AG2003/6442, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 3706 (22 August 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 4093

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER HINGLEY

AG2003/6442

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LJ of the Act
for certification of the Atlas Copco
Australia Pty Ltd (Victoria) Certified
Agreement 2003

MELBOURNE

10.40 AM, MONDAY, 11 AUGUST 2003

PN1

MS R. JASTRZEBSKI: I appear for the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. Commissioner, this is a - - -

PN2

THE COMMISSIONER: One moment.

PN3

MS S. DAVIS: I appear for Australian Industry Group. With me, Commissioner, I have MR. G. McDONALD, the Group Human Resources Manager.

PN4

MS JASTRZEBSKI: Commissioner, the AMWU is not going to sign this agreement. We don't wish to be a party and basically that is our position. That is why we haven't provided signed documentation to assist rather than it being an administrative issue. The agreement doesn't comply with a number of policy requirements and it was put before Steve Dargavel, the Assistant State Secretary, for his signature prior to his going on maternity leave and he rejected, or so the organiser said. He had informed the company that he wouldn't sign.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you talking about CGA Pty Ltd or Atlas Copco?

PN6

MS JASTRZEBSKI: No, I thought we were doing Atlas Copco, Commissioner.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, we are doing CGA.

PN8

MS JASTRZEBSKI: I beg your pardon.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: GCA, sorry.

PN10

MS JASTRZEBSKI: GCA.

PN11

MS DAVIS: Sorry, I have appeared for Atlas Copco as well.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: That is all right. We will go back to Atlas Copco.

PN13

MS JASTRZEBSKI: Let us do Atlas Copco because everyone is waiting for that, Commissioner.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: I understood that you wanted some time to talk and so I was delaying it, but if you are ready to come forward we will proceed and you might just - - -

PN15

MS JASTRZEBSKI: They don't have to wait for all of these, Commissioner.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: For the sake of the record you might call it on again, Maria. Sorry to confuse you. Yes.

PN17

MS S. DAVIS: I appear for the Australian Industry Group on behalf of Atlas Copco Pty Ltd. Commissioner, with me I have MR G. McDONALD, the Group Human Resources Manager of Atlas Copco.

PN18

MS R. JASTRZEBSKI: I appear for the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and also appearing is MS. RANDONE, the shop steward for the site.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Ms Davis.

PN20

MS DAVIS: Yes, if it pleases the Commission. I have got written submissions on the basis that the union was going to be providing affidavits with respect to this matter but simply what you do have before you is an application pursuant to section 170LJ - sorry, section 170LS, Division 3 of the Workplace Relations Act seeking the certification of the Atlas Copco Australia Pty Ltd (Victoria) Certified Agreement 2003. Commissioner, the terms of the agreement have followed a reasonably lengthy negotiation process.

PN21

My instructions are that management from the company have met with the organiser of the AMWU, Chris Spindler. Also present in those negotiations meetings were two union shop stewards that are duly elected and authorised to represent the interests of union members on the site of which one of those shop stewards, Mr Sam Randone, is present here today. Now, the final outcome of the negotiation process was the agreement which is provided to the application or is attached to the application here before you, covers terms and conditions which the parties had signed off on. My instructions are that - - -

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Including the union?

PN23

MS DAVIS: My instructions are that the union organiser was presented and participated in those discussions but there were also meetings in which the shop stewards also negotiated directly with management with respect to the agreement that we are seeking to be certified here today. Once the agreement was reached between the shop stewards and management the final document was put out to the employees for a period of 14 days. Management was operating on the understanding that we were going to be having an agreement with the union.

PN24

You would note that the union is included as a party to the agreement at clause 4 of the agreement and the 14 days elapsed. A vote was taken. The agreement was voted for approval by the workforce. It is my understanding that the employees expectations that the union would be party to the agreement and paperwork was drafted, the statutory declaration and the application. The reason for the delay in filing, because the agreement has been filed outside the statutory 21 days, is that the company through AI Group has sent through two copies of the documentation to the union for signing. The first copy being sent through on 28.5.03 and then a further copy being sent through again on 2.7.03, again with the intention of the union signing the documentation and being party to the agreement.

PN25

Commissioner, in dealing with the agreement briefly, we say that it meets the various requirements. The agreement does not disadvantage employees to be covered by it. The agreement does contain a dispute settlement procedure at clause 22 of the agreement. There is a period of operation of the agreement which is set out in clause 5 of the agreement and the agreement is to expire on 30.4.06. So we say that for all purposes of the rules, the regulations, the agreement meets the requirements of the Workplace Relations Act.

PN26

We would still press ahead with our application for certification notwithstanding the submissions that the AMWU is I think about to make with respect to this matter. We would simply rely on the fact that the parties have continued to negotiate in good faith with the shop stewards, which we understood were authorised and able to negotiate with management to finalise the final terms of the agreement. The other submission that we would put on the record is that this is an agreement that has been reached at the workplace.

PN27

It would be disappointing to have the agreement get to headquarters of the AMWU and because it offends one or two particular union officials policy positions, that an agreement that has been voted for by its members would be knocked over so to speak. If it pleases.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Ms Jastrzebski.

PN29

MS JASTRZEBSKI: Commissioner, the company was aware that the union was not satisfied with what was eventually negotiated, requesting that we be moved as a party and suggested to the company that they re-lodge an application under section LK.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: When did the union advise the company of that?

PN31

MS JASTRZEBSKI: During the negotiations, Commissioner. This was lodged as a division 3 agreement with the knowledge that it wasn't going to be signed by the union.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Ms Davis.

PN33

MS DAVIS: Commissioner, my instructions are, was that we have no recollection of being advised that the union would not sign off on the agreement. Other than putting that on the record I am not quite sure where to go from here.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Jastrzebski, when the document went to the employees and ultimately went to the vote of the employees it was clear who was bind by it. They voted on the basis that they understood that their union was bound by it.

PN35

MS JASTRZEBSKI: The employees were informed that the union would not be signing the document as it didn't comply - - -

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Why do you say they voted for it then?

PN37

MS JASTRZEBSKI: I believe because they wanted the pay increase involved, Commissioner, which is why I am suggesting that it be re-lodged under section LK so that the employees still get the increase and the other benefits of the agreement but without a union being a party. The aspects that don't comply with policy aren't simply satisfying one or two union officials. It is national policy, Commissioner.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Is there anything further you want to say, Ms Davis?

PN39

MS DAVIS: Commissioner, I have just got instructions as to how to move forward with this matter. What we would like to do is adjourn the application, the proceedings at this point in time to allow further discussions between the AMWU and the company to endeavour to come to some agreed position if you like and on that basis what I would propose and if acceptable to the Commission, is that we adjourn the proceedings until such time we contact your chambers and seek the matter to be re-listed, if that is appropriate.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Subject to what Ms Jastrzebski has to say, I think that is a proper approach. Are you comfortable with that, Ms Jastrzebski?

PN41

MS JASTRZEBSKI: Yes, I am. It would give Chris Spindler, the organiser, an opportunity to clarify matters I expect. Thank you.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: I will stand the matter aside sine die and wait for the parties to contact me again for it to be re-listed. This matter is adjourned sine die.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.58am]