C2002/5917, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 1126 (31 March 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 VT2018
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER SIMMONDS

C2002/5917

AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL, ADMINISTRATIVE,
CLERICAL AND SERVICES UNION

and

SWAN HILL RURAL CITY COUNCIL

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re the Council's alleged non-compliance
with the Enterprise Agreement redundancy provisions

MELBOURNE

8.29 AM, FRIDAY, 14 MARCH 2003

Continued from 4.3.03

THIS HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BY
TELEPHONE HOOK-UP IN MELBOURNE

PN888

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Saunders, I think.

PN889

MR SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. It is not my intention today to attempt to dissect Mr Cavanagh's submission law case by law case and put an alternate interpretation or twist on what constitutes a casual employee or what they may or may not be entitled to in the way of redundancy provisions. There are, however, a number of points he made that I would like to clarify.

PN890

Council contends that the 1999 enterprise agreement clause on redundancy was essentially rolled over from the 1996 agreement, and that agreement basically picked up on the G17 provisions for redundancy payments. Agreements following G17 were tinkered with - and that is Mr Cavanagh's words - with the provisions for lump sum pro rata 5000 and motor vehicle compensation were adjusted. Council contends at no time was there any suggestion that casuals were entitled to redundancy payouts. Mr Commissioner, I would like to hand up a copy of the original G17 agreement, if you do not have one already. Mr Cavanagh, there is one for you if you want a G17.

EXHIBIT #S1 COPY OF ORIGINAL G17 AGREEMENT

PN891

MR SAUNDERS: Thank you. Mr Commissioner, you will see in clause 3, application, who it applies to, and you will also see further in clause 6, interpretation, who was excluded: temporaries, casuals, people employed for specific projects and CEOs. That is not the case here with the Swan Hill agreement of 1999; no one is excluded. Adjustments have been made to the redundancy clause since G17 and the 1996 and '99 agreements proving, I think, that enterprise agreements are a growing and changing set of employment conditions reflecting the needs of the parties from time to time.

PN892

One of the adjustments was to remove the exclusion clause. Now, whether this was intended or by omission, I do not know but I do know that right at this moment we have an enterprise agreement that says its contents are applicable to all employees of the Rural City, irrespective of classification.

PN893

Mr Cavanagh went on to say that it is accepted practice in Australia that casuals are engaged by the hour by the shift. I would like to remind the Commission that these women had four and six years employment behind them, and received monthly rosters of their hours. In fact, Mr Commissioner, they were no different to the 60-odd HACC women who work part time, receive loadings and whose hours vary as demand for their services fluctuates.

PN894

Mr Cavanagh went to some length to say that the redundancy provisions made no mention of how the 5000 lump sum should apply to casuals. I don't think it has to. It only needs to say how it applies to full and part time employees because the clause applies to all employees, irrespective of classification. We only need to establish if an employee was full or part time and certainly in this case, Mr Commissioner, the three women were part time employees.

PN895

Mr Cavanagh concedes that from Council's perspective in terms of the positions that the women held that they, the Council, no longer wanted the work to be done by a Council employee. So there is effectively a redundancy. He then went on again to say that a true casual worker is one who is hired at the beginning of each shift and employment ends at the end of the shift, and so the job exists and ceases to exist on a daily basis and the worker can have no reasonable expectation of ongoing employment. I would like again to remind the Commission that, in fact, these three women had four, six and six years of service with monthly rosters determining their hours, and I would put it to you that they did have a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment.

PN896

The claim was made that casuals do not get redundancy payouts because they get the loading or allowance. Mr Commissioner, the loading is only a mechanism of convenience to employers to ease the burden of calculating entitlements for employees whose hours fluctuate from day to day, week to week. It does not, in itself, determine who or who should not be entitled to redundancy provisions. And I would put it to you, Mr Commissioner, prior to the introduction of our latest award, the vast overwhelming majority of HACC employees received that loading because their hours fluctuate from week to week and month to month and, indeed, those Councils that decided to outsource their HACC services during the CCT days did not have any problems in calculating redundancy provisions for those women. And the best case I suppose is Dandenong where everyone of the women was made redundant and was paid out, and their hours certainly varied considerably from time to time.

PN897

In summation, Mr Commissioner, I say again that the enterprise agreement was negotiated in good faith and certified. The ASU honours its commitments and abides by its obligations. We certainly do not seek to weasel out of any of the provisions contained in it, nor do we seek in hindsight if we do not like a particular clause try to argue that perhaps black is a dark shade of grey. We believe the Council is in breach of the agreement by not applying the redundancy provisions to the three women of the Pioneer Settlement. They were employees, they satisfied the criteria, and they should receive redundancy payments. Thanks, Mr Commissioner.

PN898

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thanks, Mr Saunders. Mr Cavanagh.

PN899

MR CAVANAGH: Yes, Commissioner, there are a couple of things I would like to say about that. Firstly, Mr Saunders has handed up G17. What I, in fact, said on the last occasion, and I will take you to paragraphs 417 and 418 of the transcript. I said that the genesis of clause 13.2 was the 1996 enterprise agreement. What I said was, prior to that the G17 applied. I did not say that the G17 was in any way the genesis of what had gone before. And in relation to the tampering with an entitlements, I indicated that the difference between the 1996 and the 1999 EBA in terms of the redundancy package was the tinkering with the entitlements in that there was an introduction of a $5000 lump sum and an adjustment with respect to motor vehicle entitlements. And that goes over on to the next page; in fact, beyond paragraph 418 into paragraph 419. And so I think that Mr Saunders has misconstrued what I said there.

PN900

In relation to his comments about casuals being employed by the shift, the monthly rosters and a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment, Mr Saunders has a couple of problems with those submissions. Firstly, on transcript when this matter first came on you indicated your strong view that these women were true casuals. And Mr Saunders accepted that; he didn't call any evidence that they weren't. He cannot now turn around and say that there were features about their employment which means they should be compared to HACC employees or matters should be taken into account which take them outside that category. He has made that admission for the purposes of these proceedings and he cannot now seek to re-open that.

PN901

THE COMMISSIONER: But that does not mean that - the fact that they are casuals by virtue of the award definition, and that was my decision, does not mean though that they were employed by the shift in this particular case. Because you have got the evidence that they were employed in accordance with the monthly roster.

PN902

MR CAVANAGH: With respect - - -

PN903

THE COMMISSIONER: It may be - just please do not - it is important you hear me out.

PN904

MR CAVANAGH: Okay.

PN905

THE COMMISSIONER: It may be that they could be terminated at short notice but, of course, the legislation provides that they could take an unfair dismissal if they had been engaged for more than twelve months and had a reasonable - apart from the termination, had a reasonable expectation of continued employment. Now, all of that is not inconsistent with them being casuals.

PN906

MR CAVANAGH: What you said, Commissioner, at paragraph 149 of the transcript that was taken in the initial hearing was that in the course of discussion off the record - I think it may not be agreed but I certainly expressed the view, I do not believe that any of Ms McMahon, Ritchie or Reynolds were part time employees in the period of 12 months leading up to the separation of their employment with the Council. Now, from that Mr Saunders has conceded that they are true casual employees.

PN907

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I accept that but that doesn't involve a concession - no, he has conceded they are casuals for the purposes of the award. That was the basis on which that - there is a definition contained in the award of casual employee and it was on that basis that I - - -

PN908

MR CAVANAGH: And there is no definition of casual employee contained in the agreement - - -

PN909

THE COMMISSIONER: No, but the agreement is to be read - - -

PN910

MR CAVANAGH: - - - which means you have to go back to the award.

PN911

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, and it was on the basis of that award definition that I came to the view they are casual. That does not exclude the possibility that they had a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment.

PN912

MR CAVANAGH: But let me say this, there is no evidence of that and that was - - -

PN913

THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, I think there is. There is a - you see, whether the evidence - look, if the Council is denying what was put to me in the proceedings, (a) that they were employed on a roster that was set each month and (b) that they were long serving employees who had the Council continued - because the information before me, I am not going to call it evidence, but the information before me was that the Council was quite satisfied with the work that the individual employees were doing. And had the Council continued to have that work done inhouse, they would have continued in their employment. That much information was before me.

PN914

Now, I don't think that the mere fact that they have been held to be casuals - and I think Mr Saunders has quite correctly conceded that - but I don't think the mere fact that they are held to be casuals in accordance with the definition contained in the award excludes the possibility at all that they were employed on a roster that was set one month in advance and that they had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment as long as that work was retained inhouse.

PN915

MR CAVANAGH: Commissioner, can I go to the issue of rosters? Now, there was a monthly roster, and we concede that. But there is a reason for it, and that is that there is a provision in the EBA that says that all employees had to be employed on agreed rosters. That was the roster that was agreed with the union. So Council had no choice about how it went about employing all of its employees. They were employed on that roster because there is a provision in the EBA that says they had to be.

PN916

THE COMMISSIONER: And what was the provision six years ago?

PN917

MR CAVANAGH: That goes - - -

PN918

THE COMMISSIONER: What was the provision six years ago when the employee has been six years since then?

PN919

MR CAVANAGH: I don't know but - I haven't got any instructions on that, but what I can tell you is that we are looking at the application of the 1999 EBA and Mr Saunders has stood up and said, well, there is a roster. That is an indicia that you can take into consideration. And he is right, but the question is the weight that you give to it. And what I am saying is that you cannot give terribly much weight to that because there is a provision in the EBA that compelled the parties to agree the roster for all employees. It was not a matter of the Council going to these employees and saying: you are casuals but we are going to put you on this fantastic roster. The parties to the agreement had an agreed position in relation to those rosters.

PN920

THE COMMISSIONER: What clause is this?

PN921

MR CAVANAGH: I will take you to the clause. It is clause 15 of the '99 EBA, it says:

PN922

At all times employees' work programs will be covered by an agreed roster developed in genuine consultation ...(reads)... or work team based.

PN923

And then it sets out periods of weekly, fortnightly, four weekly. Now, I am instructed that there were discussions with the union, as representatives of the employees, and monthly rosters were agreed. So what I am saying to you is that there is a provision in the EBA that covers that. This is not a situation where you can say that there was any impact on the general common law position in terms of Council going to these employees - - -

PN924

THE COMMISSIONER: Surely it must be.

PN925

MR CAVANAGH: - - - and saying: we will employ you on a four week roster, because that was - - -

PN926

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it means that they are not daily employees in that sense. I mean, the Council has consented to the fact that they are employed on a monthly roster which can be changed on 24 hours notice, I notice.

PN927

MR CAVANAGH: Yes, that is right. And the other information that was put before you, of course, when this matter first came before the Commission and VECCI were acting for the Council was, of course, that there was no expectation on the part of Council that they would accept any work that was offered to them, nor did they have to give any notice if they were going on leave or were going to decline any work. So the roster was a mechanism for mapping out in advance what hours they might be given, but it was subject to change at short notice.

PN928

THE COMMISSIONER: But that is just as applicable to permanent employees, too. That is the difficulty that - - -

PN929

MR CAVANAGH: But I believe there is a mechanism in place for permanent employees. If they are going to take leave, they have to give notice of that leave. Now, that is not the case with these casuals.

PN930

THE COMMISSIONER: That is because these casuals had leave - effectively leave; there was a period of the year, and I think it is January/February, where they were not required to work. And that was part of the system, because the place was closed at that time. Now - - -

PN931

MR CAVANAGH: I think we are at cross-purposes here. What I am saying is that, for instance, if one of these ladies was rostered to work on a Tuesday afternoon, and she decided on Monday that she did not want to work on the Tuesday afternoon, other than an expectation that she would call up and say I am not coming in Tuesday, there was no requirement for her three weeks beforehand to say: well, I can't work that Tuesday because I am doing something else. And Council would simply have to fill - - -

PN932

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that might be the legal position. I am not sure what the practical position is.

PN933

MR CAVANAGH: - - - have to fill that position and, I mean, there is no evidence for you but I am instructed that that - - -

PN934

THE COMMISSIONER: No, there is no evidence one way or the other.

PN935

MR CAVANAGH: - - - that did happen, and it happens quite regularly with these casuals. Now, I can't point to any specific example with any of these three ladies but that was Council's expectation and understanding, and that was what was done and that really, once again - - -

PN936

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, look, I think we are at cross-purposes because really what I am saying, all I am saying is that the position is as Mr Saunders has put it, that they were employed on a roster that was set at four weeks in advance, for whatever reason, and the fact that it was in the enterprise agreement seems to suggest that it was there by agreement. And I think there can be little doubt that they had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment. Now, I don't think that changes the fact that they were casual employees. They were casual employees. That is what follows from that.

PN937

MR CAVANAGH: Yes. I mean, the issue of expectation of employment: a lot of reliance seems to have been placed on the unfair dismissal provisions. The reality here is we are not talking about an unfair dismissal case. This - - -

PN938

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, I understand that but you seem to be suggesting that a casual can have no reasonable expectation of continuing employment. The legislation clearly - in a different context, the legislation clearly comprehends the possibility that a casual can have an expectation of continuing employment.

PN939

MR CAVANAGH: The legislation comprehends it for the purposes of unfair dismissal proceedings.

PN940

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, sure, but it - but you are saying that - as I understand what you are putting, a casual - - -

PN941

MR CAVANAGH: What I am saying is - what I am saying is - - -

PN942

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, hang on. As I understand what you are putting, and correct me if I am wrong, it is that a casual per se can have no expectation of continuing employment.

PN943

MR CAVANAGH: If they are a genuine casual, that is right.

PN944

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, right. The legislation clearly accepts, albeit for the purpose of unfair dismissals, that a casual properly called, properly so called, can have an expectation of continuing employment.

PN945

MR CAVANAGH: Yes, for the purposes of unfair dismissals.

PN946

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I said for the purposes of it, but that doesn't - - -

PN947

MR CAVANAGH: And they did not bring an unfair dismissal application.

PN948

THE COMMISSIONER: But, look, I don't care whether - but they are still casuals.

PN949

MR CAVANAGH: That is right.

PN950

THE COMMISSIONER: They are still casuals, properly so called.

PN951

MR CAVANAGH: Yes, I don't disagree with you and - - -

PN952

THE COMMISSIONER: And the legislation says that for the purpose of unfair dismissal, as a matter of fact if they can establish that they had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment, then they can run an unfair dismissal. Therefore, it follows, as a matter of logic, that a casual, as a matter of fact, can establish that they had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment.

PN953

MR CAVANAGH: As I say, only for the purposes of - - -

PN954

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no.

PN955

MR CAVANAGH: - - - of unfair dismissal proceedings.

PN956

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. That may be the purpose for which they do it. That may be the purpose for which they establish as a matter of fact that they had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment. But the reality is that they have to establish, as a matter of fact, that they had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment. You say a casual, properly so called, cannot do that. And I say, yes, they can.

PN957

MR CAVANAGH: I am saying it is a criteria that tribunals, courts, the Commission look at in determining whether or not someone is a casual; not for the purposes of unfair dismissal but for the purposes of classifying - - -

PN958

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay, but - - -

PN959

MR CAVANAGH: - - - determining what sort of employee they are.

PN960

THE COMMISSIONER: But not in the case, not in this case. If you go to the award provision, and I don't have it immediately in front of me, it is - the question of continuing employment is not part of it. The issue is intermittency as much as anything else, as my recollection.

PN961

MR CAVANAGH: Yes, that is pretty much right.

PN962

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, the points that you make about a casual at large do not come into the definition that is contained in the Local Government Award. It is intermittency is the issue, as I recall it. Now, I don't have the award in front of me but I am - and it is the interim award.

PN963

MR CAVANAGH:

PN964

An employee who is engaged intermittently in relieving work or work of a casual and/or unexpected nature.

PN965

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that the interim award or the - - -

PN966

MR CAVANAGH: That is the interim award. It is clause 38.

PN967

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, and it was on that basis, it was the intermittency that was quite clear in this case. And they didn't fit the other two definitions.

PN968

MR CAVANAGH: I don't know that I can concede that.

PN969

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I am not asking you to, but that was the basis. They didn't fit the permanent employee and they didn't fit the part time.

PN970

MR CAVANAGH: Oh, I thought you meant the unexpected nature.

PN971

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, there are three types of employee.

PN972

MR CAVANAGH: Because I would say that - I would say that is part of - I mean, they are certainly not part-timers - - -

PN973

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

PN974

MR CAVANAGH: - - - and they are certainly not full time.

PN975

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN976

MR CAVANAGH: We agree on that.

PN977

THE COMMISSIONER: And that left - and there was the intermittent nature of the work because - - -

PN978

MR CAVANAGH: But there is intermittency, but there is also an unexpected.

PN979

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the fact that they are rostered four weeks in advance suggests to me that there is not much of an unexpected nature of it.

PN980

MR CAVANAGH: But that cuts both ways. And as I say, if they were to call up and say: well, I am not coming in today, there wasn't terribly much Council could do about that.

PN981

THE COMMISSIONER: Except not engage them again.

PN982

MR CAVANAGH: That I guess would be an option. I guess the only other point that I have to make is - - -

PN983

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, I think the point that as I understood that Mr Saunders was making was not the point that you are attacking. It was to the effect that, unlike a true casual worker, they were on a roster four weeks in advance and they had an expectation of ongoing employment as a matter of fact. That was the point he was making, as I understand it.

PN984

MR CAVANAGH: Yes. Well, I think I have to move on from there.

PN985

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN986

MR CAVANAGH: I don't think I am going to convince you otherwise.

PN987

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, I don't - - -

PN988

MR CAVANAGH: In relation to the loading, Mr Saunders has made some remarks about the loading and not in itself deciding who is entitled to redundancy. You have to bear in mind the fact that those loadings cover precisely the sorts of things that employees who get redundancy pay don't get it because they don't get a loading. It covers those non-transferable credits, and so I say that it - - -

PN989

THE COMMISSIONER: But part-timers, but people who are part time - - -

PN990

MR CAVANAGH: I say that it does go - - -

PN991

THE COMMISSIONER: People who are part time who get the loading still get redundancy. There is no argument between you about that. That is the difficulty with that one.

PN992

MR CAVANAGH: Well, not really because I say we are talking about these three employees - - -

PN993

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, but if - yes, I understand that, but the fact is also that people who are part time in receipt of the loading, if they are made redundant, there is no doubt they get redundancy pay.

PN994

MR CAVANAGH: Oh, yes, because the provision says it applies to part time employees. Clause 13 - - -

PN995

THE COMMISSIONER: And the provision - - -

PN996

MR CAVANAGH: Clause 13.2 - - -

PN997

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I know, it becomes circular; it becomes circular. I understand.

PN998

MR CAVANAGH: - - - talks about part time employees.

PN999

THE COMMISSIONER: But as I said, but these people are part time employees.

PN1000

MR CAVANAGH: These people are not part time employees, these - - -

PN1001

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, we had this discussion before. Whatever it is - - -

PN1002

MR CAVANAGH: These employees are casual employees. They have to be.

PN1003

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, they might be casual employees but they are also part time in the sense that they are not full time.

PN1004

MR CAVANAGH: But as we have already - - -

PN1005

THE COMMISSIONER: We discussed this, you can have full time casuals.

PN1006

MR CAVANAGH: We have already been there.

PN1007

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1008

MR CAVANAGH: And the award says you can be full time, part time or casual.

PN1009

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1010

MR CAVANAGH: And there are three different criteria, and the criteria you have to apply, in my submission, is the casual criteria in clause 38 of the award. And so they can't be part time; by mutual exclusion they cannot be part time. I mean, they have to be one or the other.

PN1011

THE COMMISSIONER: So they get the full 5000, if I am against you.

PN1012

MR CAVANAGH: If you are against me, that is right. But the very fact that the provision relating to the full 5000 does not mention casuals, as I have already said. It is a very strong indicia in terms of construction of clause 13.2. They are not there, and they are not there for a reason and that is that it was never intended to cover them.

PN1013

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand that. But if I am against you, you are conceding they will get the full 5000.

PN1014

MR CAVANAGH: It is I think where you have to go, unless - at the end of the last hearing you indicated, of course, that you were thinking about making a recommendation, rather than specific orders.

PN1015

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think that is the basis on which the people in the - - -

PN1016

MR CAVANAGH: If that is the case, then I suppose if you were against me, you can settle the dispute by making a recommendation that settles the - would settle the dispute - - -

PN1017

THE COMMISSIONER: And, indeed, that is - - -

PN1018

MR CAVANAGH: - - - as a matter of industrial fairness.

PN1019

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1020

MR CAVANAGH: And so it may be that you choose not to go there, but that is an option for you if you do find against me, yes. But as I say, that is a very strong reason - - -

PN1021

THE COMMISSIONER: I didn't really want to put you on the spot that hard.

PN1022

MR CAVANAGH: - - - why you shouldn't find against me. No, no, but that is fine but I admit it is an option that is open to you. But it is in the context of the type of proceedings we are involved in. I am not saying that it automatically follows, but it is an option that you have if you find against me.

PN1023

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thanks, Mr Cavanagh. Mr Saunders, is there anything further you wish to put?

PN1024

MR SAUNDERS: Mr Commissioner, perhaps I can further clarify this $5000 matter. It is not my intention - - -

PN1025

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I understand your position. You have accepted that it ought to be pro rata.

PN1026

MR SAUNDERS: I have all along argued that these women were employees of the Council; that they were part time. Therefore, the - and whether they were casual, as you have determined, or not, nevertheless they were employees. They are not excluded from the redundancy provisions and those provisions should apply to them. And, quite clearly, they did not work full time. I would expect the formula to be applied on a pro rata basis as it would be for any employee at the Rural City of Swan Hill who works less than 38 hours per week, Mr Commissioner.

PN1027

THE COMMISSIONER: And it would also presumably follow from your submission that it would also apply to the CEO and to people who are - - -

PN1028

MR SAUNDERS: Well, he is not - - -

PN1029

THE COMMISSIONER: No, hang on, and people who are employed on fixed term contracts.

PN1030

MR SAUNDERS: That is exactly right, because they are not excluded. Now, whether that was done purposely; maybe the CEO was happy to be bound by these redundancy provisions. I think you would be aware with the number of agreements that you, yourself, have certified, Mr Commissioner, that the vast majority of agreements exclude CEOs, exclude a whole group of people. But this one doesn't, and I am not a mind reader. I can't go back to 1995 when people were negotiating this and, indeed, reviewing it from the one that went prior to that. But, nevertheless, that is what it says. It says that this enterprise agreement determines the conditions of employment for the people at Swan Hill, and it is applicable to all employees. And it doesn't matter what type of employee, it was applicable to them. And they were employees for up to six years. In fact, I think I am actually doing one of the woman short, I am sure one of them has said that she was actually up there for seven years.

PN1031

So my contention is, Mr Commissioner, whether they are deemed to be casuals or Callithumpians, it doesn't matter. They were employees. Council did make the decision to make them redundant and outsource their jobs. Those provisions should apply to them.

PN1032

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thanks. I just want to confirm, the matter was raised in passing there but I just want to confirm, Mr Saunders, your organisation is prepared to accept a recommendation from the Commission in settlement of this matter?

PN1033

MR SAUNDERS: Yes, we are, Mr Commissioner.

PN1034

THE COMMISSIONER: And you indicated as much, too, Mr Cavanagh, just to confirm that.

PN1035

MR CAVANAGH: Yes, Commissioner, that is right.

PN1036

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, there have been some matters raised. You would have thought that because there has been some time gone between when I last heard this matter in Swan Hill and now I would be in a position, subject to what was said this morning, to give you a decision. Unfortunately, I am not. There have been other matters pressing me and I do need to read the transcript, and I have not had that opportunity. I will attempt to do so in short order and provide a recommendation. It may be that I provide the recommendation and subsequently give written reasons, but you will get reasons but they may not come at the same time as the recommendation. If there is nothing further, the proceedings are adjourned. Thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [8.59am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #S1 COPY OF ORIGINAL G17 AGREEMENT PN891