AG2003/3823, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 2698 (27 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 10421
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN
COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD

AG2003/3823

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A
MULTIPLE BUSINESS AGREEMENT (DIVISION 2)

Application under section 170LC of the Act by
the Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association
and Others for certification of the Victorian
Public Health Sector Maintenance Unions
Agreement 2002

MELBOURNE

11.02 AM, MONDAY, 16 JUNE 2003

PN1

MR A. DJONEFF: I appear for the Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association.

PN2

MR G. BORENSTEIN: I appear for the CEPU.

PN3

MS R. JASTRZEBSKI: I appear for the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.

PN4

MR R. WAINWRIGHT: I appear for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.

PN5

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you. Mr Djoneff.

PN6

MR DJONEFF: Thank you, your Honour. There is a number of matters I need to address in seeking your concurrence for the certification of this agreement - that is public interest - an application under section 111(1)(r) on an extension of time and I wish to tender also what I might term a revised draft of the agreement having regard to typographical errors pointed out to us by your associate.

PN7

And I will address that and also that in respect of the agreement that was the subject of vote there was not actually in the agreement a schedule of rates of pay, notwithstanding that clause 8 provides the nature of the increase that the agreement provides. So I will address that as well. Now, it is a matter of the order in which you would prefer to deal with that, your Honour, if the Commission pleases.

PN8

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: You can take your own order, Mr Djoneff, that is fine. Can I just say in relation to the form - - -

PN9

MR DJONEFF: Sorry, your Honour?

PN10

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: You can take your own order - can I just say in relation to the form of the agreement that the agreement made by the parties is the agreement made by the parties - - -

PN11

MR DJONEFF: Yes.

PN12

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: - - - and it seems to me that there is no legal capacity to vary that agreement. And to the extent that another version of the document is being prepared it is really in the nature of an aide memoir I suppose to indicate how the agreement as made is properly to be interpreted in relation to typographical corrections and the issue of the rates of pay.

PN13

MR DJONEFF: Yes.

PN14

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: But it may be convenient, I suppose, to mark the revised document. We will mark the revised document as an exhibit for the purposes of this application.

PN15

MR DJONEFF: I will hand that up, your Honour.

PN16

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you.

EXHIBIT #1 REVISED DOCUMENT - REVISION OF THE MULTIPLE EMPLOYER CERTIFIED AGREEMENT 2002 CORRECTING A NUMBER OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS INCLUDING A SCHEDULE OF RATES

PN17

MR DJONEFF: Your Honour, the document I have handed to you corrects typographical errors that were found to exist in the document that was submitted to the work force for voting in the period between November last year and February this year. It also contains a schedule of the rates of pay that are agreed but which were not in the document that were submitted to the voting process. The rates of pay that the agreement provides were already being paid to the work force at the time the vote was taken. Indeed, both instalments of the wage increase - there are two three per cent increases as provided in clause 8 of the agreement, were already being paid to the work force at the time the vote was taken.

PN18

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And are they are the rates of pay that are provided for by the awards mentioned in clause 24 of the agreement, Mr Djoneff, are they?

PN19

MR DJONEFF: Yes, at the back of the - yes, yes, your Honour. At the time the vote was taken the VHIA as it routinely does, issues salary circulars to give effect to the various increase that have been agreed or endorsed in one manner or another. And those salary circulars were in fact before the work force at the time the vote was taken though they were not incorporated in the document itself. Those salary circulars giving effect to the two sets of increases were before the work force and were in fact being received by the work force at that time and I mean I really cannot say much more than that, your Honour. They are the rates of pay that are being applied.

PN20

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Djoneff, I do not think that at the end of the day there is a problem here, it is just a matter of the Commission having before it formally - - -

PN21

MR DJONEFF: Yes.

PN22

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: - - - the material by which it can discharge its statutory obligation to apply the no-disadvantage test. The agreement as submitted with the application refers to increases but does not indicate - - -

PN23

MR DJONEFF: Increases on what.

PN24

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. What it is the increases relate to.

PN25

MR DJONEFF: Yes, no. I do take that point, your Honour.

PN26

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And therefore, the - on the material before the Commission the no-disadvantage test could not be applied. No doubt the parties had agreed between themselves what the basis of or the foundation for the increases was and that is a matter which, in due course if there was ever a dispute about it, one would prove through extrinsic evidence of one sought or another.

PN27

MR DJONEFF: Yes.

PN28

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And you are simply making that explicit now, to enable the Commission to apply the no-disadvantage test.

PN29

MR DJONEFF: Well, that is right, your Honour. So, I am in your hands in that sense where we go from here. I am sure the parties on the other end of the table will - will support the scenario that I have outlined.

PN30

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: So is the position this, that the rates to which the increases have been applied are the - were the rates prevailing under the awards, referred to in clause 24 immediately before the agreement was reached?

PN31

MR DJONEFF: You will see that there is described, "old rate" in the schedules. They are, in fact, rates that applied to previous agreements. In other words the rates of pay that to which the two three per cents are being applied are substantially in excess of what the award provides at that time.

PN32

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: That is all we needed, Mr Djoneff.

PN33

MR DJONEFF: Okay. Thank you, your Honour.

PN34

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: Mr Djoneff, I take it that the typographical errors are picking up spelling errors and things of that nature?

PN35

MR DJONEFF: Yes, your Honour. Vice President Lawler's associate was kind enough to fax me to point out the error of our typographical ways and they are literally typographical errors inserting paragraph - - -

PN36

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I think it is desirable for you to go through the corrections, Mr Djoneff.

PN37

MR DJONEFF: Yes, your Honour. I will go through them. At clause 16 the original document provided after (g), it actually used the expression, "33". It should actually be "H". Hang on, where are we.

PN38

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: It should actually be "ii", Mr Djoneff.

PN39

MR DJONEFF: Yes. I beg your pardon. Yes, we made it "ii". And the cross reference in that clause has been corrected.

PN40

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN: You have changed it from "unpaid carers leave" to "paid carers leave", did you?

PN41

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: I am sure the unions will be very pleased to see that.

PN42

MR DJONEFF: I had better sit down I think and oppose the certification of this, at this stage.

PN43

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: We will make a handwritten correction.

PN44

MR DJONEFF: Yes, your Honour.

PN45

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I will make a handwritten correct to exhibit 1 so that the word, "paid" in (ii) in clause 16 will become "unpaid".

PN46

MR DJONEFF: It should in fact be "unpaid", yes. At clause 23 the subparagraphs were labelled "34(iii) and (iv)", they should have in fact been (i), (ii) and (iii) and the document reflects that.

PN47

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN48

MR DJONEFF: At clause 28 in the Disputes Settling Procedure, again - - -

PN49

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN: I think you have also added in a definition at the end of (i) in clause 24?

PN50

MR DJONEFF: That is correct, your Honour.

PN51

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN: Which makes explicit that the awards referred to in (i) are the awards referred to in other clauses.

PN52

MR DJONEFF: Yes, that is correct. In clause 28 there was similar typographical errors in relation to (ii), (iii) and then for reasons we - I do not know, number 35, 36, 37 and 38 crept in rather than (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii).

PN53

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Microsoft Word, no doubt.

PN54

MR DJONEFF: Sorry, your Honour.

PN55

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN: I was going to say you can blame Mr Gates, I think. There is problem with Microsoft Word.

PN56

MR DJONEFF: Yes, I notice he has not sought to intervene in this matter, sir, to help us with the correction of these matters.

PN57

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: Mr Djoneff, in clause 29 your roman numerals finish at (vii), this is only a presentational point essentially - - -

PN58

MR DJONEFF: Yes.

PN59

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: - - - but should the three subparagraphs be (viii), (ix) and (x), do you think?

PN60

MR DJONEFF: Arguably. But I do not think any of the parties gave it any thought at that time.

PN61

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: They do - they do not really relate essentially to subparagraph (vii) do they?

PN62

MR DJONEFF: To (vii) - no, I do take that point, your Honour. They do stand on their own in that sense and arguably they should be (ix), (x) and (xi) perhaps.

PN63

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: Or, (viii), (ix) and (x)?

PN64

MR DJONEFF: I beg your pardon, yes - (viii), (ix) and (x).

PN65

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I will make a handwritten correction to exhibit 1, to number those paragraphs (viii), (ix) and (x).

PN66

MR DJONEFF: There are further typographical errors at clause 3 - that is "incidence and parties bound". There should be a bracket before CFMEU to close the bracket.

PN67

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I will make a handwritten change to exhibit 1, to include that bracket.

PN68

MR DJONEFF: Clause 7 - Consultation and Communication - in the last - second last line it was pointed out there was a comma missing from after the word "efficiency" and that has been inserted.

PN69

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: If you really want to be pedantic it, Mr Djoneff, there should be a comma after "flexibility" as well.

PN70

MR DJONEFF: I have to say, your Honour - Commissioner, this agreement is not the high point of drafting precision - - -

PN71

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: Of any of our activities, I suggest.

PN72

MR DJONEFF: - - - of the many MECAs that have been certified by this Commission in the last four months, covering the spectrum of employment in the public health sector.

PN73

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: Yes.

PN74

MR DJONEFF: And I will not go there. Clause 14 - again there has been a - in fact your Honour there is actually an error there altogether. In fact the revised draft continues - makes a further error. Clause 14 - Accident Make-up Pay - the first sentence reads:

PN75

It is agreed that as per the Health Industry Award the stand of 39 weeks shall apply.

PN76

What in fact should have been inserted there was, "the Health and Allied Services (Public Sector) Award.

PN77

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: That is the relevant award is it?

PN78

MR DJONEFF: Yes, that is the agreed award that would be applied for those purposes.

PN79

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: What is the full name again?

PN80

MR DJONEFF: The Health and Allied Services (Public Sector) Award 1998, I think from memory, your Honour.

PN81

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I have made a handwritten change to exhibit 1 to reflect that correction.

PN82

MR DJONEFF: Thank you.

PN83

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I take it the union representatives will rise if they have any issue with any of the matters that Mr Djoneff is raising?

PN84

MR DJONEFF: Your Honour, at clause 16, Personal/Carers Leave - again the draft - the original agreement did not have an oblique between personal and carers. That has been inserted in the revised document.

PN85

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN86

MR DJONEFF: Where are we. Subsection (t) - subsection (e) of clause 16 there was a typographical error there. There was one "t" too many in the third line. That has been corrected. Clause 24 - relationship - - -

PN87

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Djoneff, just before you go to that - - -

PN88

MR DJONEFF: Yes, your Honour.

PN89

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: - - - rather than dropping the "t" should not there have been the addition of the letter "o". Shouldn't there be "too" - - -

PN90

MR BORENSTEIN: Yes.

PN91

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Borenstein is pre-empting your answer I think and making an impression.

PN92

MR DJONEFF: I think that is correct, your Honour, yes.

PN93

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I will amend exhibit - - -

PN94

MR DJONEFF: I did not know whether we had one "t" too many or one not enough.

PN95

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I will amend exhibit 1 to add the word "too".

PN96

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: You missing an "o", Mr Djoneff.

PN97

MR DJONEFF: I am missing an "o", not a - - -

PN98

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: Yes, indeed.

PN99

MR DJONEFF: Not one "t" too many.

PN100

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: That is correct.

PN101

MR DJONEFF: Clause 24 - Relationship to Other Certified Agreements in the Awards - in (i) which in the original had the number "33", the Bill Gates factor, the awards has been inserted in brackets as requested. So they are the typographical, grammatical deficiencies that we seek to remedy through that document, if the Commission pleases.

PN102

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Djoneff, while we are looking at clause - just part of the agreement, can I take you to clause 28 - the Dispute Settling Procedure.

PN103

MR DJONEFF: Yes.

PN104

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And the Empowerment of the Commission which you seek the Commission to authorise pursuant to section 170LW - clause (4) states that:

PN105

If the grievance or dispute still exists and is unresolved the matter may be referred to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for resolution in accordance with the relevant award provisions.

PN106

I do not have at the moment each of the awards. Are there disputes settling clauses in the awards that you are seeking to adopt by reference, or incorporate by reference?

PN107

MR DJONEFF: Yes, your Honour. The agreement is that the - each of the particular clauses of the awards shall be utilised for the purpose of dispute resolution, ie, imported into the agreement for those purposes and those - each of those dispute resolution procedures does provide for arbitration by the Commission at the end of the process. In that sense it is somewhat distinguishable from some of the other public sector agreements, where there is a two phase process. Pretty much as we discussed in an earlier matter today.

PN108

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: In any event the parties are agreed that the role that will be conferred upon the Commission by clause 28(vi) is a role of arbitration?

PN109

MR DJONEFF: That is correct, your Honour.

PN110

MR BORENSTEIN: Yes, your Honour.

PN111

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Djoneff, I think there is a time issue again, you averted to that at the outset?

PN112

MR DJONEFF: Yes, I did, your Honour.

PN113

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And I take it you make application pursuant to section 111?

PN114

MR DJONEFF: Yes, I do make formal application pursuant to section 111(1)(r). Since the vote was taken, the last of the votes in February, some time has elapsed since this matter has come to this Commission. You will note, your Honour, in the material put before you that some - effectively 98 per cent of the work force that voted, voted "yes", in favour of the agreement. We have gone to the trouble of actually doing a survey of all the employers who are subject to this agreement and to ascertain what staff turnover, if any, has occurred in this occupational group.

PN115

Historically, this is a very stable occupational group and, your Honour, the total staffing turnover in this period has been 17, or expressed another way instead of 98 per cent of the work force voting "yes", if all those 17 new employees had voted "no", the "yes" vote would still be in the order of 92 and a half of 93 per cent. So in that sense, your Honour, we do not believe that the integrity of the - of the agreement is in any way appreciably compromised.

PN116

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: The unions do not seek to raise any objection to that?

PN117

MR BORENSTEIN: No, your Honour.

PN118

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: So you accept that, notwithstanding that there has been a longer delay than that specified in the Act for the filing of the agreement with the Commission, that the agreement substantially reflects the will of the existing work force?

PN119

MR BORENSTEIN: That is correct, your Honour.

PN120

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And the other union representatives do not wish to - - -

PN121

MS JASTRZEBSKI: No, this is correct, your Honour.

PN122

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: - - - dissent from that view.

PN123

MR WAINWRIGHT: We are supporting the application for an extension.

PN124

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes, we extend the time for filing of the agreement with the Commission, pursuant to section 111(1)(r).

PN125

MR DJONEFF: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, I might now address obviously the - the public interest question. Some 31 employers would be the subject of this agreement and the relevant employees covered by the agreement. This, I think, is the eighth or the ninth public health sector agreement that has been the subject of certification as multi employer agreements. And if I am not mistaken there are only two occupational groupings left to do in this what might be termed, this industrial round affecting the public health sector.

PN126

The Commission would be aware that virtually all other occupational groupings covered by various unions, ranging from nurses, doctors, dentists, social workers, the administrative, general managerial occupations, the health and allied services, which are essentially the support services staff and the most recent of those being certified this morning. The public interest issues as we believe they are, are reflected in the statutory declarations that have been put forward by the parties.

PN127

Your Honour, there is a common thread running through all of the statutory declarations that have been provided to this Commission in respect of all the occupational groupings and that is the public hospitals, though technically independent employers, are all bound to the Department of Human Services through a process of health service agreements made under the Health Service Act. They have common systems of funding, they are required to deliver outcomes in a consistent fashion and they have reporting obligations to the public - to the Department of Human Services.

PN128

In addition to what might be termed that common thread that has been accepted by this Commission in respect of all the other agreements, there are specific matters that are relevant to this occupational grouping that we say would warrant certification of a multi employer agreement and that is particularly at 4C of the statutory declaration and B, where - and it is pointed out that there is a growing trend for hospitals to share engineering and maintenance function and resources thus leading to more efficient use of such resources.

PN129

There are a good number of hospitals who do not have the full complement of trades categories and it is well known in this industry that a significant part of maintenance functions are also carried out by contractors on an out-sourced basis for a variety of reasons historically, and whether that trend is going to continue or not is a matter that will no doubt be the subject of discussion in the next round of claims, we anticipate. But there is a growing trend for specialist trades classifications to be, if you like, seconded or utilised in other places for particular functions and to that extent our view is that common - common terms of conditions of employment are highly warranted in such an environment.

PN130

So for that and any other reasons that might be advanced by the unions we say that the public interest test is satisfied, having regard to both what might be termed the common threads of public interest that pervade all hospitals and impinge on all classes of employees. They are also the very specific ones as it relates to the maintenance unions. I do not - unless the Commission wants to hear further on that - - -

PN131

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: No, we are satisfied that the test in 170LC(4) is met.

PN132

MR DJONEFF: Thank you, your Honour.

PN133

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Senior Deputy President Kaufman pointed out that the agreement has been executed on behalf of the CEPU - well, sorry, that begs the question. Senior Deputy President Kaufman has pointed out that the purported execution on behalf of the CEPU has been by two individuals who are said to be the secretary of respectively the Electrical Division and the Plumbing Division.

PN134

Those divisions, as I understand it, do not have a separate legal entity so that this is not formally an execution by the union, unless those individuals were authorised by the union to sign on behalf of the union, rather than just on behalf of their division.

PN135

MR BORENSTEIN: Your Honour, I may be able to assist on that. Both the person - both the secretary of the Electrical and the Plumbing - both have the authority to sign agreements which bind - both the union but relate to their division - particular division and I agree with your Honour in respect of that the CEPU is one organisation and it is the CEPU that is bound - the whole of the CEPU is bound by this agreement and each secretary in each branch has the authority to sign on behalf of the union.

PN136

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN: Yes, so where in clause 3 it identifies as the parties bound as the CEPU in respect of those two divisions that is really what those brackets mean in respect - it is the organisation itself in respect of those two divisions?

PN137

MR BORENSTEIN: The whole of the union will be bound. I think in respect of that paragraph it is suggesting that the classifications only relate to those divisions. The agreement will actually only apply to members of those divisions - in the classification within those divisions, but it is binding on the whole organisation.

PN138

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And you appear today on behalf of the union as a whole?

PN139

MR BORENSTEIN: That is correct. I am - - -

PN140

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And you submit to us on the basis of your knowledge and instructions that when the agreement was executed, it was executed by those two individuals on behalf of the union as a whole.

PN141

MR BORENSTEIN: That is correct, your Honour.

PN142

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you. We are satisfied that the application satisfies the various requirements in the Act, having extended the time pursuant to section 111(1)(r), and, in particular, we are satisfied that the agreement satisfies the no disadvantage test and the public interest test in section 170LC(4) and we propose to certify the agreement. We will issue some short reasons later today. The parties don't need to wait around. The written reasons and the formal certification will be sent to you.

PN143

I think as I indicated earlier, the agreement that the parties made and that was approved by the vote is the agreement that is being certified. Exhibit 1 is that document with certain typographical corrections made and other corrections, which I think would flow automatically from a construction of the agreement in relation to the matters that were addressed. The course that I was proposing to follow, subject to anything that other members of the Bench wish to say, was to annex a copy of exhibit 1 to the reasons but that the document which will be certified will be the agreement as approved by the members. But it would be read as being consistent with the corrections that have been noted on exhibit 1.

PN144

MR BORENSTEIN: If your Honour pleases, it might be useful in the decision to certify, which usually precedes the certified agreement when it is published on the Internet, to have in the actual - just the decision to certify a reference to exhibit 1 saying that - just so that parties who do seek to access the agreement are drawn attention to this exhibit.

PN145

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. Just bear with me one moment. Just after discussing it amongst ourselves, we are inclined to think that there is scope for confusion on the part of people that might wish to rely upon this agreement in due course if the document which is certified and, therefore, which makes its way onto Wagenet and the various other electronic databases is in the form of the agreement as approved by the voting majority rather than in the form of exhibit 1 and that it is certainly desirable from a practical perspective that the document that is certified is the one that contains the corrections.

PN146

So, Mr Djoneff, would you be in a position to have those corrections that have been noted made electronically and to e-mail through a further revised copy which reflects the changes made in exhibit 1?

PN147

MR DJONEFF: Yes, I certainly can do that, your Honour. It just occurred to me that - - -

PN148

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: We will consider the matter further but at the moment we are inclined to certify the form of words which is presently in exhibit 1 in order to minimise the risk of confusion on the part of individuals on the basis that it, in fact, represents the agreement of the parties, even though it is not in the precise form that the members voted on.

PN149

MR DJONEFF: Your Honour, I was just going to - it just occurred to me that within the agreement, at clause 26, simply going to see whether we can resolve this issue of potential confusion, clause 26 is the clause that talks about capability to vary agreement, whether for the purposes of resolving the confusion, the parties could potentially resort to clause 26 for those purposes, if that is - it is a straight off the top of the head inquiry to you, I suppose, as to whether that is a potential vehicle to resolve what is potentially a confusing document.

PN150

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN: Mr Djoneff, I note that to do that would require putting the matter to a vote again.

PN151

MR DJONEFF: Yes.

PN152

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN: For my part, speaking off the top of my head, it seems to me that exhibit 1 is the agreement.

PN153

MR DJONEFF: Yes.

PN154

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN: No substantive terms have been changed. There are merely typographical errors that have been corrected. As far as I am concerned, speaking for myself, it seems to me that exhibit R1 represents the agreement between the parties, albeit there were typographical errors in the document that was voted on. I would be happy to certify that agreement, speaking for myself.

PN155

MR DJONEFF: That is fine. Thank your Honour.

PN156

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I think the parties can take it that that is the course that will be adopted. So the agreement will be certified and the formal documentation will issue later today. Is there anything further that the parties need to put on the record?

PN157

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD: Mr Djoneff should now supply a fresh copy of exhibit 1 with the further corrections that have been made this morning, electronically.

PN158

MR DJONEFF: Yes, I will do that.

PN159

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: You can perhaps get the relevant e-mail address from my associate, Mr Djoneff.

PN160

MR DJONEFF: I have it, your Honour.

PN161

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: The Commission is adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.39am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #1 REVISED DOCUMENT - REVISION OF THE MULTIPLE EMPLOYER CERTIFIED AGREEMENT 2002 CORRECTING A NUMBER OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS INCLUDING A SCHEDULE OF RATES PN17