C2003/2316, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 2107 (2 June 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
DX 305 Melbourne Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 2696
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER SMITH

C2003/2316

COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR
UNION

and

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the
Act of a dispute re right of entry of union
officials

MELBOURNE

3.08 PM, FRIDAY, 16 MAY 2003

PN1

MR T. VEENENDAAL: I appear for the Community and Public Sector Union.

PN2

MS S. KENNEDY: I appear on behalf of Telstra Corporation, with MR C. DOHERTY.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Veenendaal.

PN4

MR VEENENDAAL: I understand the Commission has a matter which has been relisted from an earlier time today of 2.30 to 4 o'clock.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: No listing at 2.30, to my knowledge.

PN6

MR VEENENDAAL: Well, perhaps I am under a misunderstanding, Commissioner. I never saw the listing but I was advised verbally by someone there was a listing. Nevertheless, the Commission has a time constraint this afternoon and that is a - - -

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that matter might not take long.

PN8

MR VEENENDAAL: No, indeed, Commissioner. And having said that, perhaps I will just proceed.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN10

MR VEENENDAAL: Commissioner, this is an application pursuant to section 99 of the Workplace Relations Act. I indicate to the Commission that we also seek to apply for orders of an interim nature today and I want to hand a copy of that order up - no, sorry, I won't hand a copy of that order up. I understand the Commission should have a copy of the order which was attached to a facsimile that was sent to the Commission yesterday.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I have a copy of that. Thank you.

PN12

MR VEENENDAAL: Yes. Now, the application for the order is made pursuant to section 285G of the Workplace Relations Act which does give the Commission powers to prevent and settle disputes about division 11A of the Workplace Relations Act. I do want to indicate there is an amendment that I seek to make to the order.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN14

MR VEENENDAAL: And at line 5 of the order there is an address of a site which is the subject matter of this particular dispute, and it says level 18, 1 Great Western Highway. I would like to change that to 181 Great Western Highway, Belmont, WA. That is a typographical error, Commissioner, and may lead to some uncertainty about the terms of the order if the Commission is minded to make it. In terms of the amended order, I would like to make some brief submissions about the merits of the issue but, before that, I would like to very briefly outline the facts and circumstances of this particular case as we see it.

PN15

And as I understand it, Commissioner, a matter was brought to the attention of one of our organisers in West Australia, a Mr Troy Reimers, some time around late April about suspicions that members at the Belmont site had relating to suspected breaches of both the awards that apply at the site; that would be the Telstra (General Conditions) Award and the Telstra CPSU Consolidated Award. And those suspicions had been brought to his attention by members at the site who had contacted him and indicated to him that they suspected that award breaches and/or agreement breaches were occurring.

PN16

In response to that, Mr Reimers, being a reasonable person, rather than - as he had a right to do - simply notifying pursuant to section 285B of the Workplace Relations Act that he had a suspicion of a breach and he wanted to enter the site, chose to organise a meeting with the centre manager, that is Ms Nonah Dalwood, and that meeting occurred on Tuesday, 29 April 2003, to discuss the issues relating to the alleged breaches of the award and the agreement. During the course of that meeting the matter was not resolved and Mr Reimers advised Ms Dalwood that he intended to conduct his own investigation in respect to the suspicions of a breach.

PN17

Ms Dalwood, during the meeting, advised Mr Reimers that the company had initiated apparently, based on a request from one or more of its employees, its own investigation into the breaches. And I have to say, Commissioner, we have no difficulty with that at all. The company is obviously entitled to conduct its own investigation in respect to a suspected breach, just the same as the union is entitled pursuant to 285B of the Act to provide proper notification for permit holders to enter the site, providing that notification particularises the nature of a suspected breach in a way that complies with the requirements of the Act, to conduct its own investigation.

PN18

That notice was sent to Ms Dalwood on Friday, 2 May, and at this time it might be appropriate for me to hand up a signed copy of Mr Reimers' statement. It doesn't have attachments because the attachments to the statement was already provided to the Commission by way of facsimile a day or two ago.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN20

MR VEENENDAAL: But I just provide this statement because the statement has a signature on it and obviously Mr Reimers isn't here to swear the statement. But on that basis we indicate that the statement is a statement of Mr Reimers with his signature. And I am prepared to say, that from my understanding and from the discussions I have had with Mr Reimers, the statement is true and correct. Now, I understand, Commissioner, I am not Mr Reimers but we also seek interim relief today, relief which could be tested by way of a fuller argument at a later hearing date if that is appropriate.

PN21

Now, subsequent to that, Mr Reimers - I should say, Commissioner, in that notice Mr Reimers indicated that himself and another organiser at the site, a Mr McLaren, were intending to enter the site on 8 May to conduct an investigation in relation to the suspected breaches. Now, I would indicate, Commissioner, that pursuant to the requirements of the Act we are required to give 24 hours notice of our entry. Mr Reimers, again being abundantly reasonable and being the reasonable person that he is, chose to give six days notice. The notice was filed, or sent to the company on 2 May.

PN22

The notice - the point that he - or the notice in respect to the date of entry was 8 May. I understand, Commissioner, he did that to give Telstra some time to gather appropriate records which the notification contained detail of. Again being a reasonable person, he felt that was a reasonable course of action to take. He then received a letter on 6 May from the company's manager, Ms Dalwood, which stated a number of things and purported, or alleged that the notice that Mr Reimers had provided on 2 May was defective in a range of ways and stated that the request for entry is denied.

PN23

Those facts essentially are the facts that bring us here today. What we have is a letter from the company which appears as attachment TR3 to Mr Reimers statement which prima facie is evidence, in our submission, that entry has been denied. The letter expressly says:

PN24

Your request for entry is denied.

PN25

So we think that is the trigger, Commissioner, for this application and for the dispute that arises as a result of the refusal to enter. I do wish to go very briefly to the notification from Mr Reimers and to the letter, and take the Commission through that. If I can take the Commission to TR2 and, in essence, Commissioner, I am getting to the merits of the issue at this time. At paragraph 1, Commissioner, the officials who intended to enter on the 8th are clearly named: Mr Reimers and Mr McLaren. The site upon which entry is to take place is clearly particularised: 181 Great Western Highway, Belmont. And the date is also particularised: 8 May. And, in fact, to the extent that the time, being 9.30 to 4.30, is particularised which isn't a requirement, in our submission, of the Act but, again, Mr Reimers being a reasonable person wanted to give notice in that form.

PN26

He then particularises the awards and the clauses of the awards and agreements that he says he has a suspicion are being breached. He then on page 2 outlines a number of documents which quite a bit of particularity and detail at dot points 1, 2, 3 on page 2 of the notice. And then he goes much further than he has to go, Commissioner, by stating that, below dot point 3, that he intends to conduct interviews, which is his right pursuant to the Act to conduct during working time, at a time so as - or in a fashion as not to disrupt the call centre or Telstra's customers. Now, he didn't have to do that but he chose to do it, being the reasonable person that he is.

PN27

He also gives some details about his requirements when he enters. For instance, he requests later on in the notice that the company facilitate the investigations by providing a suitable location, and indicates that CPSU permit holders will confine themselves to activity that is reasonably necessary for the investigation: things that he doesn't really have to do but, nevertheless, he chose to do them. We then get at TR3 a letter from the company which alleges that the notice is defective, and if I can take the Commission to point (a) Ms Dalwood says:

PN28

Your request fails to particularise the nature of the breach you suspect. Such particulars are necessary ...(reads)... on an objective basis reasonable -

PN29

presumably "has reasonable" -

PN30

grounds for suspecting a particular breach of the Workplace Relations Act -

PN31

which is interesting because we are actually dealing with suspected breaches of awards and agreements, not the Act -

PN32

and to ensure that entry can be facilitated in an orderly and co-ordinated manner without disruption to Telstra's business.

PN33

And my submission there again, Commissioner, is that we can conduct our investigation in accordance with the Act, and that is we can conduct interviews during work time which presumably has some disruptive element to it. But nevertheless the company seems to think that we have to comply with what they say are appropriate requirements. And then at page 2 they go on to say that there are other particulars in respect to the details of the documents and other things which are listed at B(1) to (4) which they are not satisfied with in terms of the particularisation of our notice and, therefore, entry on one or more of those grounds is refused.

PN34

Now, that lends itself to the question which seems to be a question of refusal based on insufficient particularisation at the notice. So I will do this very briefly, Commissioner, given the time restraints we may have this afternoon and given that it is Friday afternoon. But I want to take the Commission very briefly to some law in relation to particularisation of notices, and it will be our submission that the notice more than adequately particularises the nature of the suspected breach and the nature of the documents that are needed. And it is not a requirement in terms of the law in relation to notices with some of the requirements, or any of the requirements, in fact, that Ms Dalwood indicates in her letter dated 6 May.

PN35

Now, I think the most appropriate decision to refer the Commission to is probably the decision of Clough Engineering; I think it is CFMEU v Clough Engineering, and if I can get my hands on a copy of that, I will refer to it. It is print number PR902237 and, rather rudely, Commissioner, in my rush to prepare with this and other things that I have had on in the last couple of days, I haven't got spare copies of this. I expect it is a decision the Commission may be broadly aware of at least. I am happy to have a brief adjournment if it is necessary for your associate - - -

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, that is all right.

PN37

MR VEENENDAAL: All right. It is a decision from Commissioner O'Connor made on 13 March 2001. It deals squarely with the issues that are before the Commission today, in my submission, and that is right of entry issues; and it deals squarely with the issue of section 285B, investigations of suspected breaches of awards or agreements. In fact, the Commission says at page 10:

PN38

Predominantly, therefore, the union would be seeking to exercise its rights under section 285B of the Workplace Relations Act.

PN39

And I say that in the context that initially there were I think dual notifications relating to 285B and 285C, but the Commission decision is four squarely within the realms of the 285B application.

PN40

Now, the Commission considers a number of decisions relating to right of entry, and they are provided by the Commission and, unfortunately, this decision isn't marked with paragraph numbers; at least in my copy of the decision which I have to say is an Internet copy. But at page 13, dot point 4, the Commissioner refers to decisions including Federated Carters and Drivers Union v McKay, that is a decision of the High Court[1922] HCA 2; , 30 CLR 139; a decision of the Chief Industrial Magistrates Court of New South Wales; a decision called AMWU v Sealy International; and a decision called CFMEU West Australian Branch v Ray File Nominees Proprietary Limited. Once he has considered those decisions, he makes the following statements in his decision:

PN41

These decisions all enforce the view that unless the Workplace Relations Act or award stipulates otherwise ...(reads)... could inhibit the permit holder's ability to properly investigate the breach.

PN42

So there he says there is no obligation at all to disclose the nature of the suspicion, although in our submission and based on the evidence of Mr Reimers and his attachment TR2, we submit that Mr Reimers has provided more than that; he has provided specific clauses and awards and agreement names upon which he suspects there is a breach. And the Commission goes on to say:

PN43

I find that to issue an order for disclosure would be inconsistent with the requirement of the Workplace Relations Act ...(reads)... and would seriously hinder their ability to investigate breaches.

PN44

Now, in Ms Dalwood's letter one of the things that the company wants at page 2 at B(1), (2), (3) and (4) is very specific details about documents and also those persons who are affected employees. We submit that this decision, both in relation to notification of the suspicions in relation to the detail of the breach, of a suspected breach, and in relation to the requirement to particularise documentation is a case where the principle, notwithstanding that some of these decisions turn on their own facts, is an authority, in our submission, particularly in light of the dicta which is not contained specifically to the facts circumstances of the case in respect to this decision because the Commission member doesn't say that.

PN45

We submit this is an authority where a principle which could be applied to this particular case which would, in our submission, indicate to the Commission that the notification we have provided and which is attachment TR3 to Mr Reimers' statement is a notification which complies with the requirements of the Act. We think it is reasonably open on an interim basis for the Commission to make such a finding. And if the Commission does make such a finding in terms of its exercise of discretion pursuant to 285G then, in our submission, it is reasonably open for the Commission, on the balance of probabilities, to make a decision - to make an interim order today which would enable Mr Reimers or any permit holder to turn up to the site at 9 o'clock on Monday, which is what our order seeks, to conduct an investigation into the suspected breach.

PN46

Now, there has been discussions and correspondence exchanged between the company and the union about this matter and I just want to briefly deal with that. The company has moved to a limited extent, Commissioner, to the extent that it now says that in Mr Doherty's letter, dated today, which I only got a copy of at 2.30 this afternoon, that:

PN47

As a result of our discussion, I am confident that Telstra now has sufficient detail about the nature of the suspected breach ...(reads)... pursuant to section 285B(2) of the Act.

PN48

So Telstra in its own correspondence is saying that it now understands the suspected breach and, in our submission, that in itself could provide documentary evidence for the Commission to act today because it seems to me that the problems relating to the notice in Telstra's own view have been overcome because its senior manager, Mr Doherty, in his letter dated today says that Telstra now understands the suspected breach and what we want to - and the nature of the investigations we want to conduct. And Mr Doherty has moved some distance in the sense that he said: look, we are happy to provide you some documents and to consult with you about our investigation, provided that we are able to obtain written employee consent to the release of records for those particular employees.

PN49

So Mr Doherty - and we are prepared to concede - has moved some distance but, nevertheless, we would respectfully submit that some of the requirements or conditions he imposes on us pursuant to his letter dated today, particularly the condition that we are prepared to consult with you, is not relevant, materially relevant to our right of entry pursuant to section 285B. We are happy for Mr Doherty and Telstra to consult with us but we still have a right to conduct our own investigation and be satisfied that their investigation is, in fact, a proper investigation into the breaches.

PN50

And in respect to the requirement for employee consent, we submit that that is not a requirement of the Act and it is not something that we would necessarily see that we would have to comply with but, nevertheless, we can see that Mr Doherty has moved some distance. The difficulty we have is that this is a fairly black and white issue, in our submission. We have an express right of entry. We don't have to ask Telstra's permission. All of this, including Mr Doherty's letter, seems to be predicated on: we will give you permission if you meet these certain conditions.

PN51

We have that right. We attempt to - we sought on 2 May to exercise a right to enter on 8 May. The prima facie position is, and their own letter is evidence, in our submission, is that they denied entry. That is a trigger for the Commission to act pursuant to 285G. The dispute is the failure of the company to allow our permit holders to enter. The resolution of the dispute can be today an interim order granted by the Commission which enables the union to provide - to exercise its rights to enter the site.

PN52

Now, some of the discussion that I have had involved discussions around a range of things involving how we could progress this issue. The discussions that I have had - and I think I am entitled to mention them, they weren't held in private conference, the discussions that - - -

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, before you - you can check whether there is any objection to you raising - - -

PN54

MR VEENENDAAL: Well, I am happy to do that, Commissioner, if the - - -

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Any objection to - - -

PN56

MR VEENENDAAL: And, quite frankly, if the company does prefer me to remain silent on those issues, I will. I am happy to - - -

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: What is your view, Ms Kennedy?

PN58

MS KENNEDY: You can proceed.

PN59

MR VEENENDAAL: Yes, and the company has indicated that it may be prepared to let us enter provided we put in place another notice, this afternoon presumably, which will be difficult in light of the fact that I am involved with other matters before the Commission this afternoon; but provide another notice of entry for Mr Reimers and Mr McLaren, or any permit holder for that matter, to enter the site. But that offer seemed to be conditional and there seemed to - - -

PN60

MS KENNEDY: Look, I don't - - -

PN61

MR VEENENDAAL: There did - - -

PN62

MS KENNEDY: Excuse me, sorry. I object to you drawing conclusions on our discussion.

PN63

MR VEENENDAAL: Yes, that is fine, that is fine. Can I put it in this way, Commissioner, that if the company is prepared to get up on transcript today and give undertakings that, provided at some stage which will probably be about 4.30 or 5 o'clock this afternoon, I go back to the office and advise Mr Reimers that he should renew his notice and provided the company is prepared to undertake that that notice can be in identical terms, in identical terms to the terms of the notice that he has already provided or in similar terms to the notice that has been provided, but I am happy for it to be identical if the company has some difficulties with that, and it might be the safest course of action to take, that the company will allow Mr Reimers in at 9 o'clock on Monday, then we may be able to resolve this issue in a different way without seeking the intervention of the Commission.

PN64

So I would like to hear Ms Kennedy or Mr Doherty about that. I will say that from some of the discussions I have had I suspect that they may not be prepared to do that, but I am happy to hear from them. Save for any questions, Commissioner, I would conclude my submissions at this time.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Kennedy.

PN66

MS KENNEDY: Thank you, Commissioner. I have to put on the record, firstly, that Telstra is at a significant disadvantage in this matter, given - as set out in Telstra's correspondence with the union, given this matter relates to an alleged dispute at its Belmont centre in Western Australia, Telstra objects to this matter being dealt with in Melbourne and requests that any further hearings be held in Perth. To that effect, Telstra has written to both the CPSU and the Commission drawing that to the parties' attention. I will tender copies of those letters if necessary.

PN67

And for that reason, Telstra is at a significant disadvantage. We request that this matter be adjourned and that would then enable me to have the time to take instructions from Ms Nonah Dalwood about the witness statement provided by Mr Troy Reimers. As it stands, I only received a copy of this statement today and I haven't had an opportunity to discuss it with Ms Dalwood.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: What do you say about what was raised at the conclusion of Mr Veenendaal's submissions that if a notice in identical terms was put in, entry would be approved?

PN69

MS KENNEDY: I would first like to say that I am very disappointed that Telstra and the CPSU has not been able to resolve this without resort to the Commission today. Telstra has attempted to be very reasonable in this matter, providing the union with correspondence to that effect and advising the union now that - now that we do understand the nature of the suspected award and enterprise agreement breaches, Telstra is prepared to allow entry in accordance with the Act so we have - - -

[4.40pm]

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: If that letter in the terms of 2 May is lodged again this afternoon?

PN71

MS KENNEDY: Well I would need to take instructions from Ms Dalwood about the Centre and things of that nature but as for that letter - - -

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: Could I adjourn for you to contact her?

PN73

MS KENNEDY: Well I would like to make - - -

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: It is a different time zone in Perth, of course.

PN75

MS KENNEDY: Yes, I know. I would like to make some comments about that letter. Firstly, I think there is an error in the letter. It refers to clause 23.3.3 of the GCOE award. There is no such clause, so that must be an error on the part of the union. Secondly, I say this; we now consider that Telstra has sufficient detail about the nature of the breach to enable us to allow them to have entry to our premises but by the provision of that letter alone, we say we didn't have enough information. I think it would be trite for us to now say that we don't have enough information if the letter is re-issued.

PN76

If that were the letter received at another centre on another day, it wouldn't be sufficient to comply with the provisions of the Act and there is authority to support that, Commissioner, but in the circumstances of today's matter, where we do know the nature of the alleged breaches, we have more detail than is set out in the letter. I am prepared to take instructions about whether access will be granted.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: Is it convenient to do that now, so that we know this afternoon?

PN78

MS KENNEDY: Certainly.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I will adjourn for 10 minutes.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [3.37pm]

RESUMED [4.40pm]

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, where are we?

PN81

MR VEENENDAAL: Thanks for the opportunity to adjourn the matter, Commissioner. As I understand it, both the company and myself have had an opportunity to get some instructions or at least the company has got instructions and in response to that we have had some discussions. I have also received instructions from Mr Reimers and we appear to be in furious agreement, or at least close to furious agreement and I want to provide the Commission with the terms of the agreement and then Ms Kennedy will have an opportunity to respond.

PN82

What we - the terms of the agreement are that the union, this afternoon and from Mr Reimers, will provide a notice in identical terms to the notice which is attachment TR2 to Mr Reimers' statement, save for at paragraph 3 where the notice says clause 23.3.3. That will say clause 23.3 and secondly, where at paragraph 1 the notice provides for a date or dates where entry was proposed to occur, those dates will be removed and new dates will be inserted and they are Tuesday, 20 May and Wednesday, 21 May and where the times are provided for at paragraph 1, the times that will be inserted will be 9 o'clock on those particular days.

PN83

After that, Commissioner, Telstra have undertaken to notify its employees in the affected area at the site on Monday, 19 May that union officials will be in at the site on Tuesday and Wednesday conducting an investigation in respect to a suspected breach. We haven't reached an agreement on how that notification will occur. We simply say from our side of the bar table that that notification should be in reasonable terms to enable employees to be aware that the officials will be there on site.

PN84

Fourthly, a room will be allocated to those union officials who enter to enable the officials to inspect documents and conduct interviews if necessary. Fifthly, there is an agreement that the employees concerned can come to speak to the union officials during their breaks to let them know if they wish to be interviewed. Sixthly, for those employees who have indicated to the union officials they wish to be interviewed, the permit holders will then hold discussions with the Centre Manager to discuss and make appropriate arrangements for the conduct of those interviews and lastly, Telstra will then release those employees for the purposes of the conducting of the interviews.

PN85

Now there is one matter that we probably aren't quite in furious agreement about but it doesn't, in our submission, mean the agreement falls and that is whether those employees can have those interviews conducted outside of their breaks. As I apprehend the position of Telstra, it is they should be conducted during breaks. Our view is that we will make an effort to conduct them during breaks but that shouldn't be an impediment to interviews being conducted in a reasonable fashion and those interviews, in our submission, should be able to go over to working time if necessary. That is the only difference we have but we have an understanding that that issue should be able to be reasonably and properly sorted out at the site.

PN86

The only other issue, Commissioner, is that there is an agreement that the interviews would be conducted for a period of 10 to 15 minutes. I agree with that but again, I am abundantly cautious and I think that if an interview went for 20 minutes and it was necessary for that purpose, that that shouldn't mean the company seeks relief or renews this matter to come back here to seek some form of relief, so I think as long as some reasonableness can prevail at the time of the inspection, then hopefully the matter will be resolved in a reasonable way. On that basis, Commissioner, we don't press for an interim order today - - -

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you withdraw the notification, the application?

PN88

MR VEENENDAAL: I don't withdraw the application. As I understand it, Telstra has indicated that if the interviews are not conducted in an orderly way in their view, they would want this application to be brought back before you on their request and I think we would be in a similar position if we feel that cooperation is still not forthcoming, then we would want to bring the application back to the Commission. So I think the application can be adjourned, perhaps with a report back or pending correspondence to the Commission that the matter has been properly resolved, in which case, at that time, the application could be withdrawn.

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Kennedy.

PN90

MS KENNEDY: Thank you, Commissioner. Just on the last point first, if you like, as to the adjournment of this matter, we ask that the matter be adjourned sine die. There is no need for a report back and if this matter is listed again before you, it be listed in Perth to facilitate the orderly conduct of these proceedings. As for Mr Veenendaal's submissions, Telstra doesn't accept that the notice that will be provided by the CPSU of itself is sufficient on the basis of the authorities to satisfy the requirements of the Act but Telstra does accept that given its knowledge of the said alleged breaches of the Act, that we would say the notice is sufficient and I will just refer you to the authority of the Australasian Meat Industries Employees Union v T and R Murray Bridge Pty Ltd, print PR927815 and that was a matter before Senior Deputy President O'Callaghan on 14 February 2003. I will just read you a paragraph from that.

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I am familiar with the decision, thank you.

PN92

MS KENNEDY: All right, thank you. But I can confirm that Telstra is in agreement with the CPSU about the matters that Mr Veenendaal raised. I just need to clarify a few of those points and I won't go through each one in detail but an important matter for Telstra is obviously that the conduct of the discussions and the interviews don't disrupt Telstra's business and normal working arrangements. That is a matter which Nonah Dalwood, the Centre Manager, will discuss with Mr Reimers and let us hope that we don't need to come back here to clarify those discussions.

PN93

Obviously the scheduling of these interviews during breaks is Telstra's preference and we are given some comfort by the submissions of Mr Veenendaal about the effort to conduct those interviews during breaks and we think we have put in place some arrangements which will ensure that this is a smooth process. The timing of the interviews of 10 to 15 minutes, given the scheduled environment in which these employees work, the actual duration of the interviews will have to stick to the script, if you like.

PN94

It is agreed that they will be allowed to be 10 or 15 minutes. They will have to stick to that time, subject to negotiation with the Centre Manager. Commissioner, do you have any questions for Telstra? If not, we have no further submissions.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Well the Vice President has decided to take this file. I will simply adjourn and of course it is a matter for his Honour as to the future conduct of the matter, should it return. The matter is adjourned sine die.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [4.48pm]