C2003/4249, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 3090 (17 July 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 3578
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER BLAIR

C2003/4249

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS,
ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND
KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION

and

BALLARAT HEALTH SERVICES

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re the employer's alleged proposal
to terminate two maintenance employees

MELBOURNE

9.15 AM, FRIDAY, 4 JULY 2003

PN1

MR V. JOSE: I appear for the AMWU with MR R. BROWN and MR A. BRADLEY.

PN2

MR T. OLSSON: I appear for Ballarat Health Services with MR K. STEWART and MR D. COLLINS.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Jose.

PN4

MR JOSE: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, if I just give you a bit of a thumbs up on the state of play in regards to this dispute. Myself and Mr Frank Sawyer, who was the engineer who originally compiled the maintenance report regarding the maintenance problems at Central Highlands Linen Service, we met on 4 June with Mr Darryl Collins who was, I think under your instructions, Commissioner, the independent engineer who would conduct the review of the report.

PN5

We met at the hospital for approximately an hour and we went through the report and also answered any questions that Mr Collins had. At the end of that session, Commissioner, Mr Collins advised that he would compile an outcome report on his assessment, and that that would be provided in due course to the parties. I received a letter from Mr Trevor Olsson dated - it was actually dated 20 June - through the mail, advising me that we should have received the report by now, and had ample opportunity to go over it, and I will hand out a copy of that letter, Commissioner. I think you have got that.

PN6

MR OLSSON: Yes, thanks.

PN7

MR JOSE: Upon receiving that letter, Commissioner, I contacted Mr Olsson and advised him that I had seen no report, either in my office in Melbourne or in Ballarat, and I wasn't sure what had been the hiccup, but I had asked Mr Olsson to fax me through a copy, which he did. I got a copy of the report on the 25th, which was the day that I spoke to Mr Olsson and advised him that I hadn't received it, and he was kind enough to fax through a copy.

PN8

And I had the opportunity to go through that, and in the letter that you have in front of you, Commissioner, clearly Mr Olsson was suggesting that he felt that, already having the opportunity to have read the report, that the recommendations were consistent with management's point of view. After I had read the report, I felt the complete opposite, and I thought if anything the report was consistent with our view, so I sent a letter to Mr Olsson on 27 June, advising him of such, and I am happy to hand up a copy of that letter.

PN9

Advising him, one, that we had the opportunity to go through the report, but clearly our understanding and our reading of it was that it was inconsistent with the company's views, and certainly supported our arguments that we had maintained since this matter became a dispute. I advised them that we proposed to list this in front of yourself for further conciliation as a matter of urgency, and that the status quo, we believe, should be maintained. I then received a further letter late on the 27th, again via fax, from Mr Olsson around 7 o'clock, and I have a copy of that letter as well, Commissioner, sorry to bombard you with - - -

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: That is all right.

PN11

MR JOSE: - - - so many pieces of documentation.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN13

MR JOSE: Which, upon receiving it, Commissioner, and reading it, I was quite concerned about what the company was suggesting. That letter that was faxed through on the 27th, I think the first dot point there clearly indicates the company's intentions to just proceed ahead with the organisational changes that we had been arguing since day one. There is suggestion that it would be done without delay, and it would be done as outlined in the letter dated 20 June, which was the one that we received prior to even having a look at the report.

PN14

There was also a request that if Mr Brown and Mr Bradley were interested in applying for the one position, that they must do so by the close of business 2 July, and that they must do that by submitting a written formal application for that job. There was also some request for - on the basis that there is an ongoing WorkCover issue going on, that they provide a clearance from the medical people to give them a clearance to return to work if either one of them was successful.

PN15

And notwithstanding the facts that there was an understanding and clearly advised that we were going to be heading back to the Commission and the company is clearly admitting that we have those rights and choose to do so, that they will not accommodate a status quo to maintain. Commissioner, that letter is probably the most disappointing thing. We have now spent I would say close to six months on this matter, I think it was just prior to Christmas. And to go down this lengthy, fairly comprehensive process and then just to receive a letter which basically says, "Well, that is it, we are going to do it anyway" and not even having the opportunity to come back before yourself and just debate the outcome of Mr Collins' report.

PN16

It certainly was not the way I thought that was agreed to not only on the record but off the record to handle this matter. We are happy to go through Mr Collins' report and identify the particular areas, Commissioner, where we believe, without a doubt, it supports some of the arguments that we have been putting with the company since day one, and I am sure the company will have the opportunity and no doubt raise their views on where they believe it supports their arguments.

PN17

I thought it was important, Commissioner, to just go through some of the I guess more finer details, because as I said, we felt that there was an agreed process undertaken, and unfortunately the last couple of pieces of correspondence between the company and ourselves certainly doesn't indicate that tha process is something that the company want to continue on with. If the Commission pleases.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thanks, Mr Jose. Mr Jose, the recommendation issued by the Commission on 24 March, at point 6, said:

PN19

If the independent engineer identifies that the recommendations arising from the report meet the inherent requirements of the organisation to carry out their duties, then the Commission would see no further reason to reconvene.

PN20

Now, I am happy to try and assist the parties in the transition from the current status to the reorganisation to ensure that the inherent requirements of the organisation are met. If your members expect this Commission to say that the report and then the subsequent engineer's report should be disregarded, the answer to that is no. There are two reports. Mr Collins' report says some certain things need to be clarified, and there is an issue, as I read the report, that says that there will be a backlog of work that needs to be caught up on, and for this over a certain period of time, then certain things should happen.

PN21

But if your members expect the Commission to say that the report and Mr Collins' report should be overturned, no. That will not happen. Happy to assist in trying to assist to transfer, or the transition for your members to the new structure, and if that cannot be accommodated by your members, then how best we deal with your members, but to overturn the two reports, the answer to that, I am afraid, we cannot assist.

PN22

MR JOSE: Commissioner, no one is suggesting that we seek the reports overturned. We support the first report, and we clearly have said that on the record tha we support just about all the findings that Mr Sawyer found through his investigation of the maintenance problems. We support the report that Mr Collins has put together. What we have a problem with, Commissioner, in essence, is the company's suggestion on how to deal with it, and we believe that the position that the company is taking to deal with the reports - there is no argument about how accurate or how much we disagree with the reports, I think that is quite clear, we both support both of them.

PN23

The matter at dispute, Commissioner, is the company's proposition to deal with the outcomes of those reports versus our propositions and we are at different ends of the - we are at extreme ends on what we believe needs to be done. The company's position, I think, in a nutshell, and I am sure they will go through it, is that they still want to go through this change, they want to spill and fill, they only need one individual to maintain the mechanical side of things, they need an electrician, possibly a plumber if need be, and what we say, Commissioner, is based on Frank Sawyer's report and Mr Collins' report, clearly that is not a sensible thing.

PN24

Clearly the report identifies that there is a tremendous amount of work to be done even just on looking at Mr Frank Sawyer's report, just to catch up on those matters, let alone the day to day activities that need to be done as well. And the report clearly indicates that one maintenance fitter will be overwhelmed with the amount of work that needs to be done, and it cannot be done by one maintenance fitter. It also goes on to say, and I think we will get into that in a bit more detail, that one electrician - there is insufficient work to maintain a full time electrician, which again is a consistent argument that we have raised.

PN25

It also goes on to say that there is some work there that can be done by a plumber which can also be done by somebody who is mechanically qualified in some circumstances, which is again an argument that we have raised since day one. So what we clearly say is, Commissioner, there is no dispute about the reports, we are not seeking they be overturned, it is the company's and the union's, I guess, strategy to deal with the reports and its outcomes that we are in dispute.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, thank you. Yes, Mr Olsson.

PN27

MR OLSSON: If the Commission pleases. Certainly I would request a private conference to resolve the matter. We are in a situation where we have a backlog of work, as I identified with Mr Collins' recommendation. We have a plan to fast-track this backlog of work through our maintenance of the engineering department, who Mr Collins has recommended should oversee the future ongoings of the maintenance department in the Central Highlands Linen Service, and we would believe that we have every step now in place to conclude the organisational change process and fast-track Mr Collins' recommendations. And we would respectfully request that we go into some private conference.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. All right, the Commission will go into conference, thanks.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [9.28am]

RESUMED [11.49am]

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. The Commission in this matter has had the opportunity to have detailed discussions with the parties off transcript. Arising from that, the Commission is prepared to put on transcript what it believes to be the position of the union and its two members, Mr Brown and Mr Bradley, and the position of Ballarat Health Service.

PN30

Firstly in regards to Mr Brown, it is the Commission's understanding that Mr Brown will accept a redundancy package consisting of 25 weeks, that is made up of five weeks notice period, taxed at the Eligible Termination Payment, plus two weeks pay per year of service up to a maximum of ten years, that equates to 20 weeks pay, which is tax free according to the Commission's understanding of the taxation requirements for redundancy pay.

PN31

There is to be a payment of an additional $10,000 redundancy pay which the Commission also understands to be tax free as well. There will be a statement of service provided to Mr Brown, and if the Commission could suggest that a point of contact be Mr Olsson if, in the event some future employer wishes to contact them regarding future employment of Mr Brown.

PN32

In regards to Mr Bradley, there has been an offer of four weeks notice, plus two weeks per year of service. The Commission understands that Mr Bradley has give years service this month, that would take it up to ten weeks pay, so that would be 14 weeks pay. There is the offer of $10,000 as an additional redundancy payment. In regards to Mr Bradley, he seeks the option of having available to him until noon Monday, 7 July 2003, in order to allow him to confer with his wife regarding that proposal.

PN33

If in the event that Mr Bradley does not accept the redundancy proposal, then it is the Commission's understanding that Mr Bradley will be offered ongoing employment at his current classification and his current rate of pay, which will be frozen at that rate of pay for a period of approximately - and the Commission emphasises approximately - three years, in order to allow the ordinary rate of pay, including allowances, of those fitters to catch up to the level of Mr Bradley. I hope I have made that reasonably clear. Now, Mr Jose, is that your understanding of the position that the parties have reached?

PN34

MR JOSE: Yes it is, Commissioner.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Jose. Is that your understanding, Mr Olsson?

PN36

MR OLSSON: Yes. Would Mr Bradley be making that - to myself or to Mr Jose?

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: What is the preferred option there, Mr Jose? It might be appropriate that he contact you.

PN38

MR JOSE: Yes, I have advised, or encouraged Mr Bradley to contact myself, and I will initially phone call Mr Olsson and then if need be follow that up with written correspondence.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, I think that is probably the appropriate channel. Is that okay, Mr Olsson?

PN40

MR OLSSON: And if Mr Bradley does not accept the redundancy package, then the estimated time for return to work?

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Bradley, as I understand it, is required to see his doctor on Monday, and if an all-clear is provided by his doctor, then I understand there would be a resumption of work within a day to two days after that. Is that right, Mr Jose?

PN42

MR JOSE: Yes, it is, Commissioner.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Okay. All right. The Commission does thank the parties for their cooperation and assistance - what has been, I understand, a very sensitive matter, and a very difficult matter. It has been going on for some time, so the Commission does appreciate the efforts of both the union and the employer in this matter. The Commission will stand adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.53am]