C2003/2282, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 2289 (12 June 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER RAFFAELLI

C2003/2282

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS' ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

and

NATIONAL JET SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY LIMITED

Application under section 170LW of the Act
for settlement of dispute re alleged failure
to adhere to clause 17C and properly consult
with Association

SYDNEY

10.24 AM, THURSDAY, 22 MAY 2003

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Could I have the appearances, please?

PN2

MR M. ELDER: May it please the Commission, Mark Elder appearing for the Flight Attendants' Association.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN4

MR P. YOUNG: May it please the Commission, Phillip Young for National Jet Systems.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Elder?

PN6

MR ELDER: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, this dispute arose as a result of a failure on the part of National Jet Systems to follow the procedure that's set out in the relevant certified agreement in relation to changes to accommodation at which their flight attendants stay when they're away from home base. Without any reference to the Association and in consultation, as required under the agreement, NJS arbitrarily changed all of the accommodation venues that NJS flight attendants stay at across the Australia-wide network.

PN7

They advised the flight attendants in March. The changes took effect 1 April. As a result of those changes, the Association engaged in discussions with NJS in relation to various properties. Unfortunately, that came to nought in relation to a couple of particular properties where our members had raised serious health and safety concerns. As a result of the negotiations between NJS and the Association, the Association filed a dispute. Clause 17C of the agreement, Commissioner - I've handed up a bundle of documents and you'll find the relevant clause towards the front of the first bundle, page 3.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: There's only one bundle, isn't there?

PN9

MR ELDER: I beg your pardon. There's actually three bundles, just with the one bulldog clip.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN11

MR ELDER: I've specifically made them three because the latter two relate particular properties, whereas the first one is correspondence and so on. If you turn to page 3 of - - -

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: The first one.

PN13

MR ELDER: - - - the first document, Commissioner.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Look, I better mark that.

PN15

MR ELDER: Yes.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you mind?

PN17

MR ELDER: Yes.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit FAAA1. Why don't we make the other one - the second one which starts with - - -

PN19

MR ELDER: That's the one with the photo on the front.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - Mercure Inn - yes - exhibit FAAA2, and then the other one, Grand Hotels, exhibit FAAA3.

EXHIBIT #FAAA1 BUNDLE OF CORRESPONDENCE

EXHIBIT #FAAA2 MERCURE INN PROPERTY PARTICULARS

EXHIBIT #FAAA3 GRAND HOTELS PROPERTY PARTICULARS

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. In relation to exhibit FAAA1, you want to take me to page 3, do you?

PN22

MR ELDER: Thank you, Commissioner. If you turn to page 3, you'll note clause 17C of the agreement. That clause reads:

PN23

Agreed places of accommodation shall be listed between the parties. A party to this agreement proposing ...(reads)... Pending resolution of the matter, the existing accommodation arrangements shall continue.

PN24

Commissioner, if you turn to page 2 of FAAA1 you will note at clause 6 under the heading "Definitions""

PN25

Accommodation means accommodation provided for a flight attendant which is agreed between NJS and the FAAA to meet the required standard.

PN26

As I say, Commissioner, the changes to the accommodation by NJS were not in accordance with clause 17C. As a result, the properties at which the flight attendants are now staying are, to some extent, below what we see as the required standard, mainly in relation to health and safety issues. Now, in terms of where the dispute sits now, Commissioner, the Association put a proposal to National Jet through our negotiations and it is what we believe to be an eminently fair proposal. It's one that deals with the health and safety concerns of the flight attendants, but also doesn't create unnecessary burden for the employer insofar as requiring them to withdraw from commercial arrangements that they've made.

PN27

Now, that proposal was three points. 1:

PN28

That NJS flight attendants overnight in the proposed venues -

PN29

that is, the new venues, Commissioner -

PN30

subject to a proper accommodation review of each venue being conducted by an Association nominated group representative -

PN31

which is otherwise a delegate -

PN32

with a report to be provided to both the Association and the company.

PN33

That's point 1. Point 2:

PN34

Where a review by a group representative concludes that a venue is unsuitable insofar as it does not meet the required standard, we should discuss the issue and, if necessary, refer it to the Commission for resolution.

PN35

Point 3:

PN36

In light of the seriousness of the occupational health and safety concerns we've raised, NJS flight attendants,...(reads)... the venues utilised prior to these changes until agreement resolution is reached.

PN37

Now, that proposal, as we say, Commissioner, we think is eminently fair. It takes care of the health and safety concerns of the flight attendants, but it's not overly burdensome to the employer insofar as those properties where we don't have serious oc health and safety concerns, the flight attendants can stay there, subject to a proper review being undertaken by their employees, our members, and then dependent on what the outcome of those reviews are, we go through the process that's envisaged and set out in clause 17C. But for those properties where there are serious issues, what we put is, take the flight attendants out of there because the sorts of issues and, in particular in one property which is at Broome, the sorts of issues that we're looking at are extremely serious.

PN38

What we're talking about, Commissioner, is break-ins. There's at least one break-in to a flight attendant's room while she was asleep in her bed, had her purse stolen, attempted break-ins on at least three occasions, inadequate locks on the doors. The location of the property is inappropriate insofar as the area is used as a public thoroughfare by the locals. It's directly opposite a park where the local lads sit and drink. Flight attendants have been harassed in the area. There are no smoke detectors in the rooms. There are no emergency evacuation plans in the rooms. These are the sorts of issues that we're dealing with, most particularly at Broome.

PN39

Now, that proposal was rejected by National Jet Systems. We understand that they did engage in some discussions with the properties involved and they got some feedback. Unfortunately, not all of our concerns have been met and, most importantly, these flight attendants are still in these properties. Now, the flight attendants who regularly visit Broome are expressing a great deal of concern, and what they are saying to us, in a nutshell, is that they don't feel safe, and the evidence that we've got to date, and we've got a lot of reports - NJS have also got those reports - a lot of the evidence to date says they have good reason to not feel safe, and what we want is to take the flight attendants out of that risk area and step through the procedure.

PN40

What the Association is not seeking to do is to tell NJS where they can accommodate their flight attendants. What we are seeking is to ensure that the standard of accommodation that's provided to these flight attendants is appropriate, and that is that it's safe, that it's secure, that it has proper emergency procedures in place, that it has the amenities that they need, that it's convenient. These are the sorts of things that have been regularly recognised as measures of what constitutes an appropriate standard of accommodation. Now, in terms of where the parties sit at the moment, Commissioner, we think we're not too far off in terms of, perhaps, gaining some sort of resolution and we'd like your assistance in progressing it further.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Elder. Mr Young?

PN42

MR YOUNG: Thank you, Commissioner. My friend - we had some discussions earlier and my friend said he was going to be very brief in his opening remarks. I'm glad we didn't get the long version. We've indicated to my friend that we think he's jumped the gun a bit, with respect, in bringing the matter to the Commission and, in fact, he's not followed the dispute resolution procedure in the agreement. He's given me this morning some material which it probably would have been useful to have earlier. Things seem to get held up when we involve the Commission on many occasions, but we're here now and obviously happy to take the assistance of the Commission as far as we can.

PN43

We've also had some discussions this morning which I think are putting the company and the Association on the track of developing a better working relationship so that we can actually address these issues a little more productively, and I'm very encouraged by the progress that we've made this morning. As my friend says, there is really no great distance between us in terms of resolving the issues which have been identified.

PN44

There are some concerns with the accommodation, particularly in Broome, which seem to be valid and it seems from the information that's now to hand that the provider of that accommodation in Broome is not in compliance with its agreement to us in terms of the standard of accommodation and security, in particular, that's been provided. Our only difficulty with the proposal, which my friend put up in his letter of 5 May, is that we are unable to return to the accommodation previously used in Broome, they simply don't have the rooms available for us.

PN45

We have, in the last several days, been looking around for other accommodation in Broome so that we can put our crew, pilots and flight attendance in that other accommodation until the issues, which have been identified, are resolved. I think my friend's proposal this morning was to be we adjourn into conference so we can have a fuller discussion of the issues and if the Commission is happy with that approach that's what we'd now like to do.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay, we will proceed into conference. Yes, we will proceed into conference.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #FAAA1 BUNDLE OF CORRESPONDENCE PN21
EXHIBIT #FAAA2 MERCURE INN PROPERTY PARTICULARS PN21
EXHIBIT #FAAA3 GRAND HOTELS PROPERTY PARTICULARS PN21