|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220
Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:(02) 9238-6500 Fax:(02) 9238-6533
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER RAFFAELLI
C2002/1312
C2002/4376
AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION
and
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Notification pursuant to Section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re conditions of employment
AUSTRALIAN FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION
and
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Notification pursuant to Section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re alleged removal of production
examiners allowance
SYDNEY
10.43 AM, TUESDAY, 13 MAY 2003
Continued from 24.3.03
PN133
THE COMMISSIONER: Could I take the appearances, please?
PN134
MR M. THISTLETHWAITE: If it pleases the Commission, I appear for the Australian Workers' Union.
PN135
MR T. AYRES: If the Commission pleases, I appear on behalf of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union.
PN136
MR MILLS: May it please the Commission, I appear for and on behalf of Qantas Airways Limited. With me I have Ms R. ROCHE, also of Qantas Airways Ltd.
PN137
THE COMMISSIONER: Who wants to go first for the unions?
PN138
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Thank you, Commissioner. Just by way of outline, of course, the Commission is aware that this matter concerns a long-running dispute between the unions and Qantas regarding the removal or cessation of payments of production examiner and/or leading hand allowances previously paid to 10 affected employees of the company. Those allowances ceased to be paid in January 2001 after Qantas had given the affected employees six months' notice. The cessation of the allowances derives from a reorganisation of Qantas' engineering and maintenance business and as a result, a refusal by the affected employees to accept varied terms of employment related to their employment with Qantas.
PN139
Commissioner, we're seeking the making of an order under section 111(1)(b) of the Act in settlement of this dispute by which we're saying Qantas should be ordered to either offer the affected employees redundancy termination payments on certain terms or, in lieu of the redundancy termination payments, restore the payment of the leading hand and/or production examiner's allowances to the affected employees on the basis that the Commission has jurisdiction to do so and that it would be fair and reasonable as a means of resolving this dispute.
PN140
Commissioner, our evidence will establish the following relevant facts: firstly, in February 2001 the engineering and maintenance business of Qantas was split into three separate divisions, those being engineering and technical operations, maintenance services and Qantas Defence Services Pty, or QDS. QDS is, of course, the wholly owned subsidiary company of the parent airline. Secondly, at the time there was some confusion amongst affected employees in relation to their future employment with the company. Specifically, they weren't aware of which division they were actually performing work for and there was some confusion related to who they were actually employed by.
PN141
In May 2001 the affected employees were asked to express an interest in relocating to the QDS Bankstown facility. The affected employees refused to express such an interest in a transfer to Bankstown and they informed Qantas management as such at the time. Fourthly, on 27 June 2001 the affected employees were requested by Qantas management to accept a secondment for a fixed term on a new contract of employment to QDS. The affected employees were assured by both QDS management and Qantas management at the time that they would not be financially disadvantaged and that all allowances related to their work would be maintained.
PN142
The affected employees refused to accept this secondment and again informed Qantas management as such. Further, on 26 July 2001 the affected employees were requested to confirm redeployment of their employment back to Qantas from QDS. In doing so they were asked to consent to a further new contract of employment and again, the affected employees informed Qantas management of their refusal to consent to that variation. We say at no time - and the evidence will establish - at no time were the affected employees properly informed of how their job would change, that the work or the job of some of the affected employees was actually removed by Qantas through the organisational structure, in particular, work they were performing on specific engines related to their employment with Qantas.
PN143
Also, the affected employees encountered a fundamental change in their job as a result of the restructure. Many went from performing aircraft related jobs to non aircraft related work. On 26 January 2002 the affected employees ceased to be paid either of the stamp allowance and/or leading hand allowance. Of course, this was after six months' notice of a cessation of those payments was given by Qantas. Finally, our evidence, Commissioner, will establish that there are other employees of Qantas who continue to receive such allowances, yet are not performing the work for which the allowances are derived under the award or various enterprise agreements.
PN144
They're the relevant facts related to this matter that our evidence will establish, Commissioner. Based on those facts, it will be our submission that the evidence does establish that it's just and proper for the Commission to make an order in the terms sought by the unions for the following reasons: firstly, that the facts gave rise to a redundancy situation in July 2001 as defined under the redundancy provisions of the award. Secondly, the affected employees should have been made redundant in July 2001 and offered redundancy severance payments in accordance with the provisions of the company's Mark III enterprise bargaining agreement.
PN145
Thirdly, in refusing to offer those payments, Qantas breached the award and the affected employees are entitled by the Commission to recover such entitlements and have those entitlements restored. Fourthly, in lieu of such redundancy entitlements being restored, we say it's fair and reasonable that the employees have the subject allowances restored and any deficiency in receipt of such allowances since January 2002 restored by way of back pay. They're our submissions by way of outline, Commissioner. Perhaps it's convenient to hear from the company or we're ready to go into our evidence, if it pleases.
PN146
THE COMMISSIONER: We'll proceed to witnesses. Mr Mills, is that okay for you?
PN147
MR MILLS: I think it would be more appropriate for the company to put forward its outline of submissions.
PN148
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. I've read the outline of submissions of both sides, I'm pretty up with it, but nonetheless, yes, Mr Mills. But Mr Ayres wants to say something.
PN149
MR AYRES: Just briefly, Commissioner. The AMWU concurs with the submissions made by Mr Thistlethwaite on behalf of the AWU. It is important to know for the purposes of clarity the AMWU just spells out its position in relation to the draft orders. The AMWU believes that the evidence that Mr Thistlethwaite leads today will establish the circumstances necessary to satisfy the finding by the Commission that satisfies part 1 of the draft order. We believe Mr Thistlethwaite will lead you to some previous cases of the Federal Court that deal with those matters.
PN150
However, the AMWU doesn't press part 1 of the draft order. The AMWU's submission is that the Commission should find the circumstances exist in part 1 of the draft order but that the Commission should require Qantas to effect redeployment on the basis of maintaining the allowances. So, it's important to put the AMWU's submission in relation to that. We concur with the submission made by Mr Thistlethwaite.
PN151
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Ayres. I don't have a copy of the draft order, do I?
PN152
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Perhaps it's convenient if I tender a copy of that draft order now. Sorry, Commissioner, I intended to do so later.
PN153
PN154
MR MILLS: No, the only comment I would make is I'm sure Mr Ayres would have heard this before. I would think it's appropriate for the company to present its case, obviously, when we're going to call our evidence. I don't see any need for me to put anything to you at the moment other than I think it's a little bit difficult that the Commission's being asked to, in effect, make an order for one group of employees, in effect, on the basis of union membership as opposed to another group of employees. We say that around points 1 and 2, that you're actually being asked to make a distinction between groups which we think will be highly problematical in the event that we're unsuccessful in convincing you that the case we'll put to you is the correct one. I just raise that as a preliminary issue in response to what I've just heard.
PN155
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Thistlethwaite, proceed.
PN156
PN157
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Could I just check, Commissioner, do you have a copy of the statement of Mr Kyriakou?
PN158
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I do.
PN159
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Could I also hand up a copy of the supplementary statement of Mr Kyriakou made in response to the evidence of Qantas? Qantas was supplied with that supplementary statement late yesterday. Could I also hand a copy of the statement to the witness? Could you state your full name and address for the record, please?---Jim Kyriakou, 29 Rose ..... Avenue, Kingsgrove.
PN160
Mr Kyriakou, you've signed a statement in these proceedings, have you?---Yes.
PN161
Could I ask you to have a look at those documents in front of you? Are they copies of those statements that you've made in these proceedings?---Yes.
PN162
Could I take you to page 5 of the original statement?---Yes.
PN163
That's your signature that appears on that page, is it?---Yes, it is.
PN164
And page 3 of the supplementary statement?---Yes.
PN165
That's your signature that appears on that page, is it?---Yes.
PN166
I formally tender those statements, Commissioner.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN167
PN168
MR THISTLETHWAITE: No further questions at this stage.
PN169
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ayres?
PN170
MR AYRES: No questions.
PN171
PN172
MR MILLS: Mr Kyriakou, how are you this morning?---Pretty good.
PN173
What are you seeking as part of this claim?
PN174
MR AYRES: I object, Commissioner. It's not Mr Kyriakou's job to make submissions on behalf. He has made a statement. He should be cross-examined on the basis of the statement he has made.
PN175
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, he's part of the claims. I think we'll just let it roll. Yes, Mr Mills?
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN176
MR MILLS: Commissioner, can I just respond to that? I'm allowed to ask Mr Kyriakou whatever I want. In the opening submissions made by the AWU there's reference on the one hand to redundancy and in the event that there's no redundancy, there's reference to the issue of allowances. Now, I'm entitled to ask Mr Kyriakou what it is that he is seeking. Mr Ayres, sit down, please, until I get a chance to finish. So, I'm entitled to ask him that question. There is nothing stopping me from asking what is relevant to this entire claim.
PN177
MR AYRES: Commissioner, perhaps if Mr Mills asked the question and directed it to that part of it, it would be more helpful.
PN178
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, maybe you can do that, Mr Mills.
PN179
MR MILLS: It's a matter of semantics, Commissioner. I'm happy to ask that. Mr Kyriakou, are you seeking redundancy as part of this process or are you seeking the reinstatement of your allowances?---Well, initially, when this all happened back in 2001, per the policy that's evolved through the company we should've been offered redundancy at the time because our job was taken off us. We were given no option of that, okay. So, at the time we wanted to continue getting paid our allowances since we were taken out of our positions. As the time went on and our allowances came off, were taken away from us and we were put into - not everybody, but most people - were put into positions which by means they were de-skilled from their original position, people that were de-skilled should've been offered redundancy because they were put into areas which had no effect of the complete work they were doing previously. So, to answer the question, out of this redundancy, because we weren't given that option originally.
PN180
Why do you say your position was redundant?---Because it was taken off me and no fault of my own.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN181
How do you say it was taken off you?---How? Because I was given the choice first to stay where I am by signing a new contract, okay, and the only way that I could've kept my job was to sign this new contract which was going into a completely different company, subsidiary, which I had no intention of doing. Now, there were other people in the same position as us who were in the same business unit who did not have to sign contracts to obtain their positions. On the other hand, we had to sign contracts to obtain our positions and if we didn't, we were told we were going to be redeployed and lose those allowances, which most of us have worked five, 10 years to get into those positions.
PN182
You say others did not have to sign. Can you be more specific?---Okay, when I say others, I mean the 707 business unit, being the aircraft. The JT-3 area, which myself and most of the other people to do with this case were in, had to join the 707 unit in order to keep our jobs in Mascot at Qantas. Now, the guys in 707s were going to be under the QDS banner as well. Now, we were told we had to sign secondment contracts to keep our positions. The 707 guys, staff, which was about 50 or 60 of them, I'm not too sure, did not have to sign anything. They were just left there to keep working as they were day in day out and still doing their jobs and keeping their allowances, whereas on the other hand, we were told if we wanted to keep our jobs and our allowances, we had to sign this contract of employment to QDS. Then, it was not fair, how you can just treat one half of the company differently and the other half differently again.
PN183
Could you just confirm for the Commission, you were employed on the JT-3?---Area, yes.
PN184
That engine is related to the 707 aircraft?---Previously? It is related to the 707, yes.
PN185
Have you had the assistance of your union in this matter, particularly in June 2001?---June 2001?
PN186
Yes?---Yes, there was.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN187
Who did you speak to at the time from your union?---At the time there was our union delegate. We had a union delegate on the shop floor there, Mick Smith, and John Barclay was his co-delegate. Through there we went through Carl Phillips, who was AWU, and Mr Tim Ayres for the AMWU.
PN188
You've got a copy of your statement there?---Yes.
PN189
Could I just take you to point 4 of that statement? Just take your time. It's not a very long question, but just take your time to read it. You say there that you were promoted to the position of production examiner in the small engines area?---Yes.
PN190
Is that the JT-3 area?---Yes.
PN191
Could you just explain to the Commission, and also for myself, what that required you to do?---The promotion or the actual interview?
PN192
I'll make the question a little bit more clear. Once you receive the production examiner authority, what does that then require you to do?---Basically, it's just certify work.
PN193
Is that other people's work?---Yourself and other people's.
PN194
Is that regulated by CASA?---At the time we were through the RAAF, okay. I understand it has changed since then.
PN195
Does everybody have a production examiner authority?---Not everybody, no. Just qualified people - when I say qualified, I mean years of experience and knowledge on the job.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN196
Were you required to perform production examiner work prior to 14 October 1996?---No, because I had no authority - approval, sorry.
PN197
Now, you've said that you got the production examiner's authority for the JT-3?---JT-3, yes.
PN198
Is that the only engine type that you have the production examiner's authority for?---Yes.
PN199
Do you understand that in recognition of performing production examiner duties you receive an allowance?---Yes.
PN200
Could I just take you to point 6 of your statement? If I could just ask you to read that to yourself? Take your time?---Yes.
PN201
You stated you became a leading hand in July 1997. What were your responsibilities?---Well, the main responsibilities are controlling the area, giving work to personnel who were in my area. I mean, obviously, through all that there's production meetings with management and upper management, supervisory level. In my area, I was controlling four different mini sections.
PN202
Had you performed that work previously?---Yes.
PN203
In what capacity?---On an acting leading hand basis.
PN204
You had been an acting leading hand?---Yes, which in turn paid an allowance for everytime you did the acting - - -
PN205
You've pre-empted one of my questions, Mr Kyriakou?---Okay.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN206
So, you received the leading hand payment only when you undertook those duties that you've just explained?---Yes.
PN207
If I could just ask you to confirm again, only so I can keep a record of what I'm asking, you understand that you receive an allowance for undertaking leading hand duties?---Yes.
PN208
Could I just take you to point 11 of your statement? Could you just have a look at point 11 and, in particular, have you got all the attachments to your statement there in front of you?---I think so, yes.
PN209
At point 11 you talk about the letter you received from Mr Harris that's attached to your statement, which is marked attachment B. If you just want to go to that, and once again, take your time. There's no hurry. What did you understand from that letter when you received it?---Well, initially, we got this letter because the company wanted everyone in cost centre 32 at the time, which is the JT-3 and T-56 area, to see who wanted to express interest to go to the Bankstown facility, which was to be the new QDS workshop. Now, from that, people showed interest or didn't show interest and at the same time, whoever didn't sign and hand it in was taken - we were told we would be taken as a no, basically.
PN210
Can you go to about the fifth paragraph down? It starts:
PN211
You should note -
PN212
?---Yes.
PN213
I'll read it for you:
PN214
You should note that your current conditions of employment will remain unchanged. There will be no immediate regrading or reclassification of your employment if you decide to relocate. No relocation or travelling allowance will be paid.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN215
I then take you to the next paragraph that says:
PN216
Your geographical relocation will be formalised by way of providing you with a letter of secondment from Qantas to QDS.
PN217
What do you understand by those two paragraphs, in particular?---Well, basically, if you showed interest, any allowances that you had would not be affected, okay, and when we were provided with a letter of secondment, the only secondment I've seen in my 14 years in Qantas has been one page. One page with a Qantas letterhead, for example, and all it states is that you're going from this position to this position for a period of 12 months and it's just signed at the bottom by your manager and by the manager you'll be going to. That's my interpretation of the only secondment letter that I've seen since I've been in Qantas.
PN218
Where in that letter does it state that you work for QDS?---Where in that letter?
PN219
Yes, where does it state that you work for QDS in this letter?---Attachment B?
PN220
Yes, take your time?---Sorry, where does it state that I work for QDS?
PN221
Yes?---It doesn't. It's just got - - -
PN222
No, that's fine, you've answered the question. If I take you to point 12, then, of your statement where you refer to the letter that we just discussed and you say:
PN223
I was angered by this letter because I did not know I was employed by QDS. I was never informed that my employment had been transferred from Qantas to QDS.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN224
But you just said to my previous question that nowhere in that letter does it say that you were employed by QDS?---No, okay, can I answer?
PN225
Does that mean that point 12 of your statement is not correct?---No, it doesn't mean that. The letter that we have been given is - I don't know if you can call it a QDS letterhead, since it's to QDS engine maintenance staff, but going on to that point 12, going with that letter and what we were told when the company was finally purchased in April when we had a meeting, was that we were told then that we belonged to QDS. That's where point 12 comes into with that letter. Now, again, I say that letter does say QDS engine maintenance staff. Now, that's saying that we belong to QDS but at the same time, it does not say we belong or are employed by QDS. But I'm just going by, in point 12, what we were told in April, that QDS has been initiated and - - -
PN226
So, therefore, point 12 doesn't refer to the letter, it refers to a general view that you had?---Not wholly to the letter, no.
PN227
Because you agree that the letter makes no reference to you being employed by QDS, is that correct?---Yes, only in QDS letterhead.
PN228
Could I take you to point 13 of your statement? Once again, take your time to read it. Have you read that statement?---Yes.
PN229
You refer to these meetings you had with Mr Harris and Mr Giannikas. How many meetings, can you recall? I know it's a while ago, but do you have a reasonable approximation?---There would've been a minimum, you know, six official meetings as a group. Now, mind you, there were others where they were done shift by shift because the people on day shift had one early one and the people on afternoon shift had a late meeting, and then occasionally we came as a group as well.
PN230
You state there that on several occasions Mr Harris said that you were not transferred to QDS but people were asked to express their interest in transferring to QDS, is that correct?---Per that letter, yes.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN231
So, once again, I ask the question, you've agreed previously in the discussions we just had, that the letter that you refer to at attachment B makes no reference to you having been transferred to QDS, correct?---Yes.
PN232
You then state in point 13 that Mr Harris stated that you had not been transferred to QDS, correct?---Yes.
PN233
So, had you been transferred to QDS? Were you an employee of QDS at any stage?---No, because I was not given - I did not sign any contract, neither did anyone else, to be taken out of engineering and maintenance to go to QDS.
PN234
So, you were never an employee of QDS?---In writing, contract wise, no.
PN235
At point 14, once again if you just familiarise yourself with point 14 and, in particular, I will want you to have a look at attachment C. I trust you've got a copy of that in front of you?---Yes.
PN236
This may take some time for you to go through, and you can decide whether you want to or not, but the question I want to ask you - there are a couple of questions. Where in this letter that you received from Mr Harris does it make any reference at all to you being asked to resign from Qantas and take up employment with QDS?---You're saying to resign from Qantas and go to QDS, is that what you're asking?
PN237
Yes?---No.
PN238
It doesn't say that?---No, it just specifies a fixed term position from aircraft maintenance, engineer mechanical with Qantas Defence Services Pty Ltd, which is the only time we knew QDS being as a Pty Ltd, because the only time we knew QDS as being was early on in that piece, early in the year, I think it was February or March, there was some memo where the company - - -
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN239
It's marked at attachment A to your statement?---I'm just saying - - -
PN240
Yes, I understand?---We only knew it as a business decision made to separate the three.
PN241
But you would agree that this letter to you from Mr Harris never asked or never requested you to resign from Qantas, did it?---No, no.
PN242
Now, I asked you a question earlier about did you have any contact with your union and you answered yes. Did you speak to Mr Phillips or Mr Ayres about this matter?---Personally or as a group?
PN243
Yes, personally or as a group?---Yes, as a group.
PN244
Could you just advise us of the location where you were to perform this work if you wanted to work on secondment with QDS?---In regards to this attachment C?
PN245
Yes, what location?---Mascot.
PN246
Is it correct to say that to the best of your knowledge, the only distinction between your previous arrangements up until you received this letter and what would have occurred, to the best of your knowledge, if you accepted the letter, was that you would be on secondment to QDS but still an employee of Qantas?---My understanding was that this letter, secondment letter, contract, which you're referring to states that it is a two year secondment but at the same time, we were under the impression and told through union as well that this was a contract more than a secondment, because, previously, we think Qantas - all you signed to do a secondment was just a letter of agreement between yourself and your manager. You did not have to go through this kind of a - - -
PN247
So, who advised you that it was a contract? Did you say the union advised you it was a contract?---Yes, contract basis.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN248
What did Qantas management say to you?---Qantas management, just secondment.
PN249
So, the union said a contract and Qantas said secondment?---Yes, the union said contract basis, right, based on - - -
PN250
But management said it was a secondment?---Yes. But just to add to it, it was a different kind of secondment because like I said, I've never seen one of these secondments before.
PN251
But you understood that you weren't being asked to resign from Qantas, didn't you?---To resign, no.
PN252
You understood also that you would be paid all your allowances as you had always been paid them if you chose to remain where you were working but on a secondment basis, correct?---Sorry, can you - - -
PN253
You understood that you would still retain your production examiner allowance and your leading hand payment if you remained where you were working but on a secondment basis to QDS, is that correct?---Yes.
PN254
Can I just take you to point 17 of your statement? I'll just ask you to read that, if you don't mind. Take your time. I obviously want you to familiarise yourself with the letter that you refer to as point D and, in particular, I want to take you to page 2 of that where it discusses the issue about wages and, in particular, the last paragraph of that which says:
PN255
You should note that you are to receive a one off payment for removal of your leading hand and production examiner allowances equivalent to six months' earnings for these allowances.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN256
?---Yes.
PN257
Is that correct?---That's what it says.
PN258
Did you understand what that meant at the time of receiving the letter?---What that meant?
PN259
Yes?---Yes.
PN260
Did that happen? Did you have the allowances paid for six months?---Yes.
PN261
For the record, I note, Commissioner, that the earlier discussion we had about this was that it wasn't a lump sum but it was the maintenance of six months' earnings. That's correct?---Yes.
PN262
I should have asked that question of Mr Kyriakou, but we've been on the record on this on a couple of occasions. Did you speak to your union about this, this particular point about the allowance issue?---About the allowance?
PN263
Yes?---At the time we had brought it up with the union, yes.
PN264
Did you take that up with Mr Harris?---Yes, a number of times.
PN265
I would just like the witness to be shown Mr Harris' statement. I'm happy to tender it if you want to, Commissioner, at this stage.
PN266
THE COMMISSIONER: No.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN267
MR MILLS: However, it's probably best to tender it through Mr Harris. While the associate is up, I might get you to take Mr Highland's statement as well because I will make reference back to that. You don't need to see Mr Highland's statement just yet, Mr Kyriakou, but you will need to look at Mr Harris' statement. Can I ask you to go Mr Harris' statement at point 21? Once again, take your time to read it. One would assume you're as familiar with this one as you are with your own. Now, Mr Harris talks about the briefing sessions. You agree there were a number of sessions to discuss this matter?---Are we talking now before this redeployment letter or about the redeployment?
PN268
About the redeployment?---About the redeployment letter, there was only one. That's when we were given it.
PN269
During this he states at point 21 that there were regular briefings about the transfer of work, is that correct, the transfer of work to Bankstown?---Yes.
PN270
Mr Harris claims at this point that he was very clear that allowances would not be maintained if you did not take up the relocation or the secondment. Is that correct?---No.
PN271
He wasn't clear?---No.
PN272
What did he say?---He told me, the two guys that are present at the moment here, and probably another 40 people in a combined meeting, that whether you sign or not sign to go to QDS, no one, and I mean no one including PE and leading hands, will be financially disadvantaged. He did not say it once, he said it two, possibly three or four times in meetings leading up to.
PN273
So, you say that he says that no one will be financially disadvantaged, correct?---Yes.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN274
Can I ask you to go to your statement? I'll ask you to look at point 20 of your statement. Can you read point 20 to yourself?---Yes.
PN275
You say that Mr Harris replied:
PN276
Because you will not be doing that work -
PN277
when asked about the production examiner and leading hand allowances being removed?---That's on the day we received the redeployment letter.
PN278
So, what you're saying is that Mr Harris was at one point saying that you would maintain your allowances - - -?---Beforehand, yes.
PN279
But at this meeting he said that you would not?---Yes, because it was in the redeployment letter.
PN280
Are you sure about that, Mr Kyriakou?---What's that?
PN281
Are you sure that Mr Harris said that people would have no financial disadvantage regardless of whether they transferred or took the secondment position or not?---In previous meetings, yes.
PN282
I'll just get the meetings right. So, prior to the meeting where there was a discussion about redeployment where Mr Highland and Mr Harris were in attendance, there were meetings with Mr Harris and Mr Giannikas, is that correct?---Yes. What, building up to - - -
PN283
Yes?---Before we even got any secondment contracts, yes. There were a number of meetings, little meetings, yes.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN284
Yes, where these were discussed. I just want to get an understanding. I just want to make sure I get an appreciation for your understanding of the process. If I could take you to point 15 of your statement, you discuss there issues about legally being unable to transfer without consent and issues like that. Did you speak to Mr Phillips at all in that conversation or any subsequent or previous conversation about the status of your allowances?---On that time?
PN285
No, the question I asked you was did you speak to Mr Harris either then, at any previous discussion or any subsequent discussion about the removal of your allowances?---No, the only time we spoke to the union in regards to the allowances was after the first secondment that was given to us stating that we keep the allowances. Then we were told during that time that if we didn't sign, you will be redeployed and lose those allowances. That's when we spoke to the union delegate at the time in the area and Carl Phillips.
PN286
Can you just confirm that again for me? When were you told that you would be redeployed and lose the allowances?---If we hadn't signed the original one to go to QDS.
PN287
But when were you told that?---Well, during that process and the cut-off period before signing that.
PN288
Was that at the meeting with Mr Highland and Mr Harris or beforehand?---I don't think Mr Highland was there. It would've been George and Murray.
PN289
So, you were told then that if you didn't take up the secondment position, you would be redeployed and lose your allowances, correct?---Yes.
PN290
If I just ask you to look at Mr Harris' statement again and I'll just ask you to have a look at the attachments, in particular, the attachment marked D, which is a letter from Mr Phillips to Mr Harris CC to Mr Scofield and Mr Barclay, and there's a further attachment from Mr Harris in response to Mr Phillips at attachment E. Could I ask you to have a look at those letters and familiarise yourself with the contents?---So, D and E, was it?
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN291
Yes?---Do you want me to read through E as well? Do I go through them both?
PN292
Go through them both. You might want to read E. E, I think, will be of some advantage to you?---Yes.
PN293
Were you aware or did you ever at any stage see either of those pieces of correspondence?---No, I don't recall seeing these. Just reading through that, I do recall it coming in through a briefing from our union delegate and union officials at the time.
PN294
What did your union delegate and union official tell you during those briefings?---Well, basically, going by this D, we asked a number of questions and we got answers back.
PN295
Sorry, I don't mean to cut you off. But I just wondered, have you ever seen the response to Mr Phillips from Mr Harris, which is attachment E that you've just read?---No.
PN296
You've read that correspondence from Mr Harris?---E, yes.
PN297
Was Mr Harris' response advised to you by your delegate and your union official during those briefings?---I can't remember it being the official, but our union delegate, I remember we were having a meeting with our union delegate. Obviously, he would've been in contact with Carl Phillips and we did get some briefing similar to what I've just read.
PN298
Can I take you to point 5 of attachment E? I'll read it out for you:
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN299
Our commitment to avoid financial disadvantage was in reference to an employee's base wage. We committed early on to provide a decision on the loss of allowances, such as production examiner and leading hand. That decision was that such allowances be paid out as a lump sum equal to six months' payment of the allowance. This is consistent with current Qantas practice.
PN300
I don't make any reference to the stuff about shift penalties, because that's not an issue between us much - at least, I think it is. Did your union delegate explain to you in these briefings that part of the response from Mr Harris?---Yes, which is why we didn't sign our redeployment letters, because we did not agree for us losing our allowances and for the fact we didn't need to be redeployed, since we already belonged in the company.
PN301
So, what you're saying is you didn't sign the redeployment letter because you knew or you understood that by not taking a secondment with QDS and by potentially redeploying to another part of Qantas engine maintenance, you would lose the allowances?---If I signed, yes, you're talking about the redeployment letter?
PN302
Yes?---If I had signed and wholly agreed with it, by signing it, yes.
PN303
But do you agree that you were given a choice to take a secondment role at Mascot on the work that you had previously performed?---You're saying secondment role, okay.
PN304
Yes?---Now, I do not agree the way the company wanted to second us. Now, I would like to have been seconded the same way as other people were.
PN305
Mr Kyriakou, the question I want to ask you is this. Do you agree that you were given a choice between taking a secondment position with QDS whilst still employed by Qantas? Do you agree?---Per previous practice, no.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN306
But do you agree that you were provided with a letter offering you a secondment role?---You keep saying secondment, but to me this was a contract. Now, I did not. The answer's no, I do not agree.
PN307
So, you don't agree that any of these letters that are attached to your statement were provided to you, is that what you're saying?---No, no, it is provided but what I don't agree is that the way the secondment was to be for us.
PN308
So, what you're saying is you didn't agree with the process?---Yes.
PN309
But is it fair to say that you do agree that regardless of process, you were provided with a choice?---There was a choice.
PN310
Thank you, that's fine. Can I just ask you one final question about that matter at the moment? Do you agree that you were in communication with your delegate?---Are we talking now about the last redeployment?
PN311
Yes, around this process, around the allowances, around the redeployment issue. Do you agree that you were talking to your delegate about this matter?---Yes.
PN312
Were you talking to your union representative or official about this matter?---Yes.
PN313
Were you talking to your managers about this matter?---Definitely.
PN314
I just want to take you to point 18 of your statement, if you wouldn't mind. You make reference to some comments made by Mr Highland. I just want you to read those. That was a meeting that Mr Highland and Mr Harris spoke at, is that correct?---That was the meeting we were given the redeployment letters, yes.
PN315
How many people were in that meeting?---I couldn't be exact but I'd say there was about 16, maybe 18. Say 16 to 20. Basically, all the people that were going to be redeployed.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN316
How big was the room? Where did you do it? How big was the room?---I think it was up where the plane is - MF-3, is it?
PN317
MB-3?---Yes, MB-3, yes.
PN318
Is it as big as this court room?---Maybe a little bit bigger.
PN319
I mean, I know how big MB-3 is?---Yes, yes.
PN320
But the Commissioner hasn't had the pleasure of being to MB-3 so he just needs to have that explained. Was it a fairly loud meeting?---Yes, a little bit heated, if that's what you're getting at.
PN321
What you say at point 18 is that Mr Highland made a remark that said:
PN322
An administrative decision which happened at the flick of a switch.
PN323
?---Yes.
PN324
Are you fairly comfortable with that?---Yes.
PN325
You're certain he said that?---Yes.
PN326
You can remember that from that time?---I can remember that and he has said it in other meetings, at union delegate meetings which one of those people is present here today.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN327
So, he said the exact words of:
PN328
An administrative decision which happened at the flick of a switch -
PN329
at other meetings?---Yes, and one of those people is here today. I can tell you his name if you want.
PN330
No, that's okay. I have a choice of two and I can imagine which one it may be, seeing he was a delegate at the time. Now, can I take you again to point 19 of your statement and just ask you to read that?---Yes.
PN331
You say once again in that meeting that Mr Highland said:
PN332
You will have a black mark against your name.
PN333
?---Yes.
PN334
Are you certain he said that?---I heard it, as did the rest of the people in that room, and especially the person who asked the question, which was not me. But the answer from Dave Highland was that.
PN335
Was Mr Harris at that meeting?---Yes.
PN336
Can I ask you to look at Mr Highland's statement?---Yes.
PN337
Can I ask you to look at point 12 of Mr Highland's statement?---Yes.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN338
I would ask you again while you're looking at his statement to look at point 15. It's about the same meeting, as you said, which was a bit heated. I ask you to look at particularly point 12. I only want you to look at 15 to familiarise yourself with it. Have you read point 12 before?---No, I'll do it now.
PN339
I'll let you read point 12 and then we'll go to 15. Have you finished with point 12, Mr Kyriakou?---Yes.
PN340
What do you say about that? What do you say about Mr Highland's recollection of that meeting? Did Mr Highland say that?---Yes, he said part of it.
PN341
Which part did he say?---No, no, he said about where it's saying to clarify, but he did say that statement as well, which happened at the flick of a switch.
PN342
So, you're saying Mr Highland said something that he says he didn't say, is that correct?---No, what I'm saying is he said something in front of about 16 people, maybe 20.
PN343
He claims he did not say that?---Okay, he can claim what he likes, but I'm just saying to you what he said in front of 16 or 18 people.
PN344
So, you think Mr Highland is telling the truth?---Me personally, no, I don't think so, because he did say that and for what he says there, employees were confused as to their status of employment, well, no one was confused because we all know where we were.
PN345
So, no one was confused?---No.
PN346
Good. Go to point 15. Just have a look at your statement at point 15 and read it, please?---Yes.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN347
So, you've read that?---Yes.
PN348
I'll ask you the same question. Do you recall Mr Highland saying that, what is said there in italics?---Yes, he said that, including the statement of having a black mark against our name.
PN349
So, he said:
PN350
Look, if you don't want to sign it, it doesn't matter. We will just mark the document as refuse to sign and file that as a record that we told you about your employment.
PN351
You say he said that?---Yes, he said that.
PN352
Then he said:
PN353
But if you don't, you'll have a black mark against your name.
PN354
?---Yes.
PN355
That's a bit of a contradiction, isn't it? Would you say that Mr Highland was telling the truth in his statement?---No, what I'm saying is as you're aware with the meeting, there were several questions. One of the questions that was asked was if we didn't sign and he did say that there would be a black mark against your name.
PN356
You're certain of that?---Yes, as are the rest.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN357
I'm asking you, Mr Kyriakou?---Yes, I'm definitely certain.
PN358
The others aren't as bold as you to come up here and give evidence. Can I take you to - - -?---Should I take that personally, then?
PN359
No, Mr Kyriakou, it was a compliment to you?---Yes, I'm sure it was.
PN360
Can I take you to point 20 of your statement? Actually no, don't worry about that, I think you've answered that sufficiently. Now, you say that you were redeployed in the non destructive testing area?---I haven't read it yet.
PN361
No, don't worry about point 20, I've asked you that question. I don't need to ask you again?---All right.
PN362
You say you were redeployed in the non destructive testing area. Now for both my benefit and the benefit of the Commission, could you please explain to us what is the work that you perform in that area, and can you explain the process to the Commission of what occurs once the engine enters into that area? In a sense, has it already been fixed or has it been maintained, just so we get an idea of the work that you perform?---In the redeployed area, right?
PN363
In the non destructive testing area?---Yes, well, basically, the engine is pulled down earlier on. Parts come through there individually. They go through a process of NDT, which is basically just to be, cut a long story short, you get the part, you hang it up, you spray some Penetrin on it, it gets cleaned, washed, heated in the oven and then you spray a developer which, once it goes in the dark room, it shows you where a part is cracked or if not cracked, it won't come up, basically. That's basically it, and every part gets done like that. That's about it.
PN364
What happens if you find a crack?---You just mark it and send it back to the repairs.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN365
What would happen if - and by all means, this is in no way saying that you would do this so please don't take this the wrong way - what would happen in the event that there was a crack that you failed to see or somebody failed to see, and then that part was then approved? What would happen on that occasion?---Like, you're saying if a part comes through and you missed a crack?
PN366
Yes?---Depending on what part it is, you know, it can be more critical than the other.
PN367
Once it has been through that non destructive testing process, where does the part go?---It goes through the repair channel until it's made serviceable.
PN368
So, if you missed the crack at that stage, through the non destructive testing process, would it be discovered again?---It could be through survey.
PN369
So, could you please explain this to me because once again, I'm not as familiar as you are, in effect, you're checking the work that has been done through the maintenance of the engine previously, is that correct?---What's this now?
PN370
Well, you're through the non destructive testing area - and you must bear with me because I'm not as familiar with this as you are. You are checking to see that the work has been completed effectively by those who have worked on it prior to coming to the non destructive testing area, is that correct?---So, yes, when it comes into NDT?
PN371
Yes?---Well, basically, when it comes to NDT it has come through a clean section so you just go through the process of carrying out the NDT, basically. Once you find something, it's marked. If you don't find anything, it just goes through to the next cost centre. Like, there's no specific on job training that needs to be carried out over, like, a four or five year period to do the job. That's what I'm saying.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN372
I will ask you a question about that a bit later on. Do you perform any production examiner or leading hand duties in the non destructive testing area?---No.
PN373
When you transferred to the non destructive testing area, were you still on the same level in the classification structure?---Yes.
PN374
What level was that?---In the old system it was still a grade 4 at the time.
PN375
Is that a grade 4, year 4?---Yes, which is, I think, level 11 now, is it, or something like that?
PN376
Are you now a level 11?---Yes.
PN377
The work that you're currently performing, is that work that has to be undertaken by a qualified tradesman?---No.
PN378
So, a qualified tradesman doesn't need to undertake this work?---To do the work?
PN379
Yes?---You don't need to be a qualified tradesman to do NDT, no. Most people that go through there within six months do a familiarisation NDT course and then obtain a NDT number which allows them to carry out the work.
PN380
Are you still employed as an aircraft maintenance engineer?---Yes.
PN381
At point 25 of your statement you refer to employees maintaining allowances where they should not?---Yes.
PN382
Can you be more specific?---In what way?
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN383
Well, who, where? You've made a statement here that says:
PN384
I'm aware that many -
PN385
I think it should read many as opposed to may:
PN386
within Qantas who no longer perform leading hand and production examiner's duties still receive these allowances that have not been ear-marked for removal. There are three such employees in the cleaning and blasting section, about six such employees in the engine line and modules.
PN387
Who are they?---Who are they?
PN388
Yes?---Well, I don't need to mention people's names, okay.
PN389
But, Mr Kyriakou - - -?---I am specifying - - -
PN390
Mr Kyriakou, I'll ask you the question and you can answer it. You are making a statement, and it's quite an important statement, where you say that many employees within Qantas who no longer perform leading hand and production examiner's duties still receive these allowances?---Yes.
PN391
How many is many?---How many?
PN392
Is it 20, 30, five, six? What do you say is many?---Well, I'm specifying in that last paragraph.
PN393
So, you say many is nine?---To my knowledge.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN394
So, you say many is nine?---Possibly - - -
PN395
No, you're saying many is nine?---Yes, I was going to finish, possibly more.
PN396
Who are these employees? You make a claim. Now, I need to know who they are because you may be right and you may be wrong?---Well, I don't think I should be - - -
PN397
Mr Kyriakou, you have made a statement?---Yes.
PN398
That statement says that there are employees who receive the allowances. They could be anybody. You could be incorrect. We could be wrong. But you have made a statement and I am asking you a question, who are they?---Well, as I said to you, I don't think I should be mentioning names.
PN399
Well, is it anybody?
PN400
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Commissioner, I must object. Mr Kyriakou has made it clear that he doesn't wish to name the concerned employees.
PN401
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Mills, I don't think it's necessary for you to press the thing, but let me just say, paragraph 25 is not going to take us very far without knowing who they are. Mr Mills' point is correct. I understand why Mr Kyriakou is reluctant to put other people in Qantas' guns. Well, so be it, but that's the difficulty. All I have is that Mr Kyriakou says six people are getting the allowance. We know nothing of the people, we know nothing of their circumstances. We don't know whether they're actually getting it within the six month period. We know nothing about that. I'm not prepared to allow Mr Kyriakou to be pressed on the issue but you've made your point, Mr Mills.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN402
MR MILLS: I won't press Mr Kyriakou any more. I appreciate his position and I appreciate your comments. Can I just take you to your statement in reply?---Yes.
PN403
You say there in reply to Mr Harris' paragraph 10, so just make you look at Mr Harris' paragraph as well so you know where I'm going to take you?---Paragraph 10, yes.
PN404
Can I also ask you to read point 13 of your earlier statement? So, you need to have three statements, in effect, your statement in response, your earlier statement and Mr Harris'. So, point 13 of your earlier statement?---Yes.
PN405
In your earlier statement, I'll just take you to the second sentence in that particular statement that you're making:
PN406
Murray Harris stated on several occasions to staff that we had not been transferred, but people were asked to express their interest in transferring to QDS.
PN407
Then, obviously, the issue about the financial disadvantage, which I'm not pressing at the moment. So, on one hand in your earlier statement you say he said that you had not been transferred, and then after seeing Mr Harris' statement, in response you say on several occasions that Mr Harris stated you were no longer employed by Qantas but were now employed by QDS?---That's what he said, yes.
PN408
But which statement of yours is correct, because on the one hand in your first one you say he told you you had not been transferred, but then when you've seen Mr Harris' statement in response, you say that he said you were no longer employed by Qantas? Which one is correct?---In the meetings we had where he kept on telling us - like, people were asking about pay slip changes and addresses and things like that. He kept on emphasising that we work for QDS. Now, when he said QDS, early in the piece we did not know it as a subsidiary company, okay. It was just a - - -
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN409
Which point do you rely on? Do you rely on point 13 where you say that he said you hadn't been transferred to QDS, or do you rely on point 3 of your second statement where you say he said you were no longer employed by Qantas?---No, I rely on the new statement.
PN410
So, your new statement?---Yes.
PN411
After you've seen Mr Harris' comments?---No, not necessarily, just pointing out a direct comment.
PN412
A bit inconsistent, do you think?---Not really.
PN413
Okay. I just want to take you back to this. You said you now rely on your statement in reply at point 3, correct? Earlier on, I asked you a question about point 13 of your statement where I asked you to refer to meetings you had with Mr Harris and Mr Giannikas. My recollection then was that you said you understood you were never an employee of QDS. Is that correct?---That's what I understood, yes. It doesn't matter what I was told by Murray Harris.
PN414
So, on the one hand you're saying that you understood you weren't an employee of QDS - - -?---Yes, because I - - -
PN415
- - - and in your first statement you say that Mr Harris told you you hadn't been transferred to QDS, and then you now say that he did say that you were employed by QDS. What's the correct answer, Mr Kyriakou?---The correct answer is what I've said in the statement, and that is that - - -
PN416
Which statement?---The later statement. Now, in that first statement it's correct too. Now, it might not come out that way, but they're just sort of like - they could be based on different meetings. Now, I'm just saying - - -
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN417
Mr Kyriakou, can I take you to point 4 of your statement in reply?---Yes.
PN418
Actually, no, I won't press that. I think we've clarified that particular point. Your recollection is that at some meetings Mr Harris told you you would not be financially disadvantaged regardless of - - -?---At all the meetings up until we got the redeployment.
PN419
I'll come back to that. So, you say at all the meetings up until you were redeployed, Mr Harris said you would not be financially disadvantaged?---Yes, from about April onwards, yes.
PN420
You say the meeting where he was with Mr Highland, he did say that you might be financially disadvantaged, is that correct?---Yes.
PN421
But I asked you an earlier question where you said that you had meetings with Mr Harris and Mr Giannikas where you discussed the allowances. Is that correct?---Before we received this, yes.
PN422
Yes, before the meeting with Mr Highland and Mr Harris, you had meetings with Mr Giannikas and Mr Harris about the allowances, is that correct?---Yes, that was between receiving the first secondment and receiving the redeployment, there were a few meetings between there, yes.
PN423
My recollection of your answer is that you said then that Mr Giannikas and Mr Harris told you that you would lose your allowances if you did not take up the secondment. Is that correct?---If we did not take up the 707, yes.
PN424
So, the first time you heard that you were potentially going to lose your allowances was not at that meeting with Mr Highland and Mr Harris, was it?---The first, no.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN425
Mr Kyriakou, isn't it correct that you were always an employee of Qantas?---Yes.
PN426
Isn't it also correct that you were offered the opportunity to take up a secondment with Qantas at Mascot?---With Qantas at Mascot?
PN427
Sorry, QDS, my apologies?---Yes.
PN428
Isn't it correct, from your own statement and also the answers you've just given me, that you were advised by Mr Harris, your delegate and your union official, possibly through your delegate, that you would maintain your allowances for six months and then they would be removed if you chose to stay with Qantas engine maintenance?---When we received the redeployment letters, when we were told, yes.
PN429
Isn't it also correct, Mr Kyriakou, that you have not performed any work as a production examiner or a leading hand since you worked in the destructive testing area?---Performed the work?
PN430
Yes, have not been required to perform the work of a production examiner or a leading hand since you have been in that area?---I wasn't given a chance, no.
PN431
Isn't it also correct, Mr Kyriakou, that you are still the same level that you were on prior to your redeployment into the non destructive testing area?---Yes.
PN432
Finally, the level you are now on, is that the highest level available to an employee of your qualification and skill?---Yes.
PN433
That's with the exception of successfully obtaining a quota position?---Yes.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU XXN MR MILLS
PN434
I have no further questions.
PN435
PN436
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Mr Kyriakou, could I take you to appendix B to your statement? This is the letter from Mr Giannikas relating to the expression of interest in relocating to QDS engine and component maintenance at Bankstown, that's correct?---Yes.
PN437
Were you ever informed by Mr Giannikas what would occur if you did not express an interest in transferring to QDS at Bankstown?---If we did not transfer to Bankstown?
PN438
Yes?---Well, you stay at Qantas.
PN439
Stay at Qantas?---Yes.
PN440
Were you told what sort of work you would be doing?---At the time this came out, we were told we would stay at Qantas and do the work that we're doing.
PN441
What's your understanding of a secondment?---Well, as I said previously, like, I've been there nearly 15 years and I've seen secondments go through the place. My understanding of a secondment is you go to a specific area to cover for someone's duties while they're absent or something and for a long term. It could be six months, it could be 12 months. In that case, when a secondment's done, it's just done, like I said, formally between two managers, you know, you're going from this area to this area for this amount of time and on completion you will come back to your area with the same level of pay and allowances and whatever. It's just signed and that's it.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU RXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN442
Are you aware that there's a Qantas policy relating to secondment?---Yes.
PN443
At that time when all this was being discussed, the secondment, were you given a copy of that policy?---No.
PN444
Now, could I take you to appendix C, which is a letter from Murray Harris to yourself entitled, "Confirmation of Secondment to Qantas Defence Services Pty Ltd"?---Yes.
PN445
What was your understanding of what would occur to your employment if you signed this document?---My understanding to this was we're going from Qantas Airways Ltd to QDS Pty Ltd, which at the time I wasn't happy in signing another contract of employment, basically.
PN446
Was it explained to you what would occur if you didn't sign this document?---Not when we received this one initially.
PN447
So, you were never told that if you don't sign this document, you would be working in another area?---No, not initially. It came on, like, about a week after when people did not start handing these in.
PN448
So, you refused to sign this document?---Yes.
PN449
On the basis of advice from the union?---On the basis of advice of the union and also the fact that we did not see the purpose in signing another contract when we really belong to Qantas and ETONS, and the fact that in order for us to keep working on our engines - the 707 department, which is the aircraft side of where this engine belongs to and where this engine was going to go to, the 707 staff did not have to sign these secondment contracts to continue doing their work.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU RXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN450
So, you just wanted to continue doing the work you were doing?---We said it all along, all we wanted to do was to stay there and work as we were doing day in day out, and all they had to do was just say okay, stay there and do the work. Now, the supervisor who was looking after us at the time, he was in the same situation and he's still there and he did not have to sign one of these. He has been redeployed into, for example, the compressor section, and the compressor section has put him, like, on loan, for example, to look after the QDS staff, the three staff of the JT-3s. Now, that's all we wanted. Like, fair enough, they could've redeployed us into all the other areas that they did, but they could've still maintained us working there and had us on a secondment from that area. Simple. The way they've treated this supervisor, they could've done the same with us.
PN451
Can I take you to appendix D to your statement?---Yes.
PN452
That's a letter to yourself from David Highland entitled, "Redeployment to Engine and Component Maintenance"?---Yes.
PN453
Can I just ask you to go to approximately halfway down the page? It's the second paragraph which begins:
PN454
The terms and conditions of your redeployment -
PN455
The second sentence reads, and I quote:
PN456
This letter replaces any previous letter of appointment.
PN457
What was your understanding of that sentence?---Sorry, hold on. Sorry, what page are you on?
PN458
Appendix D, the front page, the heading is, "Redeployment to Engine and Component Maintenance." Then there are a series of department, location, staff and other identification. Then there's another paragraph?---The terms and conditions?
**** JIM KYRIAKOU RXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN459
Yes:
PN460
The terms and conditions of your redeployment are set out below.
PN461
The next sentence:
PN462
This letter replaces any previous letter of appointment.
PN463
What was your understanding of the operation of that sentence?---My understanding of that, basically, was it replaces my previous letter of appointment. Now, the only appointment letter I've ever had was in January '89 when I got appointed as an apprentice aircraft maintenance engineer.
PN464
So, it was your view that this was a new contract of employment?---Yes, yes.
PN465
You refused to sign?---I refused to sign, yes.
PN466
MR MILLS: Commissioner, I know it's the Commission, I know the rules of evidence are a little bit less flexible, but my friend might try and be a little bit less leading in the questions he asks.
PN467
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, just keep that in mind, Mr Thistlethwaite. Proceed.
PN468
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Yes, I will, Commissioner. I only say that it's well established that the rules of evidence don't apply in the Commission.
PN469
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I know that, but we still want answers that have some spontaneity to them.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU RXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN470
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Why did you refuse to sign the redeployment?---One, because on the previous one we maintained our allowances and on this one, for redeployment, we were told we were going to lose our allowances. And the fact the area where I myself was being redeployed to had nothing to do with the work I'd been doing for the 12 years before that.
PN471
Were you informed what that area would be?---On this letter, yes.
PN472
Can you tell us where it says that?---Where it says commencement date over the page.
PN473
Up to your redeployment you were employed to work on JT-3 engines, that's correct?---Yes.
PN474
How long had you previously worked on those engines?---Nine years.
PN475
Nine years?---Nine and a half.
PN476
Had you worked on any other engines during that period?---Yes, I worked on all Qantas engines during my apprenticeship.
PN477
But during the nine years previous to your redeployment, were you just working on JT-3 engines?---Yes.
PN478
No other engines?---No.
PN479
That work was removed to QDS, was it?---Yes.
PN480
Prior to that removal of that work, were you informed that your job would be changing?---On the day we received this, this redeployment.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU RXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN481
So, the date you received this letter - - -?---Was the day I found out, not only myself, but every person's redeployment letter would have a different section there where they would be redeployed to on 6 August.
PN482
So, this was the first time you had been informed that you would be working in non destructive testing?---Yes.
PN483
How many other people work in non destructive testing on your shift?---There were another five.
PN484
Are any of them aircraft maintenance engineers?---There was one on the other shift who is a Qantas - - -
PN485
But not on your shift?---No, no.
PN486
What were the other employees? Are they tradesmen?---Externally post trade, if that's what you want to call it. None of them with aircraft trade, no.
PN487
They were non aircraft?---Non aircraft.
PN488
Were any of them tradesman's assistants?---Yes.
PN489
You don't need a trade certificate, in your belief, to perform that task?---No, it's obvious, because there are people there doing that function without a trade certificate.
PN490
Nothing further.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU RXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN491
PN492
MR AYRES: Mr Mills, when he was cross-examining you, Mr Kyriakou, asked you whether or not the company presented you with a choice, and I think he was referring to part 17 of your statement. What was the choice that you and employees in your area were presented with?---The choice of the secondment?
PN493
Yes?---Well, staff were either to choose to go to the Bankstown facility, especially the T-56 area working guys, because that's the main function that was moving up there. Whoever didn't want to go to Bankstown had the choice to go to the 707 managed unit, and the people who didn't choose either one of those two had the choice of being redeployed. There was a fourth group who if they didn't choose any of the three, were just going to go in the group to be redeployed.
PN494
If you or other employees in your position had signed the letter of secondment, what would have been the effect of that letter, to your understanding? If you had signed the letter of secondment, what would have been the effect, to your belief?---If I had signed, that to my belief would've been like signing another contract with the company.
PN495
Could it have required you to work in Mascot?---It could've required me to work at Mascot, but at the same time, you belong to QDS for that two year period. So, who's to say that they couldn't tell you to go to Richmond, to Amberley, to anywhere that's to do with the QDS?
PN496
In Qantas when other employees in a similar position to you have been seconded, has it been a common practice at Qantas to require people to sign letters of secondment?---A single letter of secondment, yes. No secondment contract with terms and conditions like the one that was offered to us to sign.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU RXN MR AYRES
PN497
Why do you think you have lost the allowances, the leading hand allowance and the production examiner allowance?---I think, basically, and this is my point of view, and it may share with some of the other guys, but we believe that - sorry, I believe that I have lost the allowances because maybe the company thought that by me not signing this to go ahead with the QDS - the company was after numbers at the time to start the QDS facility and they didn't have enough numbers, and in some cases they turned around and certain people in the area had their letters changed in regards to the front page to do with the org unit and things like that. They did get some more numbers and, basically, because we didn't sign, I believe that it was sort of like a form of punishment in the sense of that word because in the past, people who have lost PE and leading hand allowances have been able to maintain that in their new position and not performing as a PE or leading hand. In some cases it's happened for extensive periods, like up to five years.
PN498
Can I take you to paragraph 6 of your original statement to the Commission? It's the second page of your first witness statement?---Yes.
PN499
Prior to June 1997, were you paid the leading hand allowance?---Not on a permanent, no, because I did do it, as I mentioned earlier, for a while as an acting leading hand. That's the only time I got paid that allowance.
PN500
When were you paid the acting leading hand allowance?---Before then I'd done it for six months, 12 months before that on and off. Like, whenever the current leading hand was off on leave or absent or whatever, I filled in and did that role.
PN501
So, were you paid the allowance when you were not required to perform the function of the leading hand prior to June 1997?---No.
PN502
You say in your statement on 28 July 1997 you were appointed to that position?---Yes.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU RXN MR AYRES
PN503
After that time, were you always paid the allowance?---Always, because I was appointed to that position through an interview process and through the procedure of a Qantas vacancy form.
PN504
So, the position was advertised?---Yes, advertised.
PN505
You applied for it?---And I applied for it, yes.
PN506
After you were appointed to that position, were you paid the allowance when you were on sick leave?---Yes.
PN507
And annual leave?---Yes.
PN508
And long service leave?---Yes.
PN509
You obviously weren't carrying out the functions of a leading hand at that time?---No.
PN510
I'm just trying to phrase this question properly, Commissioner. Was it your understanding that the reason you were paid that allowance for all purposes and periods of leave was either 1, that it was a position that you had been appointed to, or 2, an allowance that could be applied or removed at the discretion of the company?
PN511
MR MILLS: Commissioner, can I just object?
PN512
MR AYRES: I did give him an alternative.
**** JIM KYRIAKOU RXN MR AYRES
PN513
MR MILLS: Can I object? Once again, Mr Ayres is effectively giving Mr Kyriakou an answer. I further object on the basis that it could be argued, and I would object on the basis that he is, in effect, introducing or putting a question to Mr Kyriakou that does not come out of my cross-examination. Therefore, I will not have an opportunity to examine Mr Kyriakou on that particular point.
PN514
MR AYRES: If I can just say, Commissioner, I am trying to phrase the question properly, and I appreciate Mr Mills' assistance with that, but Mr Mills did examine Mr Kyriakou in relation to his statement in terms of paragraphs 5 and 6. They do go to his appointment to the position of leading hand and his appointment to the position of production examiner.
PN515
THE COMMISSIONER: I'll allow you to put the question but I don't think it should be led. In other words, don't give him an answer or suggest how he should tailor it.
PN516
MR AYRES: I might leave that, then. No further questions, Commissioner.
PN517
PN518
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Yes, it is, Commissioner.
PN519
MR MILLS: Commissioner, my witnesses have arrived. If we were to take the luncheon adjournment, I could talk to them over lunch, if that's okay.
PN520
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, we'll have the luncheon adjournment now. We'll resume at 1.30pm.
LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.35pm]
RESUMES [1.44pm]
PN521
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Mills?
PN522
MR MILLS: Thank you, Commissioner. I don't want to spend too much time discussing the company's position at this stage. I think the witness evidence will speak for itself. What we would simply say is that consistent with the submissions that were filed with the Commission, we say that this application should be dismissed by the Commission on the basis that the employees were advised of their choices to take a seconded position with Qantas Defence Services on the same terms and conditions under which they were engaged. Employees were advised if they chose not to accept the secondment to QDS, they would lose their allowances after six months of salary maintenance.
PN523
Employees who remained working in the company's engine maintenance division at Mascot and no longer perform the work of leading hands or production examiners do not receive the allowances. We would also say that the evidence that will be brought before you will also show that these employees are working in engine maintenance at Qantas and working in roles that are important and crucial parts of the engine maintenance process. I would like to call our first witness, Mr Murray Harris.
PN524
MR MILLS: Mr Harris, could you state your full name and title for the Commission, please?---Murray Atwell Harris, general manager of Qantas Defence Services engine and component maintenance.
PN525
Mr Harris, have you made a statement for the purpose of these proceedings?---I have.
PN526
Do you have a copy of that statement?---I have.
PN527
I actually might show you this one. Could the witness be shown and retain for the moment this statement which was filed with the Commission? Mr Harris, could you turn to the back of your statement? Is that a true and correct copy of your signature?---It is.
PN528
We seek to tender that statement for the purpose of these proceedings.
PN529
THE COMMISSIONER: I think I mixed up Mr Kyriakou's documents. Just remind me, Mr Mills, there's attachment B, C?
PN530
MR MILLS: To Mr Harris' there's attachment A, B, C, D, E - - -
PN531
THE COMMISSIONER: E is the - - -
PN532
MR MILLS: E is the response by Mr Harris.
PN533
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, D and E are the ones. Mr Harris' statement is the one that goes to 39 paragraphs?
**** MURRAY HARRIS XN MR MILLS
PN534
MR MILLS: Yes, 39.
PN535
PN536
MR MILLS: Could the witness be shown a copy of the supplementary statement of Mr Kyriakou? Could I take you to point 3 of that statement and could you read that statement for me, please?---Out loud?
PN537
No, just to yourself?---Yes.
PN538
What do you say to that statement?---What I did say to employees who were affected by this matter was that they at all times would remain as Qantas employees and be employed by Qantas Airways Ltd and that any QDS coverage was via secondment.
PN539
Can I ask you to read point 4 of this statement to yourself? What do you say to that?---What I was able to do was assure those employees that would remain under my management control that they would not be financially disadvantaged. I couldn't speak on behalf of other employees who were covered by other parts of the business.
PN540
In this room there are three individuals who are in a sense the subject of these proceedings. Were those employees under your control?---Not after they made the decision not to either be seconded to QDS at Bankstown or remain at Mascot under secondment, no.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XN MR MILLS
PN541
How many meetings did you have to discuss the issue of the removal of allowances and the maintenance of those allowances?---The exact number I'm not sure, although I commenced with the company in July of 2000 and we commenced the restructuring activities fairly soon after and we conducted regular meetings right up until the point of relocating on 5 August 2001. So, on average we probably met at least fortnightly to discuss the issues.
PN542
What did you say about the allowances when asked in those meetings?---Well, we generally explained that people who were willing to relocate to Bankstown would, obviously, continue to attract allowances because they'd continue to do the work that was covered by those allowances. Those that elected to stay at Mascot and be seconded to QDS would also receive the allowances, as they would also do the work that the allowances attracted. For those people who were to be redeployed, the allowances would be paid out in accordance with policy and practice of that time, which was in that case six months.
PN543
Did you discuss the issue of the allowances with any of the unions?---Yes, I did, predominantly Mr Phillips from the AWU, as he was the organiser who took the lead on the matter. I did have a couple of meetings with Mr Ayres, although they predominantly revolved around a different classification, which was one planner who was affected.
PN544
Why were the employees provided with letters?---The letters started out as a response to criticism from this group of employees that the company was being less than formal in its discussions and also in response to criticism that there'd been secondments taking place in the past that weren't formalised. So, we had taken that onboard and we had agreed to provide people with a fairly substantial letter that, firstly, gave them some sort of confidence that they weren't being hived off into a different operating company, but also that they understood the conditions of the secondment. So, the secondment letters were really provided in response to employee criticism. At the same time, they gave us an opportunity to be more formal in the process.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XN MR MILLS
PN545
Finally, can you explain for the Commission the evolution, in effect, to the best of your knowledge, of QDS or Qantas Defence Services?---Sure, I can try. QDS was established in November of 1999 in response to a need to separate military business from core airline engineering and maintenance activity. That establishment of QDS Pty Ltd in the first case enabled QDS to respond to an Australian Defence Force tender for C-130 aircraft. Once that tender was bid and eventually won, it then made sense to formalise the QDS structure by taking other military business and adding it to the C-130 program which really kicked the QDS operation off. I joined Qantas in June of 2000 to consolidate existing military business in underneath that structure. Basically, QDS operated inside the core airline engineering and maintenance organisation until a point in time where it was eventually moved out as a separate entity. Even though that was moved out eventually, this group of employees still continued to be employed by Qantas Airways Ltd. It was really a management and financial reporting structure that enabled defence related costs and, ultimately, profitability to be determined outside the core airline activity. That's continued to evolve over the last couple of years and we've now got a number of quite separate and stand alone business units that all plug up into a corporate QDS structure.
PN546
I have no further questions at this stage of the witness.
PN547
PN548
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr Harris, QDS is a separate corporate entity, isn't it?---It's a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas Airways Ltd.
PN549
It's a separate corporate entity?---It is.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN550
Under the corporations law? When was the separate corporate entity established?---November of 1999.
PN551
Could I take you to paragraph 10 of your statement? You state there that:
PN552
In January 2001 certain employees were allocated to the QDS cost centre.
PN553
The "certain employees," are they the employees who are the subject of these proceedings?---Those and others.
PN554
They were allocated to the QDS cost centre?---In actual fact, they were pointed up into a corporate financial structure that is known as a cost centre. It's a six digit number which simply allows tracking of cost and profitability.
PN555
So, who were those employees actually working for?---They were employed by Qantas Airways Ltd under the direction of QDS management.
PN556
So, they were performing work for QDS, in effect?---Well, they're basically providing QDS contract support, correct.
PN557
So, the contracts that they were working on were QDS based contracts?---No, that's incorrect. No, through the evolutionary transition the work which Qantas Airways Ltd had won through contract - the contracts were still retained by Qantas Airways Ltd, QDS just managed those contracts on Qantas' behalf.
PN558
QDS was a separate corporate entity at that time?---Yes, it was.
PN559
Who was directing the employees in their duties at that time?---QDS.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN560
At that time, who was George Giannikas employed by?---Qantas Airways Ltd.
PN561
Could I take you to paragraph 14 of your statement? Midway through that paragraph you state that:
PN562
Further, all employees were told that if they elected not to move to Bankstown or take up the QDS secondment into the QDS managed 707 business unit, they would be employed within the company's engineering and maintenance division.
PN563
Is that correct?---That's correct.
PN564
Did you inform the employees what their job would be in the engineering and maintenance division?---That wasn't one of my responsibilities. I had responsibility for the work which was to move to Bankstown and the work which was retained by QDS. But the allocation of people into Qantas Airways Ltd engineering and maintenance division was David Highland's responsibility.
PN565
So, the work that these employees were formerly doing, work on T-56 and JT-3 engines, that was being removed from Qantas Airways?---No, that's not correct. The JT-3 actually stayed at Qantas Airways Ltd at Mascot. The T-56 was relocated to Bankstown.
PN566
It was relocated to Bankstown?---That's correct.
PN567
It became part of the work that QDS was responsible for?---Correct, although the contract's still with Qantas Airways Ltd.
PN568
But in terms of Qantas employees, that work was being removed from them, wasn't it?---The work that's carried out at Bankstown is still conducted predominantly by Qantas employees. In actual fact, they're all employed by Qantas Airways Ltd.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN569
There are no QDS employees who do that work?---T-56 at Bankstown are we talking?
PN570
Yes?---To the best of my recollection, they're still all Qantas Airways Ltd.
PN571
All the the Qantas employees that do that work are on secondment, aren't they?---Correct.
PN572
Now, at the time the employees were offered a secondment to QDS, were they informed that the work they had previously been performing may no longer be available for them should they refuse that secondment?---Could you restate it, please?
PN573
At the time you offered a secondment, the affected employees, the employees who are the subject of these proceedings, were performing work on particular engines, the JT-3s and the T-56, that's correct?---That's correct.
PN574
Now, if they refused that secondment, what would happen?---They'd be redeployed back inside one of the engineering and maintenance, engine and component maintenance cost centres.
PN575
They weren't informed of what particular work they would be performing in the future in that cost centre?---I believe that was done by Mr Highland.
PN576
So, it wasn't your responsibility at all?---No, it wasn't my responsibility.
PN577
Now, when the secondment of employees from Qantas to QDS occurred, there were a number that were receiving leading hand and production examiner's allowances, weren't there?---There were.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN578
When they were seconded over, they continued to receive those allowances?---Yes, the people that relocated to Bankstown continued to work on T-56 so, obviously, attracted the allowances, and those that stayed with the JT-3 at Mascot also worked on JT-3, so continued to attract the allowances.
PN579
Were there any that didn't continue to receive those allowances?---No one that I had responsibility for.
PN580
Are there any employees of QDS who receive such allowances but don't do the work for which the allowances are derived?---Employees of QDS Pty Ltd?
PN581
Yes, at the moment?---Not to my knowledge.
PN582
There's not?---Not to my knowledge.
PN583
Over the past couple of months, didn't you negotiate with the unions for the maintenance of certain leading hand allowances, despite the fact that they wouldn't be doing that work?---That's leading hands. You asked me about production examiners.
PN584
I'm sorry, I restate the question, leading hands?---Could you restate the full question?
PN585
Are there any employees who continue to receive leading hand allowances?---Yes, there are.
PN586
They may not be doing that work that entitles them to that allowance?---That's correct.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN587
Are you aware of this practice occurring in Qantas?---Look, I believe over the years there's a number of occasions where allowances are retained for business reasons, restructuring reasons.
PN588
Thank you, nothing further.
PN589
PN590
MR AYRES: Mr Harris, if I can refer you to paragraph 14 of your statement? I'll give you a moment to read it. In part 14 you say, essentially, if I can paraphrase you, that it's incorrect that Mr Kyriakou's employment was transferred to QDS?---That's correct.
PN591
Is it correct that at no time his employment was transferred to QDS?---That's correct.
PN592
For the benefit of the Commission as well, can I just hand up - and is that the case for all of the affected employees the subject of this - - -?---That's correct.
PN593
MR MILLS: I don't want to necessarily object to the question, I just want to clarify the question. Mr Ayres, I think he may have mentioned Mr Kyriakou.
PN594
MR AYRES: I think you're jumping ahead of yourself. Yes, you're jumping ahead of yourself.
PN595
MR MILLS: But he has got Trpkovski here. I just want to make sure he doesn't confuse the witness unnecessarily.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XXN MR AYRES
PN596
MR AYRES: Yes, we'll get there.
PN597
MR MILLS: Well, get it right in the first place.
PN598
MR AYRES: Mr Harris' statement deals with Mr Kyriakou. In terms of the general point, I think I'll just ask this question. The general point is that that group of employees, did any of them transfer to Qantas Defence Services at any time?---No, they did not.
PN599
You'll note, and it's pretty obvious, that the two documents in front of you are pay advices, one for the period ended 2 June 2001 and one for 16 January 2001. You'll note that the second pay advice notice identifies QDS military engines as being the effective cost centre or reporting entity through which Mr Trpkovski's, in this instance, wages are processed, is that right?---That's correct.
PN600
What is the distinction between being an employee of QDS and being, as you say in your statement, allocated to the QDS cost centre for financial reporting reasons? What's the distinction between an employee who has been allocated to Qantas Defence Services and is employed by Qantas Defence Services and an employee who has been allocated to the QDS cost centre for financial reporting reasons?---If you look to the right-hand side of that line that you're referring to on the pay slip, the one which says QDS military engines, you'll see a 032. If you look on the first pay slip and you see military and APU engines you'll see the same 032. That 032 is the cost centre descriptor. It's a three digit number which assigns the cost centre for financial reporting reasons. In the case of establishing the QDS military business, that 032 is fed up through the company finance system, which is known as Flare, into a company reporting cost code which in that case was 202837 from memory, or 873.
PN601
Thank you, Mr Harris, but what's the distinction between an employee who is in the position of being employed by Qantas Defence Services and who has simply been allocated there for financial reporting reasons?---I've tried to explain it. Perhaps rephrase the question so I understand where you're driving.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XXN MR AYRES
PN602
Well, you claim in your statement that these employees have also been employed by Qantas Airways Ltd, that's correct.
PN603
And that any allocation, any change in their reporting relationship doesn't reflect a new employer, is what you claim in your statement?---It doesn't reflect a new employer, that's correct.
PN604
That's right, and that any piece of paper like this or any indication that employees have been given, you say that's just a reflection of a financial reporting relationship?---That's correct.
PN605
How would an employee know the difference?---Because we inform them. We simply held briefing sessions which told them that we were changing the reporting structure and explained why their pay slip would show a different descriptor, if you like, for that 032 cost centre.
PN606
So, in January 2001, did you advise employees that their reporting relationship had changed but that there was no change in their employment relationship?---Yes, yes, several times.
PN607
How did you do that?---Through briefing sessions. We held regular information sessions, my recollection tells me roughly fortnightly, but on some occasions more regularly than that. That was a fairly regular topic of conversation. So, it was reconfirmed on a number of occasions.
PN608
In and around January of 2001?---Actually, before that and after that. So, that topic of conversation lasted a long time.
PN609
Employees who transferred to the 707 business unit, were they required to sign secondment letters in order to maintain their jobs?---For clarity, the people who were restructured as part of the engine business change, yes, they were. The people who worked in the 707 area, nothing changed. There was no restructure. They basically stayed where they were doing the same thing. There was no heavy maintenance restructure at the time.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XXN MR AYRES
PN610
So, what's the distinction?---The people in the engine shop that worked on JT-3 that accepted the secondment to be pointed into the 707 management group did sign the letter of secondment.
PN611
The JT-3 staff, if they had transferred to Bankstown, would they have lost their allowances?---The JT-3 staff actually, after a fairly protracted process, the JT-3 was eventually determined to stay at Mascot. So, the ultimate choice for JT-3 employees was relocate to Bankstown and change product or stay at Mascot working on the same product. Had they stayed at Mascot working on the same product, they wouldn't have lost their allowances. They would've still been doing the same work that they had always done.
PN612
If I can refer you to paragraph 29 of your statement and annexure D, which is Mr Phillips' letter to you - sorry, let me rephrase that. In response to some of the questions that Mr Thistlethwaite raised, he asked you whether you were aware of other employees in similar circumstances who had received allowances and whose circumstances had changed, continued to receive allowances. Is that right?---Correct.
PN613
Can you explain for the benefit of the Commission what red circling means?---Red circling's a practice of maintaining some sort of salary differential over time where that red circle amount's usually not indexed.
PN614
Is that a practice that Qantas adopts sometimes in relation to allowances?---I believe so.
PN615
Are you aware of a practice that Qantas calls green circling?---Not specifically, no.
PN616
What about gold circling, Mr Harris?---Yes, I understand gold circling.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XXN MR AYRES
PN617
Can you provide any examples of employees who are put in the position of being gold circled?---Yes, people are gold circled where there's usually some sort of spill and fill from a population of people where there's some sort of reduction being sought.
PN618
What is the distinction between the circumstances of an employee who is red circled or green circled or gold circled and the group of employees who are the subject of these proceedings?---I'm not sure what green circling is, so I certainly can't speak about it. The difference between red circling and gold circling, it's basically a business determination at the time.
PN619
So, you say that it's totally in Qantas' hands whether that practice is adopted?---Well, to the best of my knowledge. I have to say here I have relatively limited knowledge of how it actually works. I obviously can speak for what I have responsibility for and I'm not familiar with other parts of the business.
PN620
Do you have a copy of Mr Kyriakou's supplementary statement in front of you?---I do.
PN621
In part 4 - this has been the subject of some questions you have been asked - Mr Kyriakou comments on your statement and he maintains in his supplementary statement that you had indicated to employees that nobody would be financially disadvantaged. What do you say to that?---No, I certainly made that commitment to those people who agreed to either relocate to Bankstown or take up the secondments. But I made no such commitment on behalf of employees who would be employed by another part of the business. That was not my responsibility and nor could I speak for that part of the business.
PN622
Mr Kyriakou is quite firm on that point, isn't he, in his statements?---He obviously has his own view.
PN623
I mean, it's pretty crucial to this matter, isn't it?---I don't disagree.
**** MURRAY HARRIS XXN MR AYRES
PN624
No further questions, Commissioner.
PN625
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Mills?
PN626
MR MILLS: No re-examination.
PN627
PN628
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ayres, we weren't doing anything with those two bits of paper?
PN629
MR AYRES: May I tender those, Commissioner?
PN630
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN631
MR MILLS: I was going to ask Mr Ayres, but I was quite comfortable with the answers Mr Harris gave, so that's fine, we can tender them.
PN632
PN633
MR MILLS: I would like to call my next witness, Mr Highland, but could I just have a five minute adjournment?
PN634
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [2.18pm]
RESUMES [2.23pm]
PN635
PN636
MR MILLS: Mr Highland, have you got a copy of your witness statement?---Yes, I do.
PN637
I should ask you the first question I wanted to ask you, which was could you state your full name and position for the Commission, please?---David John Highland. I'm the general manager engine maintenance at Qantas Airways.
PN638
Have you got a copy of your statement?---Yes, I do.
PN639
I might provide the witness with the Commission's sealed copy. Mr Highland, could you just turn to the back of the statement before you get to the appendices? Is that a true and correct copy of your signature?---Yes, I believe it is.
PN640
We would seek to tender the statement.
PN641
PN642
MR MILLS: I wanted to just provide the witness with a copy of the supplementary statement of Mr Kyriakou. Mr Highland, could I ask you to go to paragraph 10 of Mr Kyriakou's supplementary statement? Could I ask you to read that paragraph and comment on that paragraph?---Yes. You want me to comment?
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XN MR MILLS
PN643
Yes, if you wouldn't mind, for the Commission?---I guess I'd reject that non destructive testing was de-skilling of the classification that Jim carried out. Non destructive testing is a critical part of the engine maintenance process. The process as described in this paragraph 10 is reasonably accurate in that it involves cleaning, spraying and identifying cracks in parts. Very clearly, the structural integrity of engine parts is a critical part of any overhaul process or the identification thereof. The comment about, "I was the only aircraft maintenance engineer working in this section," I don't believe that's correct. There are five other aircraft mechanics working in that section. In fact, Jim doesn't actually work in that section anymore, he works in gearboxes and he is involved in the assembly and dissembly of big engine gearboxes, 747, 767 engine gearboxes, carrying out those similar duties, assembly dissembly. So, my understanding is that he moved out of that NDT section towards the end of last year.
PN644
You say he works in gearboxes. I'll make sure I ask you the question correctly. What is the qualification required for an employee to work in the gearbox section at Qantas?---An aircraft mechanic, AM or AME.
PN645
I just want to get a copy of the draft order. I seem to have misplaced mine. Could I ask the witness to be provided with a copy of this? Now, Mr Highland, at paragraph 1 of that order there's reference made to a number of Qantas employees or former employees who are being represented by the union during these proceedings. I don't have a copy of the order anymore but, Mr Highland, what I would ask you to do is could you please advise the Commission where those employees are now currently employed or where they were employed prior to their departure, and what qualification they require to undertake those tasks?---Well, in most areas within engine maintenance, aircraft mechanical or aircraft maintenance engineer. We do have maintenance assistants carrying out some blasting functions and some cleaning functions, certainly, as we do with planners in other roles. These particular employees that are listed in paragraph 1, Jim works in the gearbox section as I said, John Barclay works in our engine line area which is the assembly and dissembly of the big engines, the big 747, 767 engines, Chris Trpkovski works in our turbine cell which is the assembly - well, my understanding is he's involved in the dissembly and the survey of the hot section of the engine, the modules of the engine. Nick Russo is working in our marshalling area in our big engine line as well, Dennis Whitfield is also in our big
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XN MR MILLS
engine line, Simon Lowry is also in our big engine line, Tony George is also in our big engine line, Jose is in the big engine line as well. Al Brooker, he works in our APU section, which again is the assembly dissembly inspection of our APUs, which covers all our aeroplanes, 747 and 767, and Mr Paul Anuto resigned some time last year.
PN646
To the best of your recollection, and once again it's your recollection, the areas that you've just outlined for us for those individuals, are they the areas in which they were originally redeployed?---No, they weren't. I think Al Brooker, who works in our APU area, that was the area he was originally redeployed to. He's still there. Mr Trpkovski, he was originally redeployed to turbines and he's still in that section. All the other people have moved sections.
PN647
Now, a key issue. Are these positions still required to be performed by these employees?---Yes, they are.
PN648
I have no further questions for the witness.
PN649
PN650
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Mr Highland, can I take you to paragraph 11 of your statement, please? In that paragraph you refer to annexure A which is, of course, a copy of a letter to Mr Kyriakou from yourself on 26 July 2001. It's entitled, "Redeployment to Engine and Component Maintenance." Had these particular employees left the employ of Qantas?---No, they hadn't.
PN651
Why did they have to be re-employed back into engine and component maintenance?---Well, they were working in a cost centre that was managed by QDS and this letter, given that the work was moving out of that cost centre or that management group, and these employees didn't actually want to either go to Bankstown or to continue to work for that 707 management group, which is where the management control of that group was being moved to, we had vacancies in our areas and this letter defined where those people would work.
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN652
So, they were actually employed by QDS at that time?---No, I said they were always Qantas employees.
PN653
Well, if they were Qantas employees, why did they need to be redeployed back to Qantas?---Because the work in that environment, some of that work was going to Bankstown, was my understanding, and the remaining work was being managed by the 707 group that was managed by QDS.
PN654
But in terms of corporate entities, were they employed by Qantas or QDS?---Qantas.
PN655
Now you're asking them to be redeployed back into Qantas from Qantas?---No, no, this was - engine and component maintenance is a division of Qantas, as is heavy maintenance, as is line maintenance - - -
PN656
Let's not talk about divisions, let's talk about corporate entities?---Qantas.
PN657
There was no redeployment at all, was there? It was just a transfer back into Qantas?---This letter identified where those people should report to work.
PN658
Yes, I take that, but the letter is entitled, "Redeployment." That's correct, isn't it?---That's correct.
PN659
Redeployment associated with that is the notion of transferring between entities?---That's your definition, is it?
PN660
Well, what's your definition?---Well, my definition in relation to this is to move from one section to another.
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN661
One section to another within - - -?---They were in one cost centre, we moved them to engine and component maintenance and we defined in this letter - I mean, there was, obviously, quite a lot of emotion within the QDS employees - or, sorry, the QDS environment where T-56 and JT-3s were carried out around who they worked for and where they were working. During that meeting on 26 July and these letters, we're really trying to assist the employees in understanding who their employer was and where they should work.
PN662
This letter is, in effect, a new contract of employment, isn't it?---We don't believe so, no.
PN663
You don't believe so?---No.
PN664
Could I ask you to look at the second paragraph which reads:
PN665
This letter replaces any previous letter of appointment.
PN666
You still believe that this isn't a new contract of employment?---That's my understanding.
PN667
Despite the fact that this letter is replacing their previous letter of appointment?---My understanding is that the attachments in relation to company policy are company policies that employees are all subject to and this was just an opportunity to attach these updated policies to letters that go to employees. So, these are Qantas policies. You'll find most of these in the policy manual.
PN668
Can I ask you to look at the final page of the document? It has got page 7 of 6, which can't be right. The employee is asked to sign there and say that:
PN669
I agree with and accept the terms and conditions set out in this letter.
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN670
Some of those terms and conditions relate to changes to their employment, do they not?---I don't believe so, no.
PN671
Can I ask you to look at page 3 of 6?---Yes.
PN672
The first sentence in the relocation transfer section reads:
PN673
You will work at such other locations as Qantas may require from time to time.
PN674
Would you agree that there were some employees who were appointed on conditions where that condition wasn't part of their contract of employment?---That's Qantas policy, is my understanding.
PN675
Yes, but it may not have been part of a person's original letter of appointment, would it?---Well, there's a lot of things that aren't part of a person's original letter of appointment. I'd have to look at every one of these person's original letters of appointment and I don't have access to that.
PN676
The affected employees who are the subject of these Commission proceedings?---I apologise, I haven't reviewed their original letters of appointment to know whether that's part of it or not.
PN677
Just on attachment A again, page 2 in the wages section the PE and LH, they refer to production examiner and leading hand allowances?---That's correct, yes.
PN678
They have been removed for this particular individual, haven't they?---That's correct.
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN679
In paragraph 9 of your statement you state that you're aware that 17 employees, including Mr Kyriakou, declined any of the offers of secondment. Are you aware of the reasons why they declined those offers?---Not every single of the 10 employees.
PN680
Were you aware of any of the reasons?---I think some people didn't want to go to Bankstown, some people had different views around who they worked for and who they didn't work for. But outside of that, I couldn't comment with any accuracy.
PN681
Could I take you to paragraph 13 of your statement? You state there that you conducted a meeting to clarify issues with the concerned employees and that you wanted to ensure that everyone had the correct facts and understood that that work was leaving. That work was removed by Qantas, wasn't it, the work on JT-3 and T-56 engines?---QDS made the decision to move the T-56 work that was carried out at Mascot to Bankstown and the JT-3 work remained at Mascot. That was transferred under the QDS managed 707 business unit.
PN682
But the work was no longer being done by Qantas, was it? It was a QDS contract?---The T-56 engine maintenance activity? I'm not aware of the contractual side of the T-56. You probably should ask QDS that question. I lost involvement for a few years in relation to this. But the T-56 work transferred out to Bankstown. A number of staff were offered secondments to QDS to carry out that work because they had skills. A number of staff accepted those secondments and went and worked at Bankstown under that secondment as Qantas employees and continue to carry out work on T-56. A number of employees accepted secondments to the QDS 707 - or accepted the secondment to QDS to continue to work on the JT-3s at Mascot under the 707 business unit.
PN683
T-56 work was removed from Mascot?---That's correct. There was still some process line repair activity that took place, but very minor.
PN684
So, in terms of the affected employees that were working on that particular engine, that work was no longer available for them, was it?---That's correct.
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN685
Could I take you to paragraph 16 of your statement? In the third sentence you state that you advised the employees that they would continue to be employed as AMEs by Qantas. Did you inform them what work they would be performing?---The letters contained the cost centres that they were going to be located at. Those details were in the letter.
PN686
Were they aware what work they would be performing in those cost centres?---I think the cost centres are self evident to most of these people. They've been in our environment for quite a long time. Certainly AM and AME work, yes.
PN687
Now, you've read the statement of Mr Kyriakou, have you?---Which statement, the original statement?
PN688
Both the original and the supplementary?---Yes, I have.
PN689
Now, Mr Kyriakou, as part of this organisational restructure and redeployment, went from working on a JT-3 engine into non destructive testing?---Yes, that's my understanding, yes.
PN690
Now, that's a substantial change in the work that he was performing, isn't it?---Well, it's different work. It's still within the classification. It's different work, yes.
PN691
It's substantially different work, isn't it?---Well, I would say it's different. i wouldn't comment whether it's substantial or otherwise. It's certainly different work. It's no less important than the work he was carrying out previously, in my view.
PN692
I didn't ask you whether it was important or not, but it's substantially different work, isn't it?---Well, it's different.
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN693
Now, non destructive testing work, a person is not required to be an aircraft maintenance engineer to perform that work, are they?---Well, we do have aircraft maintenance engineers carrying out that work and, yes - - -
PN694
But they're not required to be an aircraft maintenance engineer to carry out that work?---I believe that they do carry out that work and we do have maintenance assistants that assist them in carrying out that work. We have five aircraft maintenance engineers in that area that carry out that work. We also have maintenance assistants that assist them in carrying out those functions, both on the cleaning site.
PN695
And also aircraft mechanics?---And aircraft mechanics.
PN696
They're not aircraft maintenance engineers?---Sorry?
PN697
They're not aircraft maintenance engineers, are they?---We have aircraft maintenance engineers in that area.
PN698
Yes, but aircraft mechanics also do that work, don't they?---That's correct.
PN699
Aircraft mechanic is not an aircraft maintenance engineer in terms of - it's a separate trade qualification, isn't it?---It's a separate classification, AME or AM. AME was designated initially under restructure, is my recollection, and it relates to an AME performing all functions across the aircraft and overhaul environments, and AM came in at a subsequent period of time which deals with the overhaul environment. So, essentially, it's the same level of activity within the engine maintenance environment, AME or AME.
PN700
Mr Highland, are you aware of any Qantas employees who receive leading hand allowances or production examiner's allowances but don't perform the work through which those allowances are derived?---There's a number of employees that continue to get an allowance as a result of industrial agreements dating back long periods of time ago, eight to 10 years.
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XXN MR THISTLETHWAITE
PN701
Thank you. Nothing further, Commissioner.
PN702
PN703
MR AYRES: Only a couple of questions, Mr Highland. What's the distinction between an employee, just referring to Mr Thistlethwaite's last question, who continues to receive an allowance although they might not be performing the role, for example, of a leading hand or a production examiner, and the group of employees who are the subject of these proceedings?---Sorry, can you clarify your question? I sort of got lost.
PN704
You've said to Mr Thistlethwaite and the Commission that there are some employees who continue to receive payment for allowances although they've been moved on or aren't currently performing that work. What's the distinction between that group of employees and the group of employees the subject of these proceedings?---I think the group of employees that I'm talking about dates back some many years and was as a result of some changes in their specific area. That was an agreement that was come up with at the time industrially between unions and Qantas.
PN705
So, is it only one group?---One group of people that are getting allowances that aren't carrying out the duties?
PN706
Yes, is it just one circumstance?---That's my understanding, yes.
PN707
No more at all?---No, not that I'm aware of. There are people in areas that get the production examiner licence that carry out the duty. For example, there are people that moved out of modules to engine line who carried their production examiner allowance that we required them to hold onto that licence because we use them from time to time to come back and relieve in the area that they came from.
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XXN MR AYRES
PN708
But in terms of employees who are paid leading hand's allowances, are there employees who are currently paid leading hand allowances who aren't currently performing the role of leading hand?---Have you got any examples or names that you can refer me to?
PN709
I'm asking you?---Well, there shouldn't be. If there is, there might be some administrative oversight, but there shouldn't be. We've moved people from one section to another and people have had their PE allowances remove by the course of that action, and the same with leading hand payments, those have been removed. There are people - yes.
PN710
The Qantas policy, and I don't have it in front of me at the moment, in relation to this, that says, doesn't it, that people can continue to be paid that allowance for six months in these circumstances, but is there any management discretion to do anything different?
PN711
MR MILLS: Commissioner, I want to object. Mr Ayres is referring to a document that he doesn't have a copy of, nor does Mr Highland have a copy of. If he wants to ask Mr Highland a question about a policy, then he needs to provide that for Mr Highland to familiarise himself with.
PN712
THE COMMISSIONER: That assumes he doesn't know the policy. How do you know that?
PN713
MR AYRES: Yes, I don't think it's entirely necessary. It has been completely the subject of the whole last three years of this, really.
PN714
MR MILLS: Commissioner, there are many things that Mr Highland may know or may not know, but when he's being asked a specific question about a specific document, he's entitled to familiarise himself with that particular document, not to make up an answer on the basis of what he may hear Mr Ayres or someone else speculate. The witness is entitled to answer a question based around something that he can see and respond to.
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XXN MR AYRES
PN715
THE COMMISSIONER: Or he says he doesn't recall or doesn't know.
PN716
MR MILLS: That may very well be the answer he may avail himself of.
PN717
MR AYRES: I'm glad the rules of evidence don't apply here, Commissioner. I hope Mr Mills isn't suggesting to Mr Highland what he should say. Can I hand up then for Mr Highland's assistance - there are some marks on this but it should be pretty straightforward - that's the relevant Qantas policy that I was referring to, isn't it? I haven't looked at what is on the other pages. It may be Mr Thistlethwaite's notes, I'm not sure. But that is the relevant Qantas policy, is it not?---It certainly appears to be but I would probably have to get proper HR advice in relation to that. Usually in relation to HR policy I would always refer it to HR.
PN718
Does it look spectacularly different to your understanding of what the current Qantas policy is? You're familiar with the terms and the language that's used to describe the different options for employees who are in that position, aren't you?---Sure, I'm familiar with the term red circling and what it means.
PN719
On what basis would the company make a decision to red circle somebody's allowance or salary?---Where that position has probably disappeared we would consider that.
PN720
Are there any other circumstances?---Red circling, just in terms of practice, I don't think I've ever red circled too many people.
PN721
The work, though, that these employees performed, to all intents and purposes, disappeared from the Mascot operation, didn't it?---Well, the JT-3s remained at Mascot, albeit under the 707 business unit.
PN722
So, you say that you can't recall any people who you've authorised red circling for?---I'm not saying I haven't done it but - - -
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND XXN MR AYRES
PN723
Would it be something that you would normally authorise?---Usually you would only red circle after consultation with HR.
PN724
Would that be a decision that HR industrial relations would make or that you would make?---We would make it in conjunction with HR.
PN725
You're not aware of any other examples of employees being red circled?---I'm not aware. There may be, but I'm not aware.
PN726
What is the distinction between an employee who you would make a decision to red circle and the group of employees who are the subject of these proceedings?---The red circling refers to their all purpose rates rather than their allowances in terms of production examiner and leading hand allowances. The customary practice has been for leading hand and production examiners, that we pay out that six month allowance. But my understanding of red circling is that it relates to their base rate of pay and then it ..... off as the base rate of pay increases.
PN727
Mr Wallman was the supervisor of the affected group of employees, wasn't he?---There were two supervisors at the time. One was Ian Franks and the other one was Bruce Wallman.
PN728
Mr Wallman was redeployed into the compressor cell cost centre, is that correct?---That's correct, yes.
PN729
Was he required to sign a redeployment letter?---He was requested to sign a redeployment letter, yes.
PN730
**** DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND RXN MR MILLS
PN731
MR MILLS: Just a couple of questions, Mr Highland. In relation to the T-56 work being relocated to Bankstown, to the best of your knowledge, were employees working on T-56 engines given the opportunity to redeploy to Bankstown?---Yes, that's certainly my understanding and what those people have communicated to me. They were given that option.
PN732
In what capacity did they go to Bankstown?---As a Qantas employee on a secondment to QDS.
PN733
My final question, can you just confirm again for the Commission in what part of the business, your business, Mr Kyriakou works?---He works in the gearbox cell that carries out gearbox overhauls for 747 and 767 engines.
PN734
I have no further questions for the witness.
PN735
PN736
THE COMMISSIONER: Where are we now? Is that the evidence?
PN737
MR MILLS: Yes, that would appear that is the conclusion of the evidence, Commissioner.
PN738
THE COMMISSIONER: What do the parties propose?
PN739
MR THISTLETHWAITE: We've briefly discussed it and I think by consent we wish to make closing submissions via written submissions. Perhaps if the Commission could allow us two weeks for the filing of those submissions, that would be convenient.
PN740
THE COMMISSIONER: Does Qantas put its submissions in at the same time or slightly after?
PN741
MR MILLS: Clearly, it's beneficial for us to put them in at the same time, but that may not be consistent with process. I'm not going to suggest the appropriate process, that's for the AWU to determine. If the appropriate process is followed, we'll have no objection to that. I don't want to be seen on the record as giving the AWU a chance to come back. It's up to them to make that decision.
PN742
MR AYRES: I see the issue that you're raising, Commissioner, and perhaps the appropriate way - I think the parties will proceed on the basis that there be final written submissions in two weeks and they are final written submissions. If there's something that one of the parties raises in their final written submissions, perhaps a period of a further week. If there's any supplementary, last final submissions that are required, well, they could be done in that final week.
PN743
MR MILLS: The company would have no objection to that.
PN744
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, the two weeks is for the unions and the company?
PN745
MR AYRES: Yes.
PN746
THE COMMISSIONER: Before I conclude, let me ask you this. I have never been provided with - I think I have an extract of the allowances. Are the allowances in the certified agreement or are they in the award?
PN747
MR MILLS: They're actually in the award. The extract you have, I think you'll find it's marked QF3. I think you'll find that was tendered during submissions on 19 March 2002. Do you require any further information?
PN748
THE COMMISSIONER: I also need a copy of the extract of the redundancy provisions.
PN749
MR MILLS: You would like a copy of A3, which makes reference to the redundancy?
PN750
THE COMMISSIONER: Is that it, is it?
PN751
MR MILLS: Yes, the redundancy process is quite fully covered off in EBA3. If you would like a copy of that, it can be provided.
PN752
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, whatever the parties are relying on, I need a copy of that. If QF3 is all that one needs to know about the leading hand - where's the other benefit, the production examiner's allowance?
PN753
MR MILLS: The production examiner authority is actually contained as simply a payment in EBA4.
PN754
THE COMMISSIONER: It doesn't matter who it's from, but I think I need that extract. I've got QF3 but I need the production examiner's provisions and the redundancy provisions. Whatever instrument it comes from and whoever sends it to me, I guess that's a consent matter.
PN755
MR THISTLETHWAITE: Yes, I intended to provide in closing, Commissioner, copies of the award and EBA3 and a copy of a Federal Court authority on which we intend to rely. Perhaps I could append those to the actual submissions when they're due and, of course, a copy of EBA4.
PN756
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. I don't think there's anything further, so we will await your written submissions and the Commission will issue a decision hopefully without calling upon you again to explain any of it. The decision will issue in due course.
PN757
MR MILLS: Is that the 27th for written submissions?
PN758
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Obviously, if there's a difficulty with that date and it's consented to by all three, well, that shouldn't create problems. On that basis these proceedings are now adjourned.
ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.03pm]
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
EXHIBIT #AWU1 DRAFT ORDERS PN154
JIM KYRIAKOU, SWORN PN157
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR THISTLETHWAITE PN157
EXHIBIT #AWU2 ORIGINAL STATEMENT OF JIM KYRIAKOU PN168
EXHIBIT #AWU3 SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF JIM KYRIAKOU PN168
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLS PN172
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR THISTLETHWAITE PN436
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR AYRES PN492
WITNESS WITHDREW PN518
MURRAY HARRIS, SWORN PN524
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MILLS PN524
EXHIBIT #QF5 STATEMENT OF MURRAY HARRIS PN536
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR THISTLETHWAITE PN548
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR AYRES PN590
WITNESS WITHDREW PN628
EXHIBIT #AMWU2 DOCUMENTS PN633
DAVID JOHN HIGHLAND, SWORN PN636
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MILLS PN636
EXHIBIT #QF6 STATEMENT OF DAVID HIGHLAND PN642
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR THISTLETHWAITE PN650
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR AYRES PN703
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLS PN731
WITNESS WITHDREW PN736
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2003/2036.html