AG2003/6140, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 4082 (16 September 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 7, ANZ House 13 Grenfell St ADELAIDE SA 5000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN

AG2003/6140

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LK of the Act
by AQ Australia and Another for certification
of the AQ Australia Workplace Agreement 2003

ADELAIDE

10.10 AM, FRIDAY, 29 AUGUST 2003

PN1

MR J. KOTYLA: I appear on behalf of the Printing Industries Association with MR G. EDGE, Financial Controller for AQ Australia and MS L. FARQUHARSON, she is employee representative of the same company.

PN2

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you, Mr Kotyla.

PN3

MR KOTYLA: Yes. Thank you, sir. This morning we are here to have certified and approved an enterprise agreement titled, AQ Australia Enterprise Agreement 2003. The genesis for this agreement arises out of the series of AWAs that the company had in place over a period of time and the agreement has expired last year, so the company opted to look at a way forward. The agreement you have before you is not unlike that which was - took the form of individual AWAs with some minor variations based on current situations. As it turns out, the previous agreements were negotiated by way of an enterprise bargaining committee and extensively it was the same enterprise bargaining committee that was involved in the negotiations for this particular agreement.

PN4

The enterprise bargaining committee consists of approximately twelve people and the other thing that is interesting to note also, is that the agreement before you, sir, which is of some 20 pages arises out of a highly complex award initially and that was the original Country Printing Award 1959, which consisted of some 3000 pages. The new award, the revised version of that having gone through allowable award matters is only 200 pages, so the document itself was designed to be easier to read and more useful to the employees. There were a series of meetings held by the enterprise bargaining committee which started approximately 2 December 2002. There was further meetings on 13 February this year, on 10 March, 13 May and the last meeting I understand was on 25 June 2003.

PN5

Arising out of that a agreement was made available to all employees in its present form for voting purposes. A memo went out dated 18 July 2003, issued to all employees to be covered by the proposed agreement. If I might, sir, just give you a copy of that.

PN6

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I shall mark that document AQ1, Mr Kotyla.

PN7

MR KOTYLA: Yes. Thank you, your Honour.

PN8

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will note that it is a memo to all employees to be covered by the workplace agreement and it is dated 18 July 2003.

EXHIBIT #AQ1 MEMO TO EMPLOYEES TO BE COVERED BY THE WORKPLACE AGREEMENT DATED 18/07/2003

PN9

MR KOTYLA: Yes. Thank you, your Honour. I will propose to go through that agreement. In essence it says, and I quote:

PN10

It is a requirement of the legislation that all employees to be covered ...(reads)... a further copy placed on the staff notice- board.

PN11

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I've read it now. I will receive it onto the record, you don't need to read it out again unless you want to.

PN12

MR KOTYLA: Well, I was just going to identify the - you know, proper processes that have been gone through.

PN13

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN14

MR KOTYLA: Within that agreement it stipulates that in fact any person who is a member of an employee organisational union may actually contact the union in regard to this particular agreement.

PN15

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, indeed. There is a handwritten word in parenthesis, the word union - - -

PN16

MR KOTYLA: Yes.

PN17

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - is written in by hand, is that specific to this particular copy or is it something that was on the original, Mr Kotyla?

PN18

MR KOTYLA: Excuse me, sir, I will - - -

PN19

MR GRAENE: No. It was on the original.

PN20

MR KOTYLA: Was on the original, sir.

PN21

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This AQ1 was provided individually to employees or was it posted on the notice-board?

PN22

MR GRAENE: No. It was on the notice-board.

PN23

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you.

PN24

MR KOTYLA: Thank you, sir. In the agreement it also refers to the consultative committee being present at all times of the agreement to each work area team before a vote is taken on Monday 4 August at 12 pm. There was such a meeting and employees were asked if they wanted any questions or needed to get anything explained, and what was requested was explained and a vote was taken on Monday 4 August. Of the persons eligible to vote, there was a total of 49 of which 30 persons voted and 26 persons voted yes of that group. So we would say that that satisfies the requirements of a majority vote that was taken on that day.

PN25

If I might just take you, sir, to the agreement itself. In particular page 4 of that agreement under the item 1.7 application. The last item in that list under paragraph (b) it goes through and it talks about clauses 5.1, 5.2 and such down the line and it gets to 6.6, that 6.6 is not correct there is a typographical there. It is 6.6.3, the .3 is missing.

PN26

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Kotyla, was the document that I have in front of me presented to employees for their endorsement in the form in which I currently have it?

PN27

MR KOTYLA: Absolutely. Absolutely.

PN28

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So the omission of 6.6.3 was an omission in terms of the document that employees voted on?

PN29

MR KOTYLA: That is correct.

PN30

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. So I do I know that 6.6.3 should have been there?

PN31

MR KOTYLA: Shouldn't be there?

PN32

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No.

PN33

MR KOTYLA: Well, if - - -

PN34

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. The question that I'm asking is, you are telling me that there is an omission in 1.7(b) such that the reference to 6.6 should be a reference to 6.6.3?

PN35

MR KOTYLA: Yes. That is correct. If I could take your Honour to the clause itself - - -

PN36

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Yes.

PN37

MR KOTYLA: - - - 6.6 and if the reference had been 6.6, sir, then the whole section of public holiday entitlement would not apply and therefore it seems rather odd given that the clause itself - - -

PN38

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How should I presume that, Mr Kotyla?

PN39

MR KOTYLA: Sorry.

PN40

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How can I presume that? When the clause that you are pointing to is 6.6 public holiday entitlement, the question that I'm raising with you is, you are now telling me that there was an omission such that, instead of it being 6.6 public holidays it should be 6.6.3 - - -

PN41

MR KOTYLA: .3.

PN42

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - being payment for work on a public holiday?

PN43

MR KOTYLA: That is correct.

PN44

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, my question that I'm asking you is, I understand what it is you are proposing to me but how am I to presume that the employees who voted on this agreement understand that they were voting on a proposal which was in fact in error such that it should reference 6.6.3? Who decided it was an error? Who decided it was an error?

PN45

MR KOTYLA: I raised the error, your Honour.

PN46

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Yes, you can continue, Mr Kotyla.

PN47

MR KOTYLA: Yes. Thank you, sir. What I was going to say, may I continue with that point?

PN48

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, you may. Yes.

PN49

MR KOTYLA: Okay, thank you.

PN50

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm in your hands.

PN51

MR KOTYLA: Thank you, sir. In essence what that clause does is it says, the company may offer and an employee may accept a salary of 34,000 per annum to be paid monthly. Where such an agreement is reached the following clauses shall not apply. So if I was to take your Honour then to 6.6.3 or 6.6 in particular of page 18, if we go to clause 6.6.1 it says:

PN52

What are the public holidays? Full time and part-time employee shall be entitled to holidays on ...(reads)... legislation from time to time.

PN53

6.6.2 says:

PN54

That payment on a public holiday. On a public holiday full time and part-time shall be ...(reads)... rostered to work on that public holiday.

PN55

6.6.3 says:

PN56

Payment for work on a public holiday. An employee whether full time, part-time or casual ...(reads)... at the rate of double time.

PN57

It is my submission, sir, that normally the people would get paid for working on a public holiday and this particular clause provides for that. It also provides for the payment for them if they do not work on a public holiday and because it deals with the issue of public holiday not applying then - and the rates of pay that people get are higher than that which would be provided for by the award, then we would say that they should be entitled to be paid for the public holiday as if they had been working and that was the purpose of raising that point at (3) sir.

PN58

Now, if I may go on, sir. The document at clause 1.5 deals with the period of operation and it says:

PN59

The agreement shall operate for a period of 2 years commencing from the date the agreement is certified by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

PN60

It contains a dispute resolution process as set out in Part II of the document and 2.1 dispute resolution. It also provides for an anti-discrimination provision which is set out at page 3, clause 1.3 anti-discrimination. Therefore it is our view that we believe the document complies and we request that the document be certified and ask that if there is any questions you might like to ask we would be prepared to answer those.

PN61

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you, Mr Kotyla. I do have a number of questions but it might be best if I hear from the employee representative first of all. Now, is it Ms Farquharson.

PN62

MS FARQUHARSON: Farquharson.

PN63

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Farquharson, thank you. Ms Farquharson, can you first of all confirm to me the role that you played in the negotiation of this particular agreement.

PN64

MS FARQUHARSON: Well, I was actually involved in the initial agreement as well just as a member of the consultative committee.

PN65

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I'm just focussed at this stage on this particular agreement. Now, were you representative of the - all or a group employees?

PN66

MS FARQUHARSON: Not a specific - of a particular department, do you mean?

PN67

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN68

MS FARQUHARSON: No.

PN69

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Were you simply were you a representative of any the employees other than yourself?

PN70

MS FARQUHARSON: Yes, certainly. Originally, well, I work in our pre-press department, so effectively their representative.

PN71

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see and how did you gain that representational role?

PN72

MS FARQUHARSON: Well, initially as I say, it was from the previous agreement we were voted - voted in.

PN73

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN74

MS FARQUHARSON: And it has just followed in from there with the option that I think if people had left the company that there was - would have been a vote to bring new people on.

PN75

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, my understanding is that the document that I've called AQ1 which is the memorandum for 18 July, have you seen that document?

PN76

MS FARQUHARSON: Yes.

PN77

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Was posted on one or more notice-boards.

PN78

MS FARQUHARSON: Two actually I think, 2 notice-boards.

PN79

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. To what extent can you advise me that those notice-boards were looked at by all of the employees?

PN80

MS FARQUHARSON: I guess I can't really guarantee that everyone has looked at it. It is certainly in two prominent places that people are aware of what goes on and comes down on there.

PN81

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Are you aware of any employee who sought that they be represented by a union?

PN82

MS FARQUHARSON: No.

PN83

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The document which I have before me, the agreement, was voted upon by employees on 5 August, can you confirm to me that that document was the same document that was also posted up on the notice-boards and provided to the various negotiating committee representatives?

PN84

MS FARQUHARSON: Yes.

PN85

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is wasn't changed for at least 14 days before that 5 August?

PN86

MS FARQUHARSON: No, it wasn't.

PN87

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, I'm going to ask Mr Kotyla a number questions about the agreement. I need to preference those questions by making a couple of observations. I have some reservations about whether or not the process set out in section 170LK of the Act has been followed so that I can certify the agreement. I propose to consider that but I also have a number of reservations about the agreement itself. I'm endeavouring to address those reservations through my questions to Mr Kotyla. My questions will not invite him to rewrite the agreement but they will invite him to provide some advice to me in terms of the intention of the parties and in a number of important respects they will invite him to give me a undertaking relative to various agreement provisions. I issue an invitation to you now to advise me immediately if you have any area where you disagree with his responses. Alternatively I'll return to you at the end of those questions, so are you happy with that process?

PN88

MS FARQUHARSON: Yes. That is fine.

PN89

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You understand the process?

PN90

MS FARQUHARSON: Yes.

PN91

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr Kotyla.

PN92

MR KOTYLA: Yes. Thank you, sir.

PN93

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I take you to the first page of the agreement. Immediately underneath the title of the agreement there is a sentence that says:

PN94

This is an Australian Workplace Agreement as provided by Part VIB of the Workplace Relations Act.

PN95

Can you tell me what the intention of the parties is relevant to that particular statement?

PN96

MR KOTYLA: It is a generic agreement. It is an agreement, it does not specifically stipulate that it is an AWA as an individual agreement.

PN97

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But that is what it purports to be, is it not?

PN98

MR KOTYLA: Well, it is an Australian - it is an agreement, it is an Australian agreement and it does not purport in our view to do that.

PN99

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 1.7 of the agreement references two awards. Clause 1.8 of the agreement says that the agreement is to be read and interpreted wholly in conjunction with those two awards. Should I understand the intention of the parties such that, both of those awards will be referenced in relation to all employees or that both of those awards will be referenced but only relevant to the employees to whom those various or two separate awards have application?

PN100

MR KOTYLA: The latter, sir.

PN101

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, 1.7(b) which is the clause where you have identified an omission, I invite you to provide me over the next 7 days with an undertaking which will address the extent to which the provisions of that clause can be taken by me, such that the no disadvantage test is met. To more comprehensively explain my question. I have a significant concern such that the clause in its current form does not place any limitations as I see it, on the number of hours that an employee would work.

PN102

It places no limitations as I see it, on overtime arrangements, meal breaks, call back or bluntly put, public holidays in its entirety, such that there exists the possibility that an employee who was to be paid $34,000 per annum might be required to work hours of work and arrangements, which could well result in the payments being due to the employee under either of those two awards substantially exceeding $34,000.

PN103

It may not be the intention of the parties but it is why I'm giving you the opportunity to give my an undertaking that I would consider in that respect. I'm not asking for it now. I'm suggesting it be provided to me over the next week. Clause 1.88 also says in the second sentence:

PN104

That this incorporates and replaces all previous agreements.

PN105

I put it to you Mr Kotyla, that I'm having some difficulty understanding that particular sentence and I invite the parties to tell me how I should read it. Generally speaking, an agreement either incorporates or replaces all previous agreements. That is I don't know whether the intention is that this agreement should be read in concert with all previous agreements or whether it is intended to replace them.

PN106

MR KOTYLA: It is intended - - -

PN107

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Again, I invite you to either to advise me of that position now or alternatively to provide it to me in writing.

PN108

MR KOTYLA: The intention there is that this agreement replaces all previous existing agreements.

PN109

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but you see that it does say that it incorporates them too. Can I then take you to clause 2.1(g) where the sections of the Act that are referred to there specifically relate to Australian Workplace Agreements, giving rise to a question such that I'm not at all sure what the intention of the parties is and I once again invite you to provide me with advice as to how I should understand the intention of the parties in relation to that clause.

PN110

MR KOTYLA: That wasn't the intention, sir. The intention was to - let's go back a step, the purpose of this particular dispute resolution procedure was to try and maintain the existing dispute resolution procedure that had remained in the previous agreements and it was because the procedure appeared to work okay, the intention was just to maintain it. So it was never an intent to refer to those particular sections in that form.

PN111

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, they are in that form, Mr Kotyla. They are there, they are in black and white and the difficulty I'm having is that, as I see it, the opportunity to obtain penalties under section 170VV of the Act or to use the provisions of 170VU of the Act are at best dubious. Giving rise to a question as to, how I should understand that employees could conceivably agreed to have something that is not available to them, but again I leave the question with you to ponder upon.

PN112

Can I take you to clause 3.1, in particular 3.1.1 which identifies the three types of employees or basis for employee. Clause 1.4 refers to piece employees. It defines a piece employee on page 3 of the document but I note that piece employees, that is p-i-e-c-e, are not referred to in terms of the employment categories, Thereby giving rise to a question as to whether the intention of the parties is to allow for piece employees to be engaged at all.

PN113

MS FARQUHARSON: As far as I'm aware we don't engaged anyone as piece - - -

PN114

MR KOTYLA: No. We don't.

PN115

MS FARQUHARSON: - - - workers and should that be in the definition at all then if we don't - - -

PN116

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes. I'm just - this is not one of the mandatory issues, it is a question where I'm inviting the parties to clarify their understanding.

PN117

MS FARQUHARSON: I don't think it should be there.

PN118

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There's an identical question that relates to time employees that are defined in clause 1.4 but not further referenced but again, I leave that to the parties to ponder upon. Clause 3.3 talks of an attached confidentiality document. The agreement that I have before me does not contain any attachment of that nature. It gives rise to a question as to whether there is an agreed attachment and whether it was attached to the document that employees were invited to vote on.

PN119

MR GRAENE: Each new employee, sir, does have a copy of the confidentiality agreement when they join the company and they do sign the confidentiality agreement at the time of starting their employment with the company.

PN120

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I understand that now, Mr Graene, but I'm still referring to clause 3.3 which is once again stated in quite specific terms.

PN121

MS FARQUHARSON: There was no attachment. I've not seen one attached.

PN122

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So the parties would need to confirm a position to me in that regard. The next question which again is of a mandatory nature relates to clause 4.2, where I need to advise that I'm having some difficulty reconciling the classifications referenced in that clause with the relevant award rates and classifications. So what I seek from the parties in that regard, is an agreed form of advice which confirms how I should reconcile the classifications contained in the two awards with the classifications that are detailed in that clause 4. I need that to be able to consider the no disadvantage test.

PN123

MR KOTYLA: I'm sorry, sir, I wonder whether you might just clarify for me specifically a bit more that - - -

PN124

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Act requires that I consider the agreement from the perspective of the no disadvantage test. What I'm not able to do on the information before me, is to link the classifications which are summarised in 4.1 with specific classifications contained in the two awards to which I must have regard and I'm inviting the parties to provide me with that information on an agreed basis. Does that clarify the issue?

PN125

MR KOTYLA: In part. It seems to me what you are looking for, sir, is that you are saying that, if we look at the classification in level one of cleaner then you are saying, well, what is the award rate level for that, is that the question?

PN126

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is right. Now, clause 5.1.7(d) at the very bottom of page 10, should I understand that - how should I understand that particular provision? Are there separate departments?

PN127

MS FARQUHARSON: Yes.

PN128

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is just a question of clarification.

PN129

MR KOTYLA: Yes. In essence the first part basically says, that people should not work by themselves in the place but it also means that you could have two people on the premises working in two departments. So that you don't have one person by themselves but rather you might have a person in one department and a person in another department and there would be two persons working on the premises.

PN130

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 6.1.7(b) on page 13, is a clause that I've now read three times and I need your assistance to tell me what it actually says.

PN131

MR KOTYLA: Okay. Clause 6.1.7(b) is saying that, if a person works for a company and they work for less than one year or a full year and less than one year, then they would get paid any leave entitlements due for that one year and that portion of the year.

PN132

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So that those years that are complete years are treated separately to the complex calculation set out in 6.1.7(b)?

PN133

MR KOTYLA: That is it.

PN134

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. 6.2.3 relates to the cashing out of excess sick leave. Mr Kotyla, to what extent are you in a position to give me any submissions now on the operation of this clause in the context of the no disadvantage test?

PN135

MR KOTYLA: That is a good question, sir.

PN136

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I guess the question is exacerbated to some extent by the various references to January and February 2000 which of course pre-date the agreement. It is a question that I'm happy to leave with you given that I've raised various other questions.

PN137

MR KOTYLA: In essence it is - basically that is a point from which the cashing out would apply in essence. That is the principle behind that and that the people must have a minimum amount of sick leave entitlement in order to be able to cash some of that out. The other thing too is that, where employees have long service they feel sometimes that they may have been disadvantaged in that they have had - haven't been ill or sick and it seemed to be of benefit to employees when they leave and also maintaining attendance.

PN138

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Once again, I would just issue the invitation that should you want to review that clause over the next week, you should feel free to do so. Finally, 6.6.1 in terms of how public holidays are defined, should I read that particular provision in the context of the more specific definition of what are public holidays contained in the two various awards?

PN139

MR KOTYLA: Yes.

PN140

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, Mr Kotyla. Now, Ms Farquharson, do you want to make any additional comments to the various questions I've raised with Mr Kotyla? But perhaps before you do, I should note once again that the invitation effectively is for Mr Kotyla or the employer to consult with you in terms of the answers to those questions, but you should feel free to make any comments you wish now?

PN141

MS FARQUHARSON: Just on the payment of sick leave, I think with the dates that that was listed as only applying from whatever dates that they were. We have got employees like myself, who has been there a long, long time and I've taken advantage of the cashing out of the sick leave and I still have an awful lot of sick leave still owing to me. I guess it wouldn't be - certainly in my benefit to cash some of it out but not in the company's benefit for me to cash out 60-odd days or whatever it is that I've got.

PN142

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. No other comments at this stage? Mr Kotyla, what I propose to do is to allow the parties that week, in order to consider the various requests that I've made. I need to stress to you that I've got, in effect, two sets of reservations relative to the agreement. I will take away the information provided to me relative to the way in which the agreement was reached and the extent to which I can be satisfied that the obligations set out in section 170LK have in fact, been met.

PN143

For the benefit of both the employer and Ms Farquharson, it is appropriate that I comment that section 170LK relates to the process whereby employers can reach agreements with their employees. It is quite conceivable those agreements would not involve a union but the Act sets out a very specific process that I'm required, under the terms of the Act, to look at. The reservation that I have fundamentally relates to whether or not the employer has, in this case, taken the appropriate reasonable steps to ensure that every person employed at the time, whose employment will be subject to the agreement, has had at least 14 days' notice in writing of the intention to make the agreement and that that advice has incorporated the reference to the opportunity for employees who wish to be represented by a union, to be so represented.

PN144

The questions that I'm raising relative to compliance with section 170LK ought not be taken as any form of aspersion that either the employees or the employer have set out to take advantage of anyone. It is simply that the Act talks in very mandatory terms and hence, I'm required to have regard to that. I will do so, given the information that Mr Kotyla has given me this morning and that you, Ms Farquharson, have confirmed to me. Now, the second category of concern that I have relates to a number of the specific provisions of the agreement where, depending on the information that is given to me by the parties over the next week, I will consider whether or not the agreement meets the requirements of the Act for certification. So are there are questions about that process, Mr Kotyla?

PN145

MR KOTYLA: No, just that the real question relates to how quickly I can get the transcript.

PN146

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Well, look, if you want me to make it a fortnight, I'm happy to make it a fortnight?

PN147

MR KOTYLA: Would you do that? That would be good.

PN148

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I will do that, thank you. Now, Ms Farquharson, have you got any questions about the process that I've outlined?

PN149

MS FARQUHARSON: No.

PN150

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. I shall leave that matter on that basis and adjourn these proceedings accordingly.

ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [10.50am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #AQ1 MEMO TO EMPLOYEES TO BE COVERED BY THE WORKPLACE AGREEMENT DATED 18/07/2003 PN9