C2002/5541, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 1 (6 January 2003)

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 VT1114
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD

C2002/5541

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS AND
OTHERS

and

SYNNEX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD AND
OTHERS

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re wages and working conditions

MELBOURNE

2.00 PM, FRIDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2002

PN1

MS A. PARKES: I am from the National Union of Workers, and appearing with me is MR K. WOODS.

PN2

MS K. ARVANITIS: I am from Synnex Australia.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: And you are appearing with - - -

PN4

MS A. ARVANITIS: We are together, yes.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - your colleague. Okay. That is fine. Thanks for that. This is a notification under section 99 of the Workplace Relations Act of an industrial dispute between the National Union of Workers, Natio, Landpower, and Synnex, which are three separate companies. Relevant papers have been provided to each of those three companies by the National Union of Workers, outlining a log of claims, and which will lead to the possibility of finding of a dispute between the parties. Could I perhaps hear from you, Ms Parkes, in terms of the procedures that have been followed to date?

PN6

MS PARKES: Certainly, Commissioner. If the Commission pleases, if I could start by saying that the union is seeking two things today, Commissioner. Firstly, a finding of dispute pursuant to section 101 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. And secondly, a direction from the Commission that the parties to the dispute confer as to the part or full settlement of the dispute. As the Commission has correctly identified, the basis of the finding sought is to be found in a letter of demand and log of claims served by the union on Synnex Australia Pty Ltd, Natio Pty Ltd, and Landpower Australia Pty Ltd.

PN7

In respect of Synnex, a letter of demand and log of claims we sent by pre-paid certified mail on 14 October 2002. And in respect of the other two companies, on 7 November 2002. Now, all the letters of demand, Commissioner, gave the employer seven days to respond positively to the letter of demand, and the claims attached thereto. And there has been no agreement to those demands, either within the seven days or since that timeframe. And accordingly the Commission was notified of a dispute pursuant to section 99 of the Act on 15 November 2002. And there should be an affidavit, or there should be actually three affidavits, Commissioner.

PN8

But the first one should be dated, or sworn on 15 November 2002 by Mr Greg Sword, General Secretary of the union, attesting to the service of the logs of - letters of demand and logs of claims in respect of the three companies. Yes, there should - - -

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: I have those, Ms Parkes.

PN10

MS PARKES: There should be two further affidavits on the file. The reason for two being that there was an amended notice of listing, and those two affidavits basically testify to the service of the notice of listing and the amended notice of listing, and also the information sheet in accordance with R5.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. I have those. Thank you.

PN12

MS PARKES: So, Commissioner, the union would submit that there is a dispute in existence between the union on the one hand, and the three companies on the other, with the log companies in this matter employing persons who are eligible to be members of the union. We would submit that the process followed has been legitimate, with valid service of the logs of claims and letter of demand. And that further, the rejection or non-acceptance of the logs of claims is prima facie evidence of an industrial dispute between the union and the three companies.

PN13

We would further submit that the area of the dispute exists within the Commonwealth, with at least one of those companies, mainly Synnex, having national operations. We would also advise the Commission that we have received correspondence from Natio. It was actually sent to the Commission and a copy was CC-ed to the union. It was dated 10 December 2002. Does the Commission have a copy of that - - -

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I have a copy of - - -

PN15

MS PARKES: - - - on the file, indicating that Nation wouldn't be here today, but that it didn't oppose the finding of dispute being made. In respect of Synnex, that company is represented today and would obviously be able to make its submissions to the Commission. In respect of the third company, Landpower, they are not here today. But we would submit that the affidavits before you - - -

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: I have correspondence from Landpower which was received by e-mail late this morning. And a copy of that, I understand, was sent to Mr Sword, but probably hasn't yet gone through the NUW system.

PN17

MS PARKES: That would be correct, Commissioner.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN19

MS PARKES: That, in any event, when tested, that should not - that their non-attendance, which should not be a bar to a dispute found in respect of them. So in conclusion, Commissioner, the union is seeking a finding of dispute, pursuant to section 101 of the Act between the union on the one hand and the three companies contained - the three companies in question. And secondly, a direction that the parties to the dispute confer as to part-settlement of that dispute.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Ms Parkes.

PN21

MS PARKES: If the Commission pleases.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Now, I might just deal with the Natio and Landpower first up. In terms of Natio, correspondence was forwarded to the Commission on 10 December indicating that Natio would not be represented today. But it goes on to say that the company does not object to a finding of dispute being made in regard to this matter. In relation to Landpower, which was the second of the three companies served, Landpower has advised the Commission this morning, that it does not wish to be - does not consent to being made a party to a finding of dispute in relation to this matter, but does not wish to make any substantive submissions.

PN23

They go on to say that:

PN24

Should the Commission find that a dispute exists between our client and any other party to this application, our client wishes to reserve its right to appear and be heard in relation to any subsequent roping-in or award application.

PN25

So there is advice from both Natio and from Landpower. I think, as the representatives of Synnex would be aware, basically we are going through a process at the moment whereby the union has served a log of claims on the company which will enable the Commission to find if the company does not agree to that log, and I am not expecting to hear that you agree to the log. If the company doesn't agree, the Commission can find that a dispute exists. And can request the union and the company to enter into consultation around how that dispute might be resolved.

PN26

In many cases it is resolved by the company becoming a party to the award of the union, and also the union may also wish to approach the company to establish an enterprise agreement to cover the interests of its members. But perhaps I could hear from the representatives of Synnex as to whether you agree firstly, to the log of claims. And secondly, do you have an objection to a dispute being found in this matter at this time?

PN27

MS A. ARVANITIS: Look, I might speak, Commissioner, on behalf of Synnex. Athina Arvanitis. I am a solicitor.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN29

MS A. ARVANITIS: Just turned up today, just to assist with the process. There is no - you said something about Landpower? They have actually - they are actually objecting.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Landpower has been in touch. They have indicated a formal objection to a dispute finding being made. The Commission will take note of that formal objection in dealing with the matter.

PN31

MS A. ARVANITIS: Okay. Yes. Synnex's position is they don't object to a dispute finding being made.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN33

MS A. ARVANITIS: But obviously reserve the rights in part-settlement of the matter.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN35

MS A. ARVANITIS: So until we hear further from the union.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Thank you. The Commission is satisfied that the required claims have been made on the companies concerned. That those claims have been made in the way prescribed in the Workplace Relations Act. And that the three companies have not agreed with the claims that have been made. The Commission finds that a dispute exists between the National Union of Workers and Synnex Australia Pty Ltd, and Landpower Pty Ltd, and Natio Pty Ltd. The Commission directs that consultations occur between the representatives of the companies nad the National Union of Workers, with the intention of considering how the dispute might be resolved.

PN37

And I think that is all we are required to do here this afternoon. The union will then, I anticipate, contact the companies concerned, and seek to enter into consultations and discussions with them. And should there be a requirement for the Commission to be of assistance at some point in the future, will be further notified. This matter is now adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.12pm]