C2002/5564, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 3 (6 January 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

C2002/5564

AIRLINE OPERATIONS (TRANSPORT WORKERS)
AWARD 1998

Application under section 113 of the Act
by Transport Workers Union of Australia to
vary the above award re general cleaning
duties

SYDNEY

9.32 AM, FRIDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2002

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, could I have the appearances, please?

PN2

MS S. LEARMONTH: Good morning, Commissioner, with me is MR W. NOONAN, on behalf of the Transport Workers Union and also MR R. PARDO, who is a union delegate.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: How do you spell your name, sorry?

PN4

MS LEARMONTH: My name?

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN6

MS LEARMONTH: L-e-a-r-m-o-n-t-h.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Learmonth. Thank you, Ms Learmonth.

PN8

MS LEARMONTH: Thank you.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?

PN10

MR D. MILLS: May it please the Commission, I appear on behalf of Qantas Airway Limited.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Yes, Ms Learmonth, what's the situation?

PN12

MS LEARMONTH: Commissioner, this is an application by the Transport Workers Union to vary the classification details under clause 20.2 of the Airline Operations (Transport Workers) Award 1998. This award is a simplified award. Firstly, Commissioner, I actually probably need to amend our application, our application which I did fax through to Qantas yesterday. Our application, actually we were seeking to add a new definition to clause 4 to specify the general cleaning duties. However, our draft order is now simply looking to add that definition into clause 20.2.2.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I see.

PN14

MS LEARMONTH: On 2 December 2002, the application, the draft order, a notice of listing and the order for substituted service was served upon the respondents to the award by a substituted service. Unfortunately, Commissioner, I don't have a statement which attests to that but I do have the registered mail slips and if I may tender the registered mail slips that were faxed through to your chambers and to Qantas on Monday, the statement of service.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll mark this exhibit TWU1.

EXHIBIT #TWU1 REGISTERED MAIL SLIPS

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: It's the same thing, isn't it, two copies of the same matter? Is that right?

PN17

MS LEARMONTH: Yes. Sorry, you have the original and a copy. The other document that I should also tender to the Commission is the draft order.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I'll mark that exhibit TWU2.

EXHIBIT #TWU2 DRAFT ORDER

PN19

MS LEARMONTH: Should the Commission grant the application that we're seeking today, the very clause which would be clause 20.2.2 would read as set out in exhibit TWU2 and that would read as follows:

PN20

General cleaning duties including but not limited to aircraft and cabin presentation at the point of turnaround or routine service cleaning of the aircraft's exterior, internal carpets (including removal), toilets, water storage system and cargo department and or other light duties.

PN21

The variation we're seeking is to remove any ambiguity relating to the functions of a level 2 airline service operator by providing greater detail, particularly in relation to the description of general cleaning duties at the second dot point at clause 20.2.2 of the award. In addition, we seek to make this variation on the grounds that it would modernise the clause to better reflect the actual duties being performed at this level. This approach reflects the approach taken by the parties during the simplification process.

PN22

We would also say that this amended clause better reflects the specific nature of the cleaning work that is being done on the aircraft, both at the point of turnaround and on a more comprehensive routine basis. Just to explain this a bit further, Commissioner, there are two different groups of workers who are involved in general cleaning of aircraft. There is a group involved in the spot cleaning of the aircraft's cabin. This generally occurs at the airport terminal at the point of the aircraft's turnaround. This type of cleaning is done to ensure that the aircraft's cabin is presentable and ready for its next service.

PN23

Separately, the other group are responsible for getting the aircraft's exterior and interior a more thorough clean. This occurs on a routine basis away from the terminal usually in a specialised facility. The cleaning functions performed during this process include cleaning of the aircraft's exterior, the interior cabin fixtures, carpets, toilets, water storage system and cargo department and they are all given a separate clean. They might be pulled apart to be cleaned rather thoroughly.

PN24

Whilst it could be said that the current clause 20.2.2 covers these two groups of workers already, what we are trying to achieve by altering the clause is to better clarify the term "general cleaning duties" to the two groups of workers performing the tasks under this definition. It should be noted also that the union has members in both types of general cleaning duties.

PN25

Finally, we believe that this variation updates the classification structure at clause 20.2.2 to make it more relevant to the general cleaning duties involved with maintaining an aircraft's presentation and we are seeking that the Commission grant the variation with an operative date of today's date.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: What's the current definition?

PN27

MS LEARMONTH: Commissioner, I don't know if you have a copy of the award.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I don't.

PN29

MS LEARMONTH: I apologise, I would have brought you one.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, can you read it. How different is it from what is in your proposed change?

PN31

MS LEARMONTH: Currently 20.2.2 of the Airline Operations (Transport Workers) Award 1998 has four dot points so at 20.2.2 has a heading of level 2 Airline Services Operator and then it has four dot points. The first dot point says:

PN32

All functions associated with cleaning, preparation, packaging of catering equipment, aircraft stores and amenities kits.

PN33

The second dot point says:

PN34

General cleaning duties including aircraft and cabin presentation.

PN35

and that is the one that we are looking to vary. The third dot point says:

PN36

Baggage and freight function (non aircraft AAF only).

PN37

and the fourth dot point says:

PN38

Operation of basic communication and computer aids.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I see. Yes, thank you, Ms Learmonth.

PN40

MS LEARMONTH: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Mills?

PN42

MR MILLS: May it please the Commission, I'd like to spend a little bit of time going through this matter and possible illuminating you with a bit of the background to give you some assistance in this matter. The first comment I'd make is that Qantas opposes the variation. Qantas opposes the variation on the basis that whilst the TWU are arguing with you or presenting to you in their submission and in their application that it will remove any real or perceived ambiguity, what the Commission must be mindful of is that what the TWU are seeking to do or by virtue of the fact that if this application was granted in full, it will create enormous ambiguity. It will also create a very unpleasant situation for both the company and employees who are working within the Qantas facility where such a change would occur.

PN43

To give you an understanding of what is happening here and this matter was the subject of a section 99 application before Commissioner Lawson. I'm happy to give you the C number to give you some assistance and in fact, Commissioner Lawson handed down some directions in the matter just in relation to -

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you handing something up to me or not?

PN45

MR MILLS: No, I don't have anything to hand up to you at this stage.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: What was the C number?

PN47

MR MILLS: The C number is C2002/4938.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?

PN49

MR MILLS: That was a section 99 application made by the TWU in relation to an alleged dispute that was referred to as a failure of the company to recognise TWU award coverage that Qantas colloquially referred to as hangar 245 at Mascot jet base. During those proceedings the company argued that, very much what its going to argue before you now, is that there is an award that currently binds the employment of these individuals, they have been traditionally bound by that award for a number of years and they are part of a cleaning function that is really more commonly placed within the maintenance function.

PN50

They are not the only group of cleaners or utility workers, or aircraft workers as they are now referred to, who perform such work within the engineering function. There is this group who perform work within a heavy maintenance environment, there is another group that perform work in what's referred to as the steam cleaning environment. There is another group that works in fabrics for aircraft workers and then there is another fairly substantial group who work in what we refer to as utilities which is in the base maintenance area of the line maintenance and those people do a significant cleaning work and minor repair work for overnight maintenance.

PN51

The work that these individuals perform, and they would be able to speak to it better than I can, but the work that they perform is work that's performed in a more heavy major maintenance type environment where there's a thorough process cleaning taken which is all part of the maintenance function. The work that TWU are seeking to do is by virtue of the fact that they have captured the membership in this particular part of the business and in very round terms I think its roughly about 50 employees and that's an approximation.

PN52

The TWU have captured the membership and they have been seeking through preliminary negotiations with the company to have a variation made at first instance to the Transport Workers Union's enterprise agreement with the organisation which we have indicated that we're not prepared to countenance. Then again, seeking what we have before you today which is a variation to the Transport Workers award.

PN53

So in effect by virtue of the fact that they have captured the membership they are now seeking on that basis a change in award to ensure that their membership can effectively be covered under their award. There is no other reason for this, as far as the company is concerned. Going back to the issue of ambiguity, and this is the key issue here, you have a situation where in a very very small geographic location, and by geographic location I mean within a particular part of the Qantas jet base facility where people are working in hangers that are side by side.

PN54

These individuals work in what's commonly referred to as hanger 245, the individuals who are members of another union and who would remain as part of the airline operations award work no more than 20 metres to 30 metres away, that is the close nature of where they work, another group, mind you they do work in a different department, they report through the line maintenance as opposed to these individuals who work in heavy maintenance. Another group of employees who work in heavy maintenance in the steam clean area who are part of that heavy maintenance group are bound by the terms and conditions of the operations award and they are not in a sense represented here today they are covered by another union and have a separate enterprise agreement.

PN55

So we have a significant situation here where there would be enormous ambiguity created by a variation to the Transport Workers Award that would in effect, at its very base level, enable employees to pick and choose which award they want to be bound by almost on the basis of union membership because by changing the clause that is being sought to be changed before you today, routine service cleaning of the aircraft exterior, internal carpets, including removal, toilets, water storage system and cargo department and/or other like duties could quite adequately cover the work that's been performed in particular areas such as utilities and base maintenance.

PN56

What that does, and in a sense you have a situation where there are defined functions or definitive differences I should say between the work performed by cleaners in a maintenance environment and work performed by cleaners in a turnaround type of environment. The turnaround is, and its not fair to say less onerous, and I can't speak from a position of authority, but is more very quick, got to be done very quickly, its done for presentation and its very important to the way in which the airline looks and you also see that's it part of a significant graded structure that exists with the Transport Workers Award.

PN57

The type of cleaning function, the type of minor maintenance function that's performed by aircraft workers within the engineering and maintenance environment is very different, its about the general maintenance function and its a crucial part of the delivery of the aircraft back into service after it has been maintained both through a major maintenance check which is performed with heavy maintenance and an overnight or a 24 hour maintenance check which is done in base maintenance.

PN58

To provide you with some assistance in this matter I'm happy to hand up, because I don't need to keep these because I have them, what were exhibits M4 and M3 in the section 99 matter before Commissioner Lawson. They are just excerpts from the award. M4, or what is marked as M4, is what's contained in the Transport Workers Award, and what's contained in M3 is part of the Airline Operations Award and I don't have copies for the TWU, I'm afraid, but I'm happy to share and I've got the documents in front of me.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: They would be aware of them, wouldn't they?

PN60

MR MILLS: One would assume they are aware of what's in the Transport Workers Award, whether they're aware of what's in the Airline Operations Award, I don't know. But the clear definition in the Airline Operations Award - - -

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Which is which, M3 of M4?

PN62

MR MILLS: M4, I think you'll find is the Airline Operations Award because M3 - - -

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, M3 is fabric machinist. There used to be in this cleaning of fabrics etcetera, the old Furnishing Trades Union used to be around, I don't know what they have become now, the CFMEU, are they?

PN64

MR MILLS: That's probably very true, your knowledge may be more extensive than mine.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Anyway, so M3, what's it called again?

PN66

MR MILLS: The M3, I think you'll find is Airline Operations.

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Airline Qantas Award.

PN68

MR MILLS: In (Qantas Airways Ltd Award).

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: The other one is called the Transport Workers.

PN70

MR MILLS: The other one is the Airline Operations (Transport Workers) Award 1998. The fundamental difference if you have a look at the difference in the award classifications is if we have a look at 20.13.1 of the Airline Operations Award, which has aircraft workers level 1, you have a trainee fabric machinist or you have someone who is engaged in aircraft and other cleaning activities including but not limited to basic aircraft cleaning. Cleaning floors and work areas, removal of aircraft seat covers and curtains, washing parts, paint stripping and other similar processes.

PN71

An aircraft worker, level 2, you have all cabin cleaning and dressing tasks, water servicing, specialised cleaning processes, fitting and identifying seat covers and curtains. We then go to aircraft worker, level 3, we have things like toilet servicing, residual spray, carpet maintenance. Now, in a sense it's a task-driven classification structure - one can see that - but these are all tasks contained in the Airline Operations Award which covers employees working as aircraft workers in a maintenance function that the TWU are seeking to present or to insert into their award in their draft order which is TWU2.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: Do the rates of pay - - - ?

PN73

MR MILLS: The rates of pay are not consistent.

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, I see. So a level 2 airline services operator doesn't get the same as the aircraft worker, level 2?

PN75

MR MILLS: I'm not entirely sure but I know that one is higher than the other.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you.

PN77

MR MILLS: The point that we make is that at its very base level this is an attempt by the Transport Workers Union to make a variation to the award under section 113 of the Act purely on the basis that they have a group of employees of Qantas who are members of their organisation and they seek to extend the coverage of their award to ensure that those employees can be covered by industrial instruments to which the Transport Workers Union are respondents. That's at a very base level.

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Before you go on, Mr Mills, M3 you gave me I'll mark as exhibit QF1 and M4 will be exhibit QF2.

EXHIBIT #QF1 PREVIOUSLY M3 EXCERPT FROM AIRLINE OPERATIONS AWARD

EXHIBIT #QF2 PREVIOUSLY M4 EXCERPT FROM TRANSPORT WORKERS AWARD

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, go ahead?

PN80

MR MILLS: So that's at a very base level. The reality will be this. Before we even get to the point of determining or arguing the technical merits of the application which I'm happy to do today but would prefer not to if it could be avoided.

PN81

Let's look at this quite simply. Two employees show up to work on the same day doing very much the same type of work within a geographic location, albeit in different departments with different reporting lines and different reporting structures but within the overall engineering and maintenance area, doing the same type of function but being paid separate rates of pay, that is, award-driven - not agreement-driven but award-driven - so the safety net and the base upon which they are both engaged or employed provides for a different payment yet the work is the same, or the skill base is the same with slight variations in relation to the tasks that are being performed. They are governed by different terms and conditions doing the same work and yet could argue that, by changing union they could potentially be covered under that different award.

PN82

Now, that leads to significant confusion to employees in the sense of trying to determine where they think they should appropriately stand up. There are all sort of issues in relation to potential demarcations that could be created, that we haven't even seriously considered as part of this application and, further to that, from the company's perspective, to administer this type of confusion will be almost impossible.

PN83

We are not talking about any specific geographic isolation. We are not talking about a way in which we can fence this off in relation to tasks that are performed. These people work together. They work within close proximity to each other and they perform fundamentally the same tasks. The Transport Workers Union, in their application, talk about the removal of ambiguity. It would be the company's position that, to make this application or to consent to this application or even to grant this application would create significant confusion and ambiguity at all levels within the organisation.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Mills, in that E&M area there are two maintenance unions - well, there might be a few more but the ones I'm thinking about are the AWU and the Metal Workers Union, for short. Now, they compete for members amongst the figures of what you call the AMES, but are you saying that while they compete for members, in the end, when it comes to the award, they are exactly the same rates? You can't join one union and get more rates?

PN85

MR MILLS: The key response here is this. The award that binds the work performed in a maintenance function at Qantas is the award-based classification structure I've presented to you. That's the Airline Operations Award (Qantas Airways Limited) 1999. The parties bound by that award are the Australian Metal Workers Union, the Australian Workers Union, the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union, the National Union of Workers, the ALHMWU and the Community and Public Sector Union. They are all bound. I don't think the ALAEA are bound by it. There are references to LAME classifications in there.

PN86

They are the parties bound by that award and there are classification structures within that award that cover all the functions that those employees undertake. You'll find within that classification structure there is a classification structure for chefs who work in Qantas Flight Catering.

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: That comes under this award, doesn't it?

PN88

MR MILLS: It does. There's a classification structure for the store people.

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: At QFCL the majority of the people are TWU members - - -

PN90

MR MILLS: That's right, but there are NUW employees who work in the stores area

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - and LHMU, yes, then there are clerks.

PN92

MR MILLS: Yes.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: The TWU members, are they under the Airline Award or are they under the TWU Award?

PN94

MR MILLS: In my understanding, in QFCL they are under the Transport Workers Award.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: I see, all right.

PN96

MR MILLS: The fundamental issue here is that - you are quite right - the Australian Workers Union and the AMWU have a situation where they do on occasions find employees who change membership from one union to another. That's the individual's choice as much a it is the choice of these individuals to join the Transport Workers Union.

PN97

There's nobody in the company that I represent saying that these people don't have a right to join the Transport Workers Union. That's never been an issue. The key issue here though is that if an employee, who is a maintenance fitter, chooses to join the AMWU, the AWU or the CEPU they are all bound by the same award. Therefore, the ambiguity is not there.

PN98

We would say that the Commission should not give too much consideration to this application and that if the Commission is prepared to continue to hear the matter, as it has the opportunity to do so under the Act - and we would obviously make a further application in a more formal sense if the matter is to be progressed - the Commission must surely request that the TWU, who make the application, clearly outline to you, in whatever form they can show, that there will be no ambiguity, because the company's firm position is that ambiguity will reign to the point of absolute confusion for the employees and for the employer. May it please the Commission.

PN99

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Ms Learmonth?

PN100

MS LEARMONTH: Commissioner, I won't take too much time. Mr Mills has made assertions about ambiguity and a level of uncomfortableness with the employees located in the areas that Mr Mills has referred to. They are assertions at this stage. There is currently no uncomfortableness felt by the employees there even though there are a number of different unions who do cover the work in that area or who do have members in those areas.

PN101

A matter similar to this was before the Commissioner, before Commissioner Lawson, and we realised that the section that we had used, being section 99, was probably not the appropriate section to be used and I understand that we have actually withdrawn our original section 99 application and subsequently we have made an application under section 113 to vary the award.

PN102

So at this stage, certainly on my reading of the transcript from that section 99, it was Mr Mills' suggestion that maybe section 113 was the appropriate section to be used. So thank you for your advice, Mr Mills.

PN103

MR MILLS: I'm always happy to help the Commission.

PN104

MS LEARMONTH: The other point that I think is important here, Commissioner, is that our members are not seeking to pick and choose between the awards. What they want is that they want a union to be able to represent their industrial interests, to be able to speak on their behalf and to be able to negotiate on their behalf for an enterprise agreement if that's what they seek to have.

PN105

The employees, both here today, who are TWU members and about 50-odd that we have at, at least one particular hangar, are all covered by an enterprise agreement and that enterprise agreement is one that has been negotiated between Qantas and the AWU and the AMWU. What that effectively does for the TWU is that it leaves us limited in where we can assist our members in being able to represent their industrial interests. Because we're not a party to that agreement we would probably have some difficulty in being able to make an application to the Commission in resolving a dispute under that agreement.

PN106

The other ambiguity that does exist is the fact that there is an extensive number of awards that cover the workforce that Qantas has and an extensive number of unions, as Mr Mills has pointed out. What we would say is that none of the awards are currently appropriate truly to describe the functions and the work that the employees actually do.

PN107

Their functions have changed over time, they have changed over the years. One example that Mr Mills gave was when he was referring to what is now QF 1, which is the Airline Operations Qantas Airways Limited Award 1999, he described bits and pieces out of clause 20.13.1, 20.14.1, 20.15. Our members would do work out of each of those functions, if not extending up into 20.16 and beyond. The difficulty we have is that that does not create some ambiguity as to which classification should they be paid under if the situation did arise.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: Is the ambiguity caused by the terms of the awards, or is it caused by employees changing unions? Obviously if you are a clerk and you are under an ASU award and you decide to join the metal workers, well, it might be ambiguous but it is caused by the employees themselves. I agree that the situation is complicated, as you can cover cleaners as well as anybody else, I understand that. Has the TWU had these members for years or is this a recent phenomenon?

PN109

MS LEARMONTH: We have had them for some 16 or 17 months. The ambiguity comes as a result of the actual duties that the employees are doing. I wasn't involved in the simplification of any of these awards, I don't know whether there was an attempt to look at the actual duties that employees are doing and to try and tie them to a classification structure in the award. The duties have been evolving over a period of time but they are not necessarily now reflected in the award.

PN110

It would be an advantage of having an enterprise agreement in place if the agreement could be far more specific to the actual duties that the employees are doing. Commissioner, you also asked a question about the rates of pay between the awards, if you would like me to move on to that.

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: The only reason is that if the rates are not the same then that is why people choose one award or one union over another, that would be understandable. I don't need to know the rates now, I don't think.

PN112

MS LEARMONTH: Commissioner, we are happy to go into conference if that is going to assist. We are also happy to talk to Qantas about this matter and try and work out exactly what the opposition is to the variation and whether there are some amendments that we can make to the draft order in order to accommodate the actual duties that the employees are doing.

PN113

I might also add that the TWU currently has members beyond the Sydney operation, we have members in the Melbourne operation and in the Brisbane operation, so this is an issue that is important to the union and it is far bigger than just Sydney.

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: About Virgin, they are not here, I have letters here - yes, I see, they consent to the application. Is there anything else, Ms Learmonth?

PN115

MS LEARMONTH: There is nothing from me, Commissioner.

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Learmonth, why should the other unions not be made aware of these proceedings? They probably are. You see, I'm a bit concerned, if I look at your thing it says internal carpers. I keep on harking back to the poor Furnishing Trades Union which probably doesn't exist any more. Then you say Mr Mills has talked about the AWU and the AMWU and maybe the LHMU, the CEPU probably not, anyway they would all have an interest in this. Why wouldn't they have an opportunity to put their position?

PN117

MS LEARMONTH: My very rudimentary understanding of this, Commissioner, is that the employees who are now the TWU members were once members of the LHMU. I understand that there was at this stage a verbal agreement, I cannot confirm whether that was recorded in writing between the TWU and the LHMU some 16 to 18 months ago that the TWU would have coverage of these employees. The employees felt that their industrial interests were not being represented and that's why they called the TWU to assist them.

PN118

I cannot speak in relation to the AWU and the AMWU, I don't have any clear instructions in relation to those unions. I can only say that our members aren't interested in being members of the AWU or the AMWU and as Mr Mills has said, they do work in close proximity to each other, I imagine it is not a secret that these employees have come over to the TWU although, again, I cannot speak on behalf of the AWU or the AMWU. I am sure they would be aware that they have some members in that area of Qantas's maintenance work.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Given that the company is not consenting to the variation or I should say one of the parties to the Transport Workers Award are not consenting to the application, what do you suggest should happen? You have mentioned we should go into conference, I am not quite sure what is to be gained by going into conference right now, it doesn't mean the matter can't be discussed, in fact it should be discussed later. What do you think should happen?

PN120

MS LEARMONTH: Well, Commissioner, I think if we find that going into conference either now or in the future is unsuccessful, again we all probably need to bear in mind whether it will be successful nonetheless, we would be seeking mention and programming and to have this matter properly heard, which means some inspections of the workplace and certainly witness evidence.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. I will just make this comment. On the one hand I am concerned that the variation may lead to some what we might call in loose terms demarcation problems in the future or at the very least some concern by other unions. I am aware of the area of coverage at the Sydney terminals and the TWU has predominantly operated in the turn-around areas in the servicing of aircraft but I think its constitutional coverage goes wider than that, it can cover anybody in the airline industry, I am appreciative of that.

PN122

Nonetheless, when it comes to engineering and maintenance there used to be a body, I don't think it exists any more, called the Combined Unions Committee or something like that. I think the AWU and some other unions negotiated separately from that but the E & M unions did operate together and a variation of the award may very well bring some tension into areas of coverage and for that reason I propose to make the parties to the Qantas Airways Award, for short, aware of this application in the further proceedings.

PN123

Having said that, if the TWU and Qantas come to an agreement then what the other unions to another award think would become irrelevant, I mean I would have before me the proposal of the TWU, the agreement of Virgin and the agreement of Qantas to vary the TWUs award, in which case I don't see why others should stick their noses in, but I glean that Qantas is not supportive. Obviously if it changes its mind then that will alter things.

PN124

Assuming it doesn't, the matter may in fact require final determination by the Commission in the light of what the TWU has to say, what Virgin has to say - although they may not say much - and what Qantas has to say, and perhaps what other unions have to say if intervention is sought and if it's granted.

PN125

I haven't mentioned one thing and that is that the TWU have obviously got an argument that if it's got constitutional coverage and it has membership, if it has a well-developed and well-serviced award in this area, then perhaps it has a right to ensure that that award coverage is clarified and extended, if we characterise it as that. So I'm not dismissive of the TWUs prima facie strength in its application but, a I said, to make such a change now without hearing carefully what others might wish to say and what the ramifications might be, I think, would be somewhat rash.

PN126

So I propose to re-list the matter, as you say, Ms Learmonth, for mention where you will indicate the outcome of discussions that you will have had with Qantas and if in fact there is agreement and we'll also deal with any interests that others may have. We will see whether they should be heard or not. Depending on all of that, if there is still opposition from Qantas then the matter will be programmed for formal hearing, and I note what that may entail.

PN127

What is a convenient time for such report-back, as far as the TWU is concerned.

PN128

MS LEARMONTH: Commissioner, just given that we're heading into Christmas and there is probably going to be leave and a whole range of things that people will be looking to do, perhaps we could have the matter re-listed for mention in late January, if that's possible?

PN129

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. We'll make it, if there's no-one has any great objection, 10.30 on 29 January.

PN130

MR MILLS: I don't have a diary for next year at this stage, Commissioner, but, as you know, I'm always available.

PN131

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Oh, yes, there is one more question. How are these 50 people being paid at the moment?

PN132

MS LEARMONTH: My understanding, Commissioner, and Mr Mills, I'm sure, will correct me if I'm wrong, is that they are currently being paid under an enterprise agreement which is called Qantas Airways Limited (AWU, AMWU) Enterprise Agreement 5.

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN134

MS LEARMONTH: I can give you a print number for that, if that will assist you.

PN135

THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, no. Yes, all right. Well, the matter is now adjourned and it will be re-listed at 10.30 for report-back on 29 January 2003. On that basis these proceedings are now adjourned. Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 29 JANUARY 2003 [10.21am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #TWU1 REGISTERED MAIL SLIPS PN16
EXHIBIT #TWU2 DRAFT ORDER PN19
EXHIBIT #QF1 PREVIOUSLY M3 EXCERPT FROM AIRLINE OPERATIONS AWARD PN79
EXHIBIT #QF2 PREVIOUSLY M4 EXCERPT FROM TRANSPORT WORKERS AWARD PN79