C2002/6021, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 1362 (15 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 VT2174

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD

C2002/6021

AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL, ADMINISTRATIVE,
CLERICAL AND SERVICES UNION

and

GORDON AND GOTCH

Notification pursuant to section 99 of
the Act of an industrial dispute re
the restructure of positions

MELBOURNE

10.02 AM, FRIDAY, 28 MARCH 2003

Continued from 23.12.02, not transcribed

PN1

MR R. BEALES: I appear on behalf of the Australian Services Union.

PN2

MR G. PELS: I appear for the Australian Industry Group on behalf of Gordon and Gotch. Appearing with me is MS D. KEOGH from the company.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: As you know, this is a report back hearing from our earlier consideration of this matter where it was suggested that the party should have further discussions to try and resolve the issues that were at the base of the notification of dispute. Mr Beales, perhaps you could give us a report on developments, please.

PN4

MR BEALS: Thank you, Commissioner. Firstly, I would like to thank the Commission for its indulgence in swapping the hearing from early February to now, and I say fortunately, it was due to me being on paternity leave, so I thank the Commission.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: I hope everything worked out okay.

PN6

MR BEALES: It did, indeed, and thank you for your flexibility.

PN7

MR PELS: That was paid, was it?

PN8

MR BEALES: One week paid, yes, one week paid. I will leave that alone for now.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Was it a boy or a girl?

PN10

MR BEALES: It was a little boy, actually.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: A little boy.

PN12

MR BEALES: I now have one of each.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: And your first child?

PN14

MR BEALES: No, second child. Commissioner, I can say that the matter is largely resolved. There have been numerous discussions between the parties and there has been a report provided by Mr Paul Ryan from Strategic Industrial Planning Services. Commissioner, when it was agreed that the parties would engage external consultants, if you like, to look at the redundancy situation, or sorry, the reclassification situation, there was a general consent both from our members, indeed, the ASU and the company that we would accept the outcome of that report.

PN15

Can I say from the outset, Commissioner, that the report did not deliver everything that the ASU were seeking. The net result was that a Ms Fluless was reclassified to level 4, and Irene was not reclassified, so it was a bit of an each way bet, if you like, Commissioner, but can I just say that the ASU in sticking to its undertaking would in fact agree to the outcome, and that is what we have done. Commissioner, I note that there was some early discussion prior to this morning's hearing about tendering of this document to the Commission as an exhibit as part of these proceedings.

PN16

It is the ASUs intention to seek to tender this document as an exhibit, and I am sure my friend Mr Pels will raise opposition to that when he gets on his feet and speaks to that, but my view, Commissioner, is that the matter is resolved.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: This is the report of Mr Ryan, is it?

PN18

MR BEALES: That is correct.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. Thanks, Mr Beales.

PN20

MR BEALES: My view, Commissioner, is that the matter is resolved. There is one issue of retrospectivity for Ms Fluless which I have spoken a little bit to Ms Keogh this morning about that and I am happy to have those off-line and on site with the view of trying to resolve it. So, at this stage I seek to tender a copy of the document if I can, Commissioner.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, just before you do that, Mr Beales, I might hear from Mr Pels if you have indicated that he is going to object to you tendering the document.

PN22

MR BEALES: Okay, thank you, Commissioner.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Pels.

PN24

MR PELS: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. Ms Keogh reminds me it was Christmas Eve, I think, when we were last before you. Now, at that time the issue of the two employees who were here, they were both seeking redundancy. Now, obviously with the assistance of the Commission we convinced the employees that there was no entitlement there, but as an adjunct to that, what the company did agree to as a form of conciliation was that they would agree to a reassessment of the employees' skill levels, or a reclassification.

PN25

Now, the company agreed to accept the recommendation. Both parties have agreed to accept the recommendation of the independent assessor's assessment of what classification level they were at. As for going one step further, I think the consultant has gone beyond his brief when he starts recommending or suggesting about retrospectivity and back pay. That was never suggested at all. That wasn't part of his brief. But notwithstanding that, he can make those recommendations, but the issue here was that the company would agree to the assessor recommended by the union and they would abide by whatever classification decision or assessment was reached out of his review, and as Mr Beales has indicated that one employee has stayed at a current level 4, and Ms Raquel Fluless was reclassified up to level 4.

PN26

Now, I think that is a good, positive outcome for all concerned and the company is quite happy to accept the fact that there is a reclassification. Now, the practice of course of retrospectivity is of course that that is a matter I think really is more appropriate to be determined at the work place.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN28

MR PELS: We say prima facie there are no grounds for retrospectivity in that sense, but if the company is prepared to recognise an operative date for that, that is between the company and the union. But the report, I have had a quick perusal of the report as such, and the background methodology and the like, but I think that is more appropriate that that is a private matter or it is to do with employees' wage rates and also what is indicated in there, the company, I wouldn't necessarily agree with everything that is in there, but the issue is the company is prepared to accept that there is a reclassification for one employee.

PN29

We would object to the document being tendered as a public document, and I don't have any problem if the Commission wants to peruse it, but I don't think there is any necessity to do that. The parties are agreed, there is a reclassification for one employee. As Mr Beales said it is just a matter of organising what operative date that is from. So, I see no practical - or need to tender the document as a public document, so we would object to that.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Pels, firstly on the issue of retrospectivity, that matter is not before the Commission. The union hasn't requested the Commission to express a view on that, and so it is not something which we will be commenting on, and Mr Beales has said he wishes to have discussions with the company and hopefully those matters can be resolved through that process. In regard to the report, in a practical sense what will happen to the report if it is handed up, it will go on the file, the file will go into our system, and I don't think anyone will seek to have access to it.

PN31

I wouldn't imagine anybody would seek to have access to it. It is already in a sense - well, I imagine it is already available to the people concerned within the company, both management and the employees, and it would simply enable the file to be understood better in terms of, well, what has eventuated from the process we set in train just before Christmas. So if you have a strong objection to it going on the file I will take that into account, otherwise I would hope that you would understand that it would be beneficial to the Commission, just for the purposes of our records, to have it on the file to have an understanding of what has eventuated.

PN32

MR PELS: On that basis, Commissioner, we won't seek - we won't object to it being tendered.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. Thanks, Mr Pels.

PN34

MR PELS: But we would say for the record that all the recommendations in that report are not necessarily being agreed to by the company.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, that is on the record.

PN36

MR PELS: Yes.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: That the recommendations in regard to the classification have been agreed to and that was agreed beforehand.

PN38

MR PELS: Yes.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: But other matters that the consultant has ventured into are still the subject of discussions between the parties.

PN40

MR PELS: Yes, thanks, Commissioner.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, thank you. We will accept that document you are proposing to hand up, Mr Beales.

PN42

MR BEALES: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. Commissioner, when you have the document I might just draw your attention to the paragraph on methodology.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: I think the significance of this document, Mr Beales, is simply that you actually agreed on a person to undertake the review - between you - and the union actually made the decision on who the consultant was going to be. The consultant has actually undertaken his task. He has produced a recommendation which is now being implement.

PN44

MR BEALES: Yes.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: I am happy to hear your outline of the document but it is really a document between the parties rather than a document for the Commission.

PN46

MR BEALES: Sure. Sure, Commissioner. I was just going to refer to one paragraph for the record.

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, certainly.

PN48

MR BEALES: And that is that at the outset all the parties were asked if they would accepted the outcome of any recommendations that might be made. Dawn Keogh, the state services manager of Gordon & Gotch, indicated the company would accept and implement any recommendations. Both employees and the ASU representative advised that they would accept the outcome. Commissioner, that is all I have to say on this matter at this point in time.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. Thank you, Mr Beales. Mr Pels, do you wish to make any other statement on the record?

PN50

MR PELS: No, Commissioner.

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. I take it that completes the submissions of both parties.

PN52

MR BEALES: It does.

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: In that case I would like to congratulate the parties on being able to resolve this matter by agreement between you. It is always good to see. And I adjourn this matter at this point.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.12am]