C2003/900, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 1297 (9 April 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 VT2148

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD

C2003/900

TICKETMASTER7 PTY LTD AWARD 2002

Application under section 113 of the Act by
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance to vary
re the safety net review decisions of May 2001
and May 2002

MELBOURNE

10.00 AM, WEDNESDAY, 26 MARCH 2003

PN1

MS. A. GOOLEY: I seek leave to appear on behalf of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and with me is MS L. CONNER and MS E. MULLANE.

PN2

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. It was Ms Gooley, wasn't it?

PN3

MS GOOLEY: Yes.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN5

MR I. DIXON: I seek leave to appear on behalf of Ticketmaster7. With me is MS V. MOULATSIOTIS.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. Thank you, Mr Dixon. The first matter to deal with this morning is the application for safety net adjustments by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. I understand that the relevant award has not been adjusted for the last two safety net increases. Is this true, Ms Gooley?

PN7

MS GOOLEY: That is correct, Commissioner. We made an application for both May 2001 and the May 2002 safety net adjustment. What we are seeking is that the May 2001 safety net adjustment be processed. We are seeking in that regard that - I suppose on an interim basis, that the operative date be today's date. We then seek to have the matter of whether the operative date of that increase should be made retrospective, referred to the President as an application above the safety net.

PN8

As we are also seeking that the May 2002 safety net adjustment have the same operative date as the May 2001 safety net adjustment, we are seeking to have that matter referred to the President to determine whether it can be dealt with by a single member of the Commission or whether it is dealt with by a Full Bench. So we are asking for the May 2001 safety net adjustment to be operative from today but the question of whether that date should be made retrospective to be referred to the President in the same way that the operative date of the May 2002 safety net adjustment should be referred to the President.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Gooley.

PN10

MS GOOLEY: Sorry, Commissioner. I have a proposed draft order in relation to the rates, which I have shown to my friend, and I think we are in agreement about the nature of the rates and it includes the relevant undertaking by the union.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. Thank you, Ms Gooley. And Mr Dixon, I take it that Ticketmaster is not agreeing to a variation which will allow both the 2001 and 2002 safety net adjustments to be made by this Commission today.

PN12

MR DIXON: That is correct, Commissioner, in light of the economic cost of such an increase and the effect it would have on existing AWAs in comparison with the no disadvantage test and the problems that may cause.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: When you suggest the problems that may cause, Mr Dixon, and the comparison between the rates and the AWA rates, does that mean that if both adjustments were made, some of the rates set out in Australian Workplace Agreements would be lower than the award rate?

PN14

MR DIXON: They may be, Commissioner, and also there is the problem about how the Office of the Advocate would assess the no disadvantage test generally because he has been assessing against the existing rate, so I am not sure, frankly, how it would go. I really don't know how he would see it.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: So he has been assessing against the rate which was in the award - - -

PN16

MR DIXON: Which exists at the moment.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Which had not been adjusted for the last two safety net adjustments.

PN18

MR DIXON: Yes. And I don't know, for example, whether he thinks there is a large margin of comfort there or a small margin. I just don't know. It is up to him and as you know, he is not supposed to do it, only mathematical formula, but it would have an impact and we are just not certain. So for those reasons and generally we do oppose both matters. We don't waive the need for consent but we do say we have been given a draft order for the 2001. I do believe the figure is correct, subject to mathematical checking but I do believe that is correct and we are in agreement with that taking effect and would be in agreement with that taking effect from today.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have any comment to make, Mr Dixon, on the application by the MEAA for other matters to be referred to the President?

PN20

MR DIXON: Only I am not sure where that goes because the decisions go up and down after that, Commissioner, but I suppose that is an argument later. It is always up to the MEAA to make application to do that, to vary it under principle 10, I think it is, of the 2002 principles, so I don't think we can oppose or do anything else but look forward to seeing a copy of the application and reserve the right to put anything in at the time, if we do get a change to make it. Ultimately, then, it comes back to your good self if that is the case, or to a Full Bench, depending on what the President decides, and ultimately then we would be saying the effect that principle 8 and the principle 10, how they have been decided in the past, we would leave the argument to that time.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thanks, Mr Dixon. Well the application for the variation of the relevant award for the safety net adjustment of May 2001 is being made by consent, subject to any checking that might be required in relation to the rates which are set out in the application and Mr Dixon would expect any advice in that regard to be done fairly quickly.

PN22

MR DIXON: Commissioner, I think I can indicate that the rate is fine. I really just haven't checked the wording of the undertaking. I have no reason to think that the MEAA or Ms Gooley has put anything but what she has put forward and we are prepared to agree to it, subject to us coming back is probably the better way, if we can make it and then subject to us perhaps correcting any spelling or other mistakes.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thanks, Mr Dixon. Taking account of the consent of the employer to the application made by the MEAA, the Commission will vary the award as requested and will issue an order operative from today's date as quickly as possible.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.00am]