PN177

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: As a result of the award being in existence rather than as a result of it being revoked or set aside?

PN178

MR COOPER: That's right; and our organisation really cannot assist the AHA in putting in place another, for want of a better description, shonky arrangement that is intended to protect the employer's interest by not having a fair and reasonable award classification for managers.

PN179

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How much was the 1975 demand for? What was the ambit of the log?

PN180

MR COOPER: As I indicated, I've been unable to turn up that file. I'm just looking a other logs we served around about that time and they clearly shows that - I think there was a Commissioner who actually pulled us up on the fact that we couldn't vary an award because we were simply out of ambit. SO it ha been flagged before.

PN181

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Oh, I see. So what are you suggesting then - that you serve a fresh log?

PN182

MR COOPER: Yes.

PN183

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Or, again, subject to what the AHA has to say about it, wouldn't the appropriate course be simply to put the award simplification issue into abeyance subject to the delivery of a fresh log of claims?

PN184

MR COOPER: Yes; or the Commission could utilise section 33 which Vice President Ross initiated on 19 June 1998. He had a whole host of our awards that were going to be set aside and this only raised its head because the AHA said they would like to enter into discussions to see if we can revamp it; and, as you know, it's had a sorry history since then. We've had our door open and a foot in the water, so to speak, and now they've suddenly ignored us, even to the extent that, in complying with the directions order, they've just said that they want the exemption rate in there; and they're not listening to our concerns.

PN185

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Was this mentioned before Vice President Ross - - - ?

PN186

MR COOPER: There were about six hotel awards and five of them were set aside.

PN187

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but what happened with the other one?

PN188

MR COOPER: After receiving correspondence from the AHA our executive discussed it and said there were no problems in hearing what they had to say about re-vamping the award; and we simply requested Vice President Ross at that stage to put in abeyance setting that award aside until the parties had discussions.

PN189

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, because in fact I do have a section 33 action filed in this matter as well.

PN190

MR COOPER: There are two ways for today's approach: that we proceed with that section 33 and the Commission puts the award aside or we proceed with our section 113 application; but I'm indicating that the matter wouldn't rest there and we would serve a log of claims some time in the not too distant future.

PN191

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How far award do you think it might be before you serve a log of claims?

PN192

MR COOPER: Oh, it won't be until some time later next year?

PN193

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Later next year?

PN194

MR COOPER: Well, probably about March or April next year. Unless I hear from the other side, unless they want to invite us into discussions, I'm ready, willing and able for them to come to my office or for me to go to their office in Canberra and sit around a table and let's discuss this but I've indicated, I don't know Mr Cass in his capacity with them at the moment and I don't know Richard Mulcahy and that's not a good basis to form serious negotiations on a very important subject as an award and they've shown a lack of interest to date.

PN195

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, in fairness, Mr Mimo indicated when I said that I would set the matter down for today that he would not be able to be here and I think initially the matter was set down for some other time and your organisation said that it should be adjourned, is that right?

PN196

MR COOPER: No, we didn't seek an adjournment.

PN197

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You indicated that it was not appropriate to proceed.

PN198

MR COOPER: Either way, I just thought that someone from the actual AHA would have contacted our association or at least communicated with the Commission.

PN199

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, well, I expected a representative to be hear from the AHA myself. I really couldn't do anything about setting it aside on the basis of the award having run out of ambit or the log of claims having run out of ambit without first of all knowing what the original log of claims had to say and clearly that's probably in our archives if it's not in your possession in some way and that can be confirmed. So what would you suggest then, that we just adjourn this matter pending further communication between you and the AHA or would you prefer that we set the matter down for a conference with all parties concerned attending the conference?

PN200

MR COOPER: I think we go back to square one. I think we will be proceeding with the 113 application to set it aside and then start again with a fresh log of claims. We could spend a lot of time and effort looking back at the old ambit and the rest of it but I think we're on firm ground that it would well and truly be exhausted by this stage.

PN201

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Does the award operate at all now? Does anybody have any rights under that award?

PN202

MR COOPER: I don't believe so. We've got three members but we've never had any issues with them about their award conditions as such in the hotel area. It's only when you're before the Commission for an unfair dismissal application that that jurisdictional question raises its head so it's serving no useful purpose at the moment. If it is of any use, it's probably of greater use for the AHA to exclude people from entitlements.

PN203

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Have you indicated in your 113 application that I'm dealing -

PN204

MR COOPER: No, I didn't actually, I left it to the death, if you like, to hear from the AHA and usually advocates talk the night before but I've heard nothing so I thought well, depending what happens today, we'll file it while I'm in here and lodge it in the Sydney registry and I've listed the AHA as being a party to the award.

PN205

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Have you already filed it?

PN206

MR COOPER: Yes, I have.

PN207

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would you mind indicating to the registry that I've been dealing with the matters for award simplification and that it may be as well, given my knowledge of what's gone on so far that it be referred to me.

PN208

MR COOPER: Yes. I meant to do a covering letter - sorry to interrupt - but I had to wait for the screen to be opened downstairs and a young lady just simply grabbed it and put the stamp on it so I sort of lost opportunity.

PN209

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there anything else you want to say at this stage?

PN210

MR COOPER: No, thank you, your Honour.

PN211

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks very much, Mr Cooper. Mr Swancott, what do you say about all of that, after putting in your very comprehensive and well prepared submission.

PN212

MR SWANCOTT: Well, your Honour, as you know, that primary position was that the award should be set aside and the secondary position was that if it had a role to play in providing a proper safety net for a class of employees, then we had views about what that safety net should be. For completeness, I should remind your Honour or inform your Honour as the case may be that my union served a log of claims on the Australian Hotels Association and its various branches in 1999 and that's in C No 24453 of 1999.

PN213

The purpose of that log was to secure a dispute finding under section 101 of the act in relation to hotel managerial employees with the view that the point in 99 of modernising - well, one of two options. Was to extend the scope of the Hospitality Award. The second was to modernise the Hotel Managerial Award. That matter was originally called on Vice President Ross on something like 24 December in 1999 but was adjourned pending discussions between the union and the AHA.

PN214

In light of the developments that I might say we foresaw, the developments of today, we've made application to the Commission to relist that dispute notification for the purpose of making a dispute finding and my understanding from the head of the panel, the hospitality panel, is that Commissioner Lawson will be listing that matter on 30 January next year for formal dispute finding. Well, subject, of course, to any opposition that might be raised but for the purposes of making a finding if appropriate under section 101.

PN215

In that sense, certainly from our point of view, there would then be sufficient ambit but in any event, there is ambit on the union's part from the log of claims which grounds the hospitality award anyway but the new log was designed specifically and referred specifically to the hotel managerial -

PN216

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would that be a discrete award though or would that be part of the hospitality industry?

PN217

MR SWANCOTT: Well, I mean, they're options but our position is that if there is to be a discrete hotel managerial award, that's not a difficulty provided it's a proper safety net and we have no desire or intention to in any way undercut or disadvantage the Club Managers Association of Australia. So I might say one of our most likely strategies, if you like, is to seek a formal dispute finding and use that as the basis for seeking to be made a party to the subsequently revised or updated Hotel Managerial Award if there is to be one.

PN218

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So both the AHA and the Club Managers would be parties.

PN219

MR SWANCOTT: Parties, yes, and that has some benefits, I think, for both unions to be able to work together and to avoid a lot of the conflicts that have arisen over the past about the operation of the award. Your Honour, I wont' bore you by taking you through the detail but I did a search of Ostley and Asiris on the use of this award and there are decisions from the West Australian Industrial Commission, the South Australian Industrial Relations Court, the Industrial Relations Commission of Australia, Queensland - - -

PN220

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You referred to some of these, didn't you, in your submissions?

PN221

MR SWANCOTT: Yes. I think particularly I referred to - - -

PN222

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The South Australian Industrial Relations Court and the West Australian.

PN223

MR SWANCOTT: Yes. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and the Industrial Relations Court of Australia as it used to be where in broad the effect of it was that in each of those occasions the award was found not to confer rights on people but to deny them rights. So that, of course, has been a motivating factor and our concern. The looseness of the current definitions and the inadequacy of the wage rates in combination are in fact quite scandalous to the extent that they are being utilised for other purposes.

PN224

So, your Honour, our interest is to protect the rights of both supervisory employees who in our view have been misclassified and to ensure a proper safety net for genuine managerial employees who quite clearly at the moment don't have one. Now, we will work with the CMAA to achieve those aims if that's possible and if the AHA is prepared to assist in that process, well, so be it. Otherwise, we'd be prepared to put submissions for the Commission to arbitrate.

PN225

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, it seems to me on the basis of what you say and on the basis of the submissions made by Mr Cooper, that there would be little point in proceeding with this until we at least have the section 113 application and your matter is dealt with in the finding of a dispute.

PN226

MR SWANCOTT: Yes, your Honour.

PN227

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Cooper, it's not necessary for me to have to deal with the section 113 application. It just seems that whoever is dealing with that ought to have these files as well.

PN228

MR COOPER: I think that the continuity is important.

PN229

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So as I say, if you could just alert the registry to the fact that I have been dealing with the matters under section 51 and I have a section 33 file as well and I suppose we could leave it at that.

PN230

MR COOPER: We also may get a response. I'll be forwarding a copy of that application off to, of course, the AHA and they may wish to contact us and initiate something.

PN231

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, perhaps it might be the basis of some further discussions between you and perhaps the AHA ought to be included in that in view of the initiatives that have been taken by the AHA and the course that they propose following. I mean, it's up to the AHA, of course - sorry, the LHMU I mean and ought to be involved in the discussions between you and the AHA but as I say, of course, that's a matter for the LHMU and yourself.

PN232

I'm just wondering though, in relation to the AHA who is not here today and the fact that I'm adjourning the matter, effectively not to deal with any issues until the section 113 application at least has been brought to somebody's attention, would you communicate that to the AHA?

PN233

MR COOPER: Yes, I will.

PN234

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could let my associate know what is proposed between yourselves and the AHA for progressing your other application.

PN235

MR COOPER: Yes, I undertake to do that, your Honour.

PN236

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there anything else?

PN237

MR SWANCOTT: Your Honour, there was one matter I overlooked, just to report that I did, of course, serve a copy of the written submissions forwarded to the Commission on the AHA and while I'm not quite sure of the date, it was the same day that you received them. So the AHA has been aware all of this time of the position we've taken at least and it may be appropriate, your Honour, if you were to mark those submissions.

PN238

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Your submissions, yes, of course.

PN239

MR SWANCOTT: I also undertake to forward to the AHA copies of LHMU1 and 2.

PN240

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well and I'll mark the written submissions of the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union as LHMU3.

EXHIBIT #LHMU3 SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN, LIQUOR, HOSPITALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS UNION

PN241

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: When would you forward the other documents to LHMU1 and LHMU2?

PN242

MR SWANCOTT: In about half an hour.

PN243

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Anything else, Mr Cooper?

PN244

MR COOPER: No, I appreciate your time and effort in this messy matter.

PN245

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Let me say first of all, I congratulate the parties on the progress that was made up to this point in any event and I would recommend to the parties that the matter be progressed in the same way that it has progressed up to this point and hopefully we'll be able to come to some concluded result in the not too distant future. The matter is adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.11am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #LHMU1 EXEMPTION CLAUSE PROPOSAL TABLE PN147
EXHIBIT #LHMU2 CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION PROPOSALS PN147
EXHIBIT #LHMU3 SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN, LIQUOR, HOSPITALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS UNION PN241