C2003/169, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 2929 (11 July 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 2, 16 St George's Tce, PERTH WA 6000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N WT0498
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BLAIN

C2003/169

TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA -
WESTERN AUSTRALIA BRANCH

and

TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT GROUP

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of an industrial dispute re alleged cancellation
of "Football Specials"

C2003/170

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO
STOP OR PREVENT INDUSTRIAL
ACTION

Application under section 127(2) of the Act by
Transport Management Group for an order to stop
or prevent industrial action re termination of the
provision of bus services to cover special events

PERTH

10.30 AM, FRIDAY, 27 JUNE 2003

PN1

MR N. HODGSON: I appear, with Mr M. Knowles, on behalf of the Transport Workers Union of Australia.

PN2

MR C. STANLEY: I appear on behalf of Southern Coast Transit.

PN3

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Hodgson, would you wish to commence?

PN4

MR HODGSON: Thank you, your Honour. If I may, just some brief opening remarks and then, I believe, the parties will be requesting that we adjourn to conference, if the Commission believe it is appropriate. But, by way of background, this is an application made pursuant to section 127 of the Act. We are seeking an order to stop or prevent industrial action

PN5

being performed by the company, Southern Coast Transit. The industrial action involves the cancellation, or potential future cancellation, of a service called the Football Specials. They are a service that is provided by the company to take patrons to and from football grounds.

PN6

The background to the matter, your Honour, is that the parties are currently negotiating a replacement agreement for the Southern Coast Transit Certified Agreement 2000. The agreement expires on 30 June, this year, 2003. As is the union's usual practise we initiated a bargaining period and we served that on the company on 6 June this year. The negotiations commenced and were at an advanced stage, however the parties have yet to reach agreement on the replacement agreement. Now, recently the company terminated negotiations.

PN7

They believe that they had had enough of negotiating with the Transport Workers Union and indicated to us that they weren't prepared to negotiate any further. As well, they informed the union that they were taking the agreement as it stood to a ballot of the workforce, as is required by the Act, after the required 14 days. The TWU conducted our own ballot. We were seeking feedback from our members as to their attitude, as to whether they supported, and we put it in a broad term, an industrial campaign. And it was put to our members in a ballot and the results of that ballot was that the members overwhelmingly supported the TWU embarking on an industrial campaign.

PN8

Now, bearing in mind that the agreement expires on 30 June, the industrial campaign would - any industrial action, as you are aware, your Honour, would be unprotected if it occurred prior to the agreement expiring. But, I can say at this stage the TWU is not contemplating any industrial action. We were just seeking the advice from our members, as we do, as to what their attitude is if we needed to embark on an industrial campaign. We didn't define what that meant. We left it as broad as possible.

PN9

As I said, at this stage, there is no industrial action contemplated by the TWU. We are aware of our social responsibility. These are key services, they are bus services to the public. A lot of people, elderly people, a lot of unemployed people rely on the service, as well as the general public, to go about their business. In fact, Mick Knowles has repeatedly requested, in a responsible way, that the negotiations be reconvened and, unfortunately, he has been denied that opportunity.

PN10

Now, the drivers that the company believe that - the company has actually embarked upon a deliberate campaign to - I don't know if intimidation and aggravation are too strong a terms but I can't think of any softer terms at present. But we believe they are trying to provoke their own workforce into taking some kind of wildcat industrial action to justify a claim to remove the bargaining period and, hence, deny the workers their right to engage in protected action if they so decide. And, as I mentioned, at this stage, there has been no decision at all and there is no plans or, as George Bush says: There is nothing on our table. So, there isn't going to be any industrial action.

PN11

Now, some examples of what we say is some of the actions of the company to try and provoke their own workforce, is they've implemented new rosters as of last Sunday, on 22 June. These rosters are in breach of the award and in breach of the certified agreement. In those agreements - I'm sorry I can't take you to the clause. It is not really relevant, but in the agreements and awards the maximum length of a shift is 10 hours and five minutes. They actually have a new roster regime that has shifts that are a greater period of time than 10 hours and five minutes and this is a sensitive point to the drivers.

PN12

And, as I said, the main one is they've cancelled or threatened to cancel these Football Specials and what that effectively means is that it is denying workers overtime and a lot of workers in the transport industry rely on overtime to supplement their income. Now, yesterday the workers voted on the certified agreement and they rejected it overwhelmingly. In fact the results, I'm told, are - and I stand to be corrected, but I'm told that 170 voted no against the certified agreement and 86 voted yes. So we've lodged this 127 application. I don't know if you want me to go to that at this stage. It might be useful if I conclude at that stage and request that the matter be adjourned to conference, if it please the Commission.

PN13

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. Thank you, Mr Hodgson. Before doing that I would like to hear the submissions of Mr Stanley.

PN14

MR STANLEY: Thank you, sir. There is actually two applications before the Commission, as I understand it. One is a notification of dispute under section 99 and the second is an application under section 127, where the union are seeking an order. And we are certainly opposed to the issuance of an order. We believe that the claim is not properly founded at all. Some of the information that is contained in the application is actually incorrect but our objection to this application under section 127 is it is simply not well-founded under the Act. I will come back to that in a few moments if you don't mind but some background for the Commission may be somewhat helpful.

PN15

Southern Coast Transit is covered by the WA Passenger Bus Industry Award 2000 and we currently have two certified agreements. One certified agreement, which is the one mentioned in the application, is the Southern Coast Transit Perth Depot Certified Agreement 2002. Now, that applies to drivers and services operating from the Perth Depot only, which is the CATS bus drivers. The other certified agreement is one that is entitled the Southern Coast Transit Certified Agreement 2000 and that is the one that my friend, Mr Hodgson, indicated was due to expire. It has got a nominal expiry date of 30 June, which is this coming Monday and so it is likely that that is the agreement that is the one that is actually being referred to and not the one quoted in the application, which is actually the Perth Depot one.

PN16

In relation to the background of the issues, sir, the TWU and three passenger bus companies in Perth were engaged in a dispute back in 1999. The union sought a minimum conditions award for all of the companies, a common award which applied to all three. Now, this was opposed by the other two companies but this was a position that Southern Coast supported, that there was one single minimum conditions award applying to all three. We had a lot of difficulty reaching agreement on what those should be in the award and the conditions and eventually the matter was arbitrated before Commissioner Lang and the award was arbitrated almost in its entirety because of a lack of ability of the parties to reach agreement.

PN17

Following the issue of the award we then went into negotiations for certified agreements with each of the companies and from that point we, equally, were unable to reach agreements and accommodations with each other and a series of industrial actions commenced, which went for some period of time. Now, eventually, the companies made an application before the Commission for the bargaining period to be terminated and we made those applications on the grounds of public safety, public interest. And I was pleased to hear Mr Hodgson indicating before, in his comments to you, that the union understand the importance of being able to provide on-going services to the public. That really is one of the critical issues with many of the public not having access to other transport.

PN18

So that was brought to a conclusion and following the bargaining period being brought to a conclusion, the parties reached agreement incredibly quickly. They were able to sit down and we put in place the certified agreements, literally in a matter of weeks and they've operated reasonably successfully. Now, one of the conditions of the certified agreements required the parties to undertake negotiations three months before these agreements came to an end, as far as the nominal termination date of them. Three months ago we commenced negotiations with the TWU. We commenced negotiations by putting offers to them which were - certainly had all of the existing things and conditions within it and a number of enhancements and the continuation of what would be regarded as a - or what we regard as being a very attractive remuneration and wage review package.

PN19

Now, during the negotiations that have gone on for three months, we seem to have literally got nowhere at all. Each offer that has been made and each meeting that has taken place has produced very little. Now, a very similar or almost identical proposition has been put at Path, which was one of the other companies covered by it, accepted by the TWU, recommended by the TWU, and has since been voted on by the troops and it is currently listed to come before the Commission to be certified as an agreement. The rates of pay and all of these type of things that we were offering were on a similar basis, certainly, not less than what was being offered there. Some of our aspects were actually in excess of there.

PN20

Towards the end of the negotiations the union have come back with what I could only describe as being an ambit claim, where the wages sought and the underlying guarantees were double what had already been agreed to in past with the other companies. In fact they've put us in a situation where it was just totally unacceptable, after three months, or almost three months, of negotiation we were really back behind square one. We've put an offer to the unions which indicate that the conditions that we are prepared to go and how far we are prepared to go. It has been voted on by the members. Now, prior to the vote being taken by the members the offer was made, a two week period set down, and at the end of that two week period a vote was to be taken.

PN21

In the meantime the union decided that they were going to pre-empt that vote and embarked upon a campaign which was to influence the drivers not to accept that particular proposition and put to them that, as an alternative, they embark upon a campaign. Now, we would regard the waters as being considerably poisoned before the vote took place. The vote has since taken place, which was last night, or we had the result last night. And, as Mr Hodgson indicated that was a vote of approximately two to one against the proposal and I think, in retrospect, having seen the campaigning that was going on by both the union and the delegates, it wasn't surprising to us at all. We see the situation resulting from that as there really isn't much room for the parties to move. We've really made our best offer and the claim that the union have made against the company we see as just being totally unacceptable and, as I indicated before, it literally becomes an ambit claim.

PN22

The activities of the company involve providing services to a number of clients on a commercial basis. These clients that we provide services to on a commercial basis can range through from providing Football Specials, rail replacement, school buses, etcetera. They are commercial arrangements. The union over the past number of weeks, and certainly over the past month, have been talking about industrial action, taking votes on industrial action. There seems to have been leaks to the newspapers and media and on the radio there has been indications that industrial action will be occurring. There has been dates that have been talked about, floated around from union meetings, as being the dates that industrial action and disruption would occur.

PN23

So the tenor or the sabre rattling has been heard by clients. It has been heard by clients such as the school companies. It has been heard by rail and what have you. They naturally, in undertaking or entering into a commercial arrangement with Southern Coast Transit, would say to Southern Coast Transit: We've heard of industrial disruption. Are you able to guarantee that you will be able to provide these services? That they will be free of industrial disruption. While an industrial campaign sits there, clearly on the books from the union, we are not able to provide clients with a guarantee that there won't be industrial disruption. Consequently, that makes a number of them very nervous about entering into any commercial arrangement with Southern Coast. In other words, we lose the work. The overtime availability simply isn't there.

PN24

One of, I suppose, the technique of sabre rattling is to both g-up the troops and also to indicate to the employer, or the other side, that you're quite serious about what you're doing. The sabre rattling actually has that same effect on clients, who then become very reluctant to do it, to enter into contracts. Situation with the rail - sorry, the situation with football, is that there hasn't been a cancellation made by Southern Coast Transit at all. There was no overtime that was available last week for football because I don't know whether it has occurred to anybody, but actually there was a mid-season break in football. There was no football on so, of course, it wasn't necessary.

PN25

I've had discussions with Mr Knowles from the Transport Workers Union. He has given me assurances, which I've passed on to the company, that there would certainly be no disruption of any kind for the next two weeks. Consequently, we've gone back to our clients in relation to the football and overtime bookings have actually already been made for this week's football and I understand, if the client is still comfortable with those undertakings, that we would expect the following week, our undertaking still stands, and that there won't be industrial disruption and we would expect that we would have those contracts.

PN26

Whether we have those contracts or not is in the hands of the client. They are the person engaging the services of the company. And there is no doubts that the overtime is very attractive. It is not everybody that gets paid $30 an hour plus, drive a bus to football, be able to go into a special enclosure, watch the game on full pay, then come back and drive back again. So it really is a very attractive proposition for them. But there is also the possibility of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. That if those clients lose confidence in Southern Coast, because we have industrial disruption, those drivers will ultimately lose out on the benefits that flow from it.

PN27

Our position in relation to the validity of the application for a section 127 is that we are talking about a commercial arrangement. We are not talking about industrial conditions. If I refer to section 89 of the Act there is allowable matters. There is no way that a claim that the company enter into a commercial arrangement and lock in another company, into a commercial arrangement, can fall within the confines of the Act. We could argue the toss and it could become before the Commission regarding the rates of pay, the rate of overtime, the penalty rates, but the availability of overtime is not provided for by the Act. It doesn't fall into the category of a industrial action. It can't form a claim in itself and it can't form an industrial action.

PN28

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you clarify for me, Mr Stanley, the specific provision within - I presume it is 89(a) that you're referring to?

PN29

MR STANLEY: If I could just borrow a copy of the Act?

PN30

MR HODGSON: Yes.

PN31

MR STANLEY: Thank you, sir. Won't be a moment, sir. The section that I'm looking for, sir, is on allowable matters.

PN32

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you referring to section 89(a)(ii)?

PN33

MR STANLEY: Yes, I'm having difficulty picking it up, that section, in this particular book. It is not the TWU version is it, Neville?

PN34

MR HODGSON: I took it out, Mr Stanley.

PN35

MR STANLEY: Yes, section 90(a)(ii), sir, is the scope of industrial disputes:

PN36

Industrial dispute normally limited to an allowable award matter. For the following purpose an industrial dispute is taken to include only matters covered by sections (ii) and (iii).

PN37

And if I turn over to section 89(a)(ii), allowable award matters:

PN38

For the purposes of sub-section (i) the matters are as follows.

PN39

And it goes through and identifies all of those matters which are capable of

PN40

being included within an award and ruled on by the Commission. Going into a commercial agreement certainly doesn't fall within that category. If it was the rate of pay that was applicable for overtime, or something along those lines, it would certainly fall into that but the dispute is not about that, the dispute is about the availability of overtime which is not covered and also the availability - the company actually entering into a commercial agreement.

PN41

It would certainly be an untenable situation for a Commission to be making a ruling which indicated to the company that you are required to enter into a particular commercial agreement to provide overtime or any other benefit to your employees. That is an area that the Commission would stay right away from.

PN42

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN43

MR STANLEY: So we would say that the application for a section 127 is not properly founded at all. The situation in relation to section 99, we would certainly agree that there is a dispute that exists between the parties and we would say that exists for probably broader reasons than indicated, simply by this overtime, or this argument regarding Football Specials. Our situation, sir, is that we have made offers to the union, that they've been quite realistic offers and I believe that the bona fides of the other parties dealing with us, in raising what amounts to an ambit claim in the final stages of negotiation, indicates that they are simply not negotiating in a bona fide manner.

PN44

In our view, following the vote from yesterday, it is extremely unlikely that the parties would reach agreement and the prospect of industrial action and the prospect of not reaching an agreement for some considerable period of time does raise the question of termination of the bargaining period. There is two elements that come into that, I would suggest to you. One, is the company is able to make an application for cancellation or termination of the bargaining period. So an application can be made by one of the parties or, alternately, the Commission does have the capacity, under section 170MW of the Act to make that determination of its own volition. And, certainly, if it is of the view that industrial action is a possibility and industrial action would be contrary to the safety and public interest, then the Commission is quite able to bring that to an end. Conciliating from there with the parties and eventually putting it to the Full Bench, if no conclusions and no resolution is reached by the parties.

PN45

The further grounds for termination can certainly be the fact that it is unlikely to be any prospect of reaching agreement and I think from the details that have occurred so far, that it is not hard to conclude that that would be the case. So we would ask you, sir, that the application for a section 127 be dismissed. We would certainly be quite happy in the finding of a dispute and for the Commission to consider where this dispute will go from here. The Commission doesn't necessarily need to wait until industrial action is actually taken. People are put at risk and the public disrupted before they make a motion of their own, or of their own volition, decided to terminate the bargaining period.

PN46

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you putting to me, Mr Stanley, that under 170MW that - - -

PN47

MR STANLEY: Sub-clause (iii). Sub-clause (iii), that gives the Commission the capacity.

PN48

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There could be a threat to endanger the life, personal safety or health or welfare of the population or part of it?

PN49

MR STANLEY: That is correct, sir. If I could refer you back to the last time that this matter came in, which was for the termination of a bargaining period. It went before Commissioner Lang at that stage. Considerable evidence was mounted, at that particular time. Evidence was put by a number of people which talked about the disruption, the lack of other services, possibility of people being stranded in the street, likelihood of young girls hitchhiking home, running into those type issues. There was a considerable amount of evidence that was given.

PN50

Now, that evidence actually applies itself, not only to that situation there but to any disruption to public transport. It is quite evidence that a disruption to public transport, particularly in the far reaching public transport, such as down to Rockingham and those directions, there aren't alternatives available for people. So we would suggest to you, sir, that the danger needn't actually occur before the Commission takes action on it. The Commission could reasonable anticipate a danger caused by industrial disruption.

PN51

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN52

MR STANLEY: Thank you, sir.

PN53

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That concludes your submission?

PN54

MR STANLEY: Yes, thank you.

PN55

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I didn't hear you make any submission in relation to conciliation. That was foreshadowed by Mr Hodgson as being a constructive way of proceeding and I would seek your view on that?

PN56

MR STANLEY: We are quite happy to have discussions and to proceed with this - or take these proceedings into conciliation to see whether there has been any change of the situation. If there has, we would be delighted, so we are quite happy to proceed with that.

PN57

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, having heard - - -

PN58

MR HODGSON: Sorry, your Honour?

PN59

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Hodgson.

PN60

MR HODGSON: If I may just respond, if it please the Commission?

PN61

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: For what purpose? Can you clarify?

PN62

MR HODGSON: There are matters going to the validity, the 127 application, that Mr Stanley raised and I haven't actually put on the record the TWUs position in terms of your jurisdiction to hear the 127 and it may be useful if you think to just - - -

PN63

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN64

MR HODGSON: I will briefly put that on the record, if I may?

PN65

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you would. Please proceed.

PN66

MR HODGSON: In terms of a 127 application there is two issues, as you are aware, your Honour, to decide. And that is, one, whether you have the jurisdiction to issue the order and once that hurdle is overcome, if it indeed is overcome, then there is the issue of, you know, your discretionary powers to issue the order. Now, if you go to section 127 it doesn't talk about industrial disputes as Mr Stanley raised. It talks about industrial action. So if I could take you to the definition of industrial action, which is in section 4 of the Act, I believe. It talks about:

PN67

Industrial action being the performance of work in a manner different from that in which is customarily performed.

PN68

We would say that, in this case, the cancellation of, or threatened cancellation of, the Football Specials is work that is performed in a manner different and we say the work is covered by the terms of conditions of the award or certified agreement. And you could even construct an argument that it is almost a ban or limitation or restriction on the performance of work. So I don't know whether the argument about a allowable matter is actually relevant in the sense that a 127 application is primarily about industrial action.

PN69

Now, and as I mentioned before, in terms of the discretionary powers of the Commission there in section 127(ii):

PN70

The Commission may make an order on its own motion or an application by a party to the industrial dispute.

PN71

And we provided a draft order which actually does need a slight variation, if I may, your Honour. And Mr Stanley alluded to it, that in the order we have got under a heading "2" on the first page, it mentions The Southern Coast Transit Perth Depot Certified Agreement 2002. It should actually read "The Southern Coast Transit Certified Agreement 2000". Now, in terms of Mr Stanley's comments about the three months of negotiations, there have actually only been three meetings between the union and the company about the certified agreement.

PN72

So, even though the negotiations commenced three months ago, there has only been three meetings. And in my experience, for what it is worth, your Honour, enterprise bargaining negotiations usually require a little bit more than three meetings. We totally oppose any contemplation of the - with respect the Commission going into the issue of terminating a bargaining period, I don't see that that is required. There are other - the company can make an application as Mr Stanley said, to terminate the bargaining period. I don't think it is justified or warranted at this stage.

PN73

The TWU opens bargaining periods all the time. We do it as a matter of course. We negotiate hundreds of certified agreements around the country and it is very rare that the opening of a bargaining period leads to protected action. I can't give you any figures, but anecdotally it is - you know, it is a small percentage. It doesn't guarantee industrial action, the mere fact that we initiate a bargaining period. We do it as a matter of course. We think it is the appropriate thing to do. And, as I have said before, there is no industrial action contemplated.

PN74

Any discussions about dates, all those kind of things would - at meetings, would have been explained in the process to the members. Just saying that, you know, we open a bargaining period, that puts it on the record, it enables the parties to ask the Commission for help if we need assistance, if we can't reach agreement on negotiations. And we would have explained to them that if industrial action is taken, then it has got to be protected action. And there can't be any industrial action until after 30 June when this agreement expires.

PN75

So, the only talk of dates would have been in that context. There are - I can say there are no dates or planned dates for any - there are no plans for any industrial action at Southern Coast Transit. But, having said, we would - unless there are any questions I would conclude on those remarks, if it please the Commission.

PN76

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you Mr Hodgson. Well, having heard both parties I am mindful of the fact that before the Commission there are two applications. One pursuant to section 127 and one pursuant to section 99 and I have before me a request for a conciliation conference which is not opposed. However, before adjourning into conciliation I would like to clarify what might be a desirable course of outcome, in terms of these somewhat complex proceedings before the Commission today.

PN77

And it occurs to me that if progress in conciliation enabled the section 127, on resumption of hearing, to be withdrawn then the section 99 could remain afoot before the Commission on the basis that obviously there is an important issue that the parties need to get to grips with and resolve for their mutual benefit. Having said that, I am just simply foreshadowing for later, something which I think the parties will need to address, not necessarily now, but at a later point. Given that it is my view that the matter should adjourn into conciliation, I simply, at this point don't require any response to what I have said. However, of course, any party is free to make a response if he so wish.

PN78

I would propose that we adjourn forthwith into conciliation with a view to trying to make as much constructive progress as is possible this morning, in the limited time that exists. And then to return to hearing to confirm the outcomes of that conference, if appropriate, subject to the conciliation conference. That is my view, as to how we should proceed at this point. If there are no further comments or submissions at this point in time, we will now adjourn.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.09am]

RESUMED [12.08am]

PN79

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would like to, on the resumption of the hearing, after conciliation, to invite the applicant to express its position and proposal as to how to deal with the matters before the Commission, Mr Hodgson.

PN80

MR HODGSON: Thank you, your Honour. I forgot to thank the Commission, on the record, for listing the matter so expeditiously. I understand it was only received by the Commission late yesterday afternoon, so we appreciate it being listed today. There has been progress, I am pleased to say. The company have undertaken that there - they will use their best endeavours not to cancel the Football Specials which was the subject to the 127 application. So, on that basis, I can say on the record, that the Transport Workers' Union will be withdrawing that application, but we would request that the section 99 remain alive and well because it may be useful in the future.

PN81

In terms of where the parties are at, arising out of the conference, it has been agreed that negotiations between the parties will recommence. Those negotiations will be principally around the new proposed certified agreement. The issues have been defined and they are the issue of the 7.6 hour working day, if I can put it like that, the shift length and also we would like to put on the record that we requested that the company explore the issue of an operative date for the certified agreement being struck on 1 July this year, whether or not agreement has been reached on the certified agreement. The company has undertaken to consider that request.

PN82

It is on that basis, your Honour, that we will be seeking further - we will be seeking a meeting with the company within the next 10 days to try and progress those issues. And that is my understanding of where the parties are at, if it please the Commission.

PN83

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you Mr Hodgson, for that. Mr Stanley?

PN84

MR STANLEY: Thank you, your Honour. And I also thank you for making the Commission's availability so swiftly after the union's application. The conciliation conference has been useful in as far as it does seem that there is simply two issues that are confronting the parties, albeit possibly difficult ones to find a resolution to. One of them may not be too complex because it appears that the length of the shift, it is an interpretation issue which I think we can sit down fairly quickly with the union and work our way through that as to what each party is saying and what the agreements actually reflect.

PN85

The issue of the 7.6, having been defined as the problem, we are more than happy to meet with the union and have some further discussions. And I would be hopeful that they may be putting an alternate proposition forward, or putting their thoughts forward to us within that period of time so that we are able to have constructive discussions at the next meeting. And we are quite happy for the section 99 to remain afoot, sir, and proceed with these discussions and see if we can resolve the issues ourselves. Thank you.

PN86

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you for that. Well, from the Commission's point of view, the submissions of the parties that have just been made are welcomed. And the Commission strongly encourages the parties to, in the spirit of give and take, proceed to reach agreement on the matters that are the subject of these proceedings. Turning to the section 127, Mr Hodgson, if it would assist the applicant I would be willing to accept a withdrawal by way of a statement now in the hearing, that the section 127 is withdrawn and that would be sufficient. There would be no requirement from the Commission's point of view, for you subsequently to confirm this in writing, if that would assist.

PN87

MR HODGSON: Yes, yes your Honour, I can confirm that the Transport Workers' Union Australia wishes to withdraw the 127 application which is application number C2003/170, if it please the Commission.

PN88

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. In terms of the Commission's own procedure, the standard procedure, and the parties are welcome to comment on this if you wish, my intention would be if no further request has been made to the Commission concerning the 10 day period of negotiation within a subsequent 10 day period - in other words within a 20 day period, that the file would be closed and returned to registry. Do the parties wish to express a view on that time-frame?

PN89

MR HODGSON: No, I hope that happens, your Honour. Happy to accept that recommended procedure.

PN90

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Stanley?

PN91

MR STANLEY: Yes, I am not too uncomfortable with the procedure. We do hope to reach agreement, possibly an extension somewhat, of holding the file open may be more appropriate, sir.

PN92

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, it was put really as a contingency, not as an expectation. And in the circumstances of the constructive discussions at the conference by those that were present and contributed, I would like to thank the parties for their contributions today. We will now adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [12.16pm]