C2003/4753, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 4159 (19 September 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 4574
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER BLAIR

C2003/4753
C2003/4754

THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION

and

INSULATION SOLUTIONS PTY LTD

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of disputes re alleged failure to notify union
and consult in regard to proposed redundancies
and alleged abolition of wool line positions

MELBOURNE

8.36 AM, THURSDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2003

PN1

MR M. BOROWICK: I appear for the Australian Workers' Union and appearing with me is the senior workplace representative of the AWU, MR T. GNATZ.

PN2

MR R. KNOWLES: I am the Human Resources Manager for Insulation Solutions. I have with me MR G. BOTTLE, who is the Operations Manager, and MR D. LAKE, who is the Plant Manager at the Dandenong site.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Knowles. Well, we finally get together. Mr Borowick.

PN4

MR BOROWICK: Thank you, Commissioner. There are two matters before you and they both, in a fashion, relate to a certified agreement between the parties which is in force and has a nominal expiry date of 20 December 2004. It is AG824108. Commissioner, the union has gained knowledge that the employer is intending to make two employees redundant, and in coming about that knowledge, the AWU believes that the procedures set down in the agreement haven't been followed. Now does the Commission have the agreement - - -

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I don't.

PN6

MR BOROWICK: I don't have a spare. If I can just hand this up once I have finished reading it.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: See, my Associate says that I have. Thank you very much. Yes.

PN8

MR BOROWICK: If I can take the Commission to - - -

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Is this the one certified by Senior Deputy President Acton on 12 May 2003?

PN10

MR BOROWICK: Yes, that is correct, Commissioner.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, thank you. Which clause?

PN12

MR BOROWICK: 12(b).

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN14

MR BOROWICK:

PN15

Once Insulation Solutions has made a definite decision to introduce major changes in production, program, organisation structure or technology that are likely to have significant effects on employees, Insulation Solutions shall notify the employees who may be affected by the proposed change and the union.

PN16

Commissioner, we would have expected that Insulation Solutions would have contacted the union, sought discussions about the proposed redundancies and then gone on to comply with their other obligations in clause 12, that is, consider any comments the union may have in respect of the proposed terminations or redundancies, including measures to avert or mitigate the adverse effects of such changes on employees, as they are obligated to do under clause 12(d).

PN17

None of the consultation envisaged by this clause has taken place and we seek the assistance of the Commission or direction from the Commission that the company cease from making any employees redundant whilst they fulfil their obligations under clause 12. Commissioner, at clause 21(d) - - -

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN19

MR BOROWICK: - - - clause 21 deals with the implementation of workplace efficiency.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN21

MR BOROWICK: At clause (d) it says:

PN22

Proposals that may lead to significant changes to work will be discussed with employees concerned in the spirit of genuine cooperation to achieve a positive result.

PN23

And it is with regret that the union puts to you this morning, Commissioner, that this obligation hasn't been fulfilled either, and for that reason, we seek a direction of the Commission that it is significant change and the making of two employees redundant, in our view, is significant change and the company should work in accordance with that clause to reach genuine cooperation with the union about possible redundancies and how they could be implemented if the company intends to proceed with that course of action.

PN24

So whilst we have in the past enjoyed strong lines of communication with Insulation Solutions, they have diverted from their normal practice on this occasion, the consultation hasn't been there and we really need to get back to the way we used to do business. I would have expected a phone call, a meeting on site with the site delegate and other relevant shop stewards and worked through the issues at hand.

PN25

Now the issues, Commissioner, pertain to changes the company wishes to make in respect to the operations of the wool line. The Commissioner may or may not be aware that the company produces insulation batts at its Dandenong plant and there is a furnace that - my basic understanding of the operations is that there is a furnace, it produces insulation batts, those batts, as part of the manufacturing process, move down to what is referred to as wool lines, production lines, they are in parallel and sit under the one roof line at the Dandenong site. The wool line operations or the wool line production operations are referred to in clause 24 of the agreement.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN27

MR BOROWICK: Clause 24(c) spells out the production requirements. There was, some time ago, as a result of changes that occurred in the warehouse operations of the employer, the need to reduce employee levels within the warehouse and that was agreed, it was part of a settlement in respect to an enterprise agreement, and they are talked about in clause 24(c)(ii), which states:

PN28

The changes detailed in clause 24 and 25 -

PN29

so they are the changes that led to a reduction in employee levels in the warehouse -

PN30

may require reduction of six employees from the warehouse work area. Of these six redundancies, three redundancies will be delayed until such time as the diverter positions are no longer required due to technological change.

PN31

So at that point in the enterprise agreement or enterprise negotiations, the downsizing in the warehouse was linked with changes that the company were contemplating in respect of technology on the wool production lines. So, in effect, three redundancies were delayed until such time as that new technology was introduced.

PN32

Now Commissioner, there is going to be a lot of discussion and submission today about the diverter. The diverter, as I understand it from my limited technical knowledge, is a process, mechanical process that diverts the insulation batts which are being produced. As they are coming down the wool production line they are diverted mechanically to a bagging machine, which pushes the finished product, the batt, into a heavy duty plastic bag. Now, that plastic bag is - I don't know if printed is the right word, but it has emblazoned upon it the livery of the Insulation Solutions company and it is a fairly - it connotes has a fair bit of information. But the bagger, or the bagging machine, jams the finished batt into the bagging machine, which is the heavy duty plastic bag, which is then sealed or placed in a larger - placed along with other batts, which are then cling wrapped together, but that is my crude understanding of what goes on.

PN33

Now, as I explained earlier, the two wool production lines are in parallel and the diverter sort of is at a right angle, so really it dog legs and sort of comes down the line and it is a hard left turn. The diverter sort of spins the batt around to go off into a different direction. Now when it doesn't complete its task appropriately or efficiently, there is propensity for the bags to sort of go - the batts, I should say, to go astray, and what has happened is since 1994 there has been an employee standing at that position, it is known as the diverter, and an employee stands there with a stick or other instrument and when the bag has difficulty making the requisite turn, there is assistance, manual assistance, provided by that employee. Now otherwise, what would happen is the process would just come unhinged; batts sort of collide with one another, mayhem follows, batts everywhere and the process is frustrated, so there is a requirement.

PN34

Now that employee has, since 1994, so the introduction of the mechanical bagger - previous to that, my instructions are that the batts were manually placed into a heavy duty plastic bag. So in 1994 there was introduction of new technology where the batts were mechanically inserted into the bag. So since around 1994 there has been an employee. Now the company has, since that time, resisted making that employee a permanent employee, so it has been a casual position, a position filled by a casual employee since about that time.

PN35

Now, it has been a long running issue between the parties. The company has wished to retain that employee as a casual employee so it doesn't affect their head count, and the union has campaigned to have that position filled by a permanent employee. Just recognise the fact that this is going to be a position that requires a person to be there until such time as circumstances change.

PN36

Now, the company - and it is a bit of a standing joke at the site - the company has been for a long, long time promising the introduction of new technology which would do away with the need to have someone stand there, and we have had a letter of undertaking from the company in the past that they wouldn't unreasonably oppose the position being made a permanent one. That date came and went and it was an issue between the parties at the last negotiations, EBA negotiations. The company said, look, we understand this has been going on too long and therefore we agree to draw a line in the sand. So that date is 23 October this year and that is contained in 24(c)(iii):

PN37

The company agrees to convert the current diverter casual positions to permanent positions, should the diverter not be fully operational by October 23, 2003.

PN38

So it is recognised that there is a diverter position, it is occupied by a casual and 23 October 2003. Now it is not open to the company today, in our view Commissioner, to come back and argue that it should be a different date because this has really been an issue that has dragged on and on and on and here we are, it is next month; finally we have got here and it is next month.

PN39

Now the company has sought to introduce technological change, new machinery, at great cost as I understand it, to do away with the position but it hasn't worked. Now the company are saying they are going to make two employees redundant. We say, well, if that is what they want to do, well, that is up to them. We want consultation in accordance with their obligation under the EBA but if they want to make people redundant, that is their call but we are not backing away from the requirement to convert that position to a full time, should the new technology they introduce not be fully operational.

PN40

Now, I think that is the argument that has got to be had, fully operational, what is fully operational? Has the company satisfied their requirement to introduce technology that is fully operational? And we say not; there is still, as of today or yesterday, someone standing at the diverter position, notwithstanding the fact that they have purchased the machinery, it was modified for use at the Dandenong site, probably or possibly further modified to try and get the thing to work.

PN41

I think Insulation Solutions have made their best effort, but in any case it is not fully operational, and for that reason we believe Insulation Solutions needs to comply with its obligations under the agreement and convert those casual positions - and it is one person each shift, it is a three shift operation, day, afternoon and night - that position needs to be a permanent position. If the Commission pleases.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Knowles.

PN43

MR KNOWLES: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, Mr Borowick mentioned at the start the failure to consult with the union concerning these redundancies and the diverter position. If I can - this diverter position that Mr Borowick described, the machine, the old machine quite adequately; it does what that does, and there have been discussions about this position and the casual positions, and they have been casual positions for a number of years. I have been at Insulation Solutions since about 1996 and ever since that day, we have been talking about - well there have been conversations about the diverter, and in fact in 1998, the company sent Mr Borowick a letter to say that we were working on it and if we couldn't fix this thing, then we would have to convert the positions to permanent positions.

PN44

At that time the company was going through a significant stage of capital improvement in the organisation. The plant was old and tired, there was a lot of work being done to bring it up to speed, to effectively keep the business in operation and there are priorities; new furnaces had to be built, new lines put in, new plant and equipment put in at various places but we never left sight of the fact that one day we have to fix the diverter. In the sixth enterprise agreement, which is the enterprise agreement prior to this, and in clause - and there were discussions during that enterprise agreement about the diverter, and in clause - and I have got the actual copy of the clause here, Commissioner, if you would like it.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN46

MR KNOWLES: So in clause 23 of the sixth enterprise agreement, in clause 23(c)(ii) we refer to changes detailed in clauses 23 and 24, which detail changes in the warehouse. At the time we were putting in place quite a significant restructure that required six redundancies to come out of the warehouse and that was agreed in the enterprise agreement.

PN47

The Federal Secretary of the Glass Workers Union - I think it is called the Glass and Container Branch of the Australian Workers' Union - Paul Curry, was at those negotiations and we were talking about what we were going to do with the diverter positions. At the time Paul Curry said to us well, why don't you just hold three of the redundancies over that you are going to put in place in the warehouse, hold those up until you have fixed the diverter. And we said, well, that seemed like a reasonable result, and so hence the clause there that says of these six redundancies, three redundancies will be delayed until such time as the diverter positions are no longer required due to technological change. Now in fact four of the - another person put his hand up for redundancy from the warehouse area, we accepted that redundancy and accepted that there would be two redundancies remaining to come out of the warehouse. Those two warehouse people actually transferred into the wool line at that time.

PN48

During negotiations for the seventh enterprise agreement, which you have a copy there, again the diverter came up, and I might point out that Mr Borowick must be actually not seeing too well. The clause there says - I think he referred to the changes detailed at clauses 24 and 25 "may require", well, I think the clause is quite clear that it says "require" a reduction of six employees. But we did agree to add in another clause about the diverter to say well, all right, if we can't get this thing fixed by October 23 then we will convert the positions and that was at the insistence of the union. The company agreed to that because it thought that well, if we don't actually fix this thing we probably never will.

PN49

Since that time, about $500,000 has been spent in upgrade to plant and equipment in the diverter area, and in fact we changed the diverter operation from one based on a vacuum method, so the batts would come along and they would be sucked up on a vacuum and they would be pushed out like that, to a push method, so it is a different technology and that probably came into operation around about January. We started to think well when should we activate the redundancies? Let us give this equipment an opportunity to bed itself in.

PN50

We kept the people there because we believed that they were our obligations under the enterprise agreement to not take those people away until such times as the redundancies were activated. We were conscious that we had given a commitment that the diverter would be operational by October 23 and we were conscious that we needed to move relatively quickly, and the Plant Manager, Mr David Lake, was under a significant amount of pressure to actually make this thing work, and work it does. And as we did say, the diverter would be fully operational.

PN51

In around about the end of June, we had come to the sort of conclusion that we were ready to go now. Now Mr Borowick mentioned that we had failed to consult about redundancies. For effectively since the sixth enterprise agreement when we mentioned the redundancies - now these redundancies are not redundancies from the wool line, these are redundancies that are a hangover from the warehouse area. They are not redundancies from the actual wool line employees, they are a hangover from the warehouse work area, so there are in fact two additional staff that work there.

PN52

So there has been a significant amount of discussion, when is it going to happen, when are the redundancies going to happen? In fact, the senior site shop steward, Mr Terry Gnatz, who is here today, has mentioned on a number of occasions when are the redundancies going to happen from the diverter. There is going to be redundancies from the diverter. Mr Borowick knew there were going to be redundancies from the diverter. In fact the union twice in an enterprise agreement accepted that there were going to be redundancies associated with technological change in the diverter and accepted, and not only that, recommended those changes to a mass meeting of employees earlier this year to vote this enterprise agreement up. So it is quite clear that all along there has been no - we haven't sort of struck like thieves in the night, popped up and said we are going to make a couple of people redundant.

PN53

In about June of this year, Commissioner, we looked at activating that. We were in a meeting with Mr Terry Gnatz and said to him we think it is time to call for redundancies for the diverter, the diverter is now fully operational, in our opinion, this is what we are going to do. We will put out a note calling for redundancies from wool line employees, not across the business, but wool line employees because that was what we believed our position was, and we did that and a number of people put their hands up and said that they want to go. It is purely based on a voluntary basis.

PN54

So we believe that certainly in terms of consultation we complied with our obligations. I did then send a letter to Mr Borowick later on talking about the redundancies. Did I ring him directly? No, I didn't. And did I send him a letter? No, I didn't, but we believed that there had been consultation over a period of years about diverter redundancies and also people could actually see this equipment in operation and they must have realised that the redundancies were going to be activated at some stage.

PN55

The diverter at the moment, in the last month has had approximately three minutes of down-time a day. Now it is a piece of mechanical equipment. We have a number of pieces of mechanical equipment in our operation. We have things that chop insulation material into batts, batt size pink batts, and to other bits. Occasionally that breaks down. We have machines that put the batts into bags and occasionally they break down. We have machines that roll the insulation material into rolls and occasionally that breaks down, and we have a rather large furnace at the end of it and sometimes that, unfortunately, breaks down. So mechanical equipment can break down. Can we guarantee that this thing will never break down? No, we can't, but we believe it is fully operational, we believe we have complied with our obligations under our enterprise agreement, we believe that this was simply a matter of course that this was going to happen.

PN56

Now, Commissioner, if I can also draw your attention - and Mr Borowick mentioned that these were positions - at no stage has it ever been mentioned anything other than these were casual positions and the union has agreed with that position, and in fact agreed in the sixth enterprise based agreement that they were casual positions, and again agreed in the seventh enterprise agreement that they were casual positions.

PN57

If I can then point you to section E over the page there, where it talks about D line line requirements, the insulation plant at Dandenong is set up in two lines, a D1 line and a D2 line. The D2 line makes batts and that is where the diverter is operational. If I can point you to - these are agreed manning levels that we have. The diverter is not mentioned anywhere in there. It is not a position. We have a person there at the moment because we are complying with our obligations under our enterprise agreement because they are casual but it is not a position. We don't have a diverter position in those D line requirements.

PN58

We have a start up operation for batts and we are only talking about batts here; we have a start up operation, we have non-critical jobs, which is - a bagger is where the batts are put into bags - I am about as technical as Mr Borowick on some of these matters - and then we have the normal crew, and they are the people that operate the line when the line is operational. If something breaks down, if the chopper breaks down and there is a bit of a jam, people go and help. They clear it off and away it goes again. We have also put in as part of this diverter operation a significant conveyer system so when the diverter, if it actually does block, the batts would be taken off elsewhere up on a huge conveyer and then across and down outside the factory into what we call a bagger - sorry, a baler, which is like a big hay - basically a hay baler.

PN59

So I think too, Commissioner, if I could just say we believe we have consulted, we believe that this has been a matter of discussion between the parties for a long, long time now, we believe that we were quite within our rights to do what we did. We have asked for volunteers, we are not making people redundant; we even had 12 applications for redundancy. We are conscious that we are under our enterprise agreement. We have a date and we wanted to ensure that we complied with those obligations. And these positions, in fact they are casual, and as agreed with the union, you know, this position doesn't - there is no formal position; it is just simply part of the normal wool line operation. I think that is all I have got to say, Commissioner.

PN60

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. Yes, Mr Borowick.

PN61

MR BOROWICK: Commissioner, in respect to the consultation, I don't think Mr Knowles has put anything to you this morning that contradicts my submission. Mr Gnatz was called into the office, told this is the way it is going to be and meeting over. That was the - I don't believe that is consultation; we don't believe it is consultation. Mr Gnatz was informed of a company decision, no discussion will be entered into and that is our view and see you later. He walked out horrified at what he had heard and rang me up and I said, well, that is not on, there are obligations under the EBA to consult, and simply we say the company needs to comply with its obligations.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: What are they to consult about? Mr Knowles has said that the two positions - there are two hangover, left over positions from the warehouse that are currently working in the wool line, as I understand the term, and those two redundancies that are left over from the warehouse were basically at the request of the union secretary of the glass division and it is now time, as I understand it, to activate those two redundancies, and the process of calling for volunteers has occurred in the wool area only and they have had about 12 expressions of interest. So what needs to be discussed? That is what I am curious about.

PN63

MR BOROWICK: Commissioner, perhaps I will answer it this way. Clause 24(c)(ii) says:

PN64

Of these six redundancies...

PN65

It is 24(c)(ii).

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Yes.

PN67

MR BOROWICK: It is the second sentence:

PN68

Of these six redundancies, three redundancies will be delayed until such time as the diverter positions are no longer required due to technological change.

PN69

So that is the trigger, when the diverter positions are no longer required. So what happens was if Terry said okay, you are right, the other redundancies should now be activated and those people had exited the business, then we would have come here and said, well, the diverter is not fully operational and the company would have said, well, of course it is fully operational and you conceded it was fully operational because you didn't complain about the people exiting the business on the basis that the technological change was sufficient.

PN70

The company would have said, well, you had your opportunity to say the technological change no longer required people at the diverter so because you didn't complain you accepted that position and the people existed the business. So if we were going to complain about the diverter, we had to do it before the people exited the business, before the balance of the redundancies took place, otherwise the company would have turned around and said, well, the fact that you didn't object to the redundancies meant that you agreed that the technological change was sufficient that the diverter positions no longer needed to be permanent positions.

[9.09am]

PN71

So we were caught either way so we had to complain before they exited the business. Now, Commissioner, in terms of the diverter, I think we have been more than fair, to be blunt, but the game is up. You know, this has gone on, Commissioner, for at least nine years. There are probably not too many sites and not too many unions that would allow someone to stand in a position day, afternoon and night shift and remain a casual position for nine years. But we have let that go on because there was a change in ownership of the company, one of the other businesses to the company which was adjacent, it was a fibreglass business, was closed by the new owner, Amatek.

PN72

To be blunt, we have cut the company some slack. But after nine years, the game is up and someone needs to stand in unfortunately. You know, if the new technology and, Commissioner, you know, we would certainly welcome your visit to the site to have a look at how the new technology is performing, but as this Commission proceeding is under way, there is somebody standing at the diverter. And last night at night shift there was someone standing at the diverter, and at afternoon shift yesterday, and at day shift yesterday. Whilst the wool line is in operation, someone stands at the diverter position.

PN73

Now that has been a casual position since 1994. The company committed in a letter in 1998, we let them slip the noose on that one, they committed in 1988 to make them permanent but we had to cut them some more slack because they kept saying they were, you know, they were on the verge of introducing this new technology. So we gave them til 1998, the letter, which I think committed them in an 18 month to two year time frame or something. It has gone on from that time until 2003 and there is still someone there.

PN74

Now okay, maybe between September 4 and October 23 there is going to be the introduction of further new technology which will miraculously do away with the need to stand someone there, but I haven't heard any submission this morning that what is there is going to change, or what is there is going to be replaced, or what is there is going to be improved in some fashion. I think they have had a go, it hasn't worked, the game is up, let us make them permanent. And then once those positions are permanent, if the company still wants to make people redundant, well they are at liberty to do that.

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: So let me understand that, and I hope the parties excuse my ignorance if I haven't been able to pick it up quickly enough. But you have somebody standing on the diverter line with a stick like instrument, so it is probably a hook, complicated hook, yes? Not even that?

PN76

MR KNOWLES: A pretty simple hook.

PN77

MR BOROWICK: It is a broom handle.

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Pretty simple. Pretty simple hook.

PN79

MR GNATZ: Can I highlight that position has gone from one position to three?

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, because it is three shifts.

PN81

MR GNATZ: No, the position has become three positions. the diverter, side trim, production inspection.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Okay, so that position has been casual since the inception. Right, 1994, I think you said.

PN83

MR GNATZ: Yes, Commissioner.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: That position is quite distinct from the two proposed redundancies, right, because they were transferred over from the warehouse to the wool area.

PN85

MR BOROWICK: That is correct.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: So the company says, "Well the two redundancies are outstanding, they need to be made. We will seek it from volunteers." The union's position is, well, not quite sure that that is right, but at the same time, in accordance with your agreement which gives the company until 23 October that those casual positions should be made permanent. Is that right?

PN87

MR BOROWICK: That is correct.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: So they are two distinct positions, two distinct arguments.

PN89

MR BOROWICK: They are and they aren't. I understand where you are coming from and I almost agree with what you say, except for some reason as Mr Curry's intervention, they were linked and they are linked in that paragraph ii, and it talks about the delay, that the three redundancies would be delayed until such time as the diverter position, so the warehouse and the diverter became linked at that point, whether they have got anything to with each other or not, they were linked at that point, are no longer required due to technological change. So we say in effect the warehouse redundancies are being held up because of the link in the EBA - - -

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: To the change.

PN91

MR BOROWICK: Yes, and what would have happened is that those three positions were exited, well then the company would have turned around and said, "Well, the fact that you let them exit, well then you forego your rights to argue that the technological change is insufficient to - you acknowledged at that point that technological change had made the diverter fully operational by the fact that you didn't protest." So if we were sort of going to drive a peg into the ground, you had to do it before the three people exited only because the EBA links the two issues.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. So the key words are diverter positions are no longer required due to technological change. You say that the change has been made but it still requires people to stand and use this sophisticated hook, and until such time as those people or the equipment operates satisfactorily where you can move those people away and the equipment will continue to operate without the requirement of a hook, then you can't make the other two redundancies - or you can't make two redundancies that are a hang over from the warehouse because the equipment is not operating properly. Is that correct?

PN93

MR BOROWICK: That is correct. And, Commissioner, paragraph 2 from the last EBA to the current EBA is identical, in identical terms, other than that I think the clause numbers are different.

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN95

MR BOROWICK: But then it was sort of - it was fleshed out or refined or added to by the insertion of that paragraph 3 which then established sort of that line in the sand being October 23.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Would the parties like to go into conference?

PN97

MR KNOWLES: Yes, Commissioner.

PN98

MR BOROWICK: Yes.

PN99

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, we will do that, thanks. The Commission will go into conference.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [9.17am]

RESUMED [9.50am]

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. The Commission has had an opportunity to have a conference with the parties. Arising from the conference, the Commission will make the following statements and recommendation; that is, that in regard to the diverter line, the current practice will continue for a further two-week period, that is, until 18 September 2003, at which time there will be a report back to the Commission.

PN101

Over the ensuing two-week period the company will monitor the efficiency level of the diverter equipment. At the end of each day, the figures relating to the efficiency level will be provided to the shop steward that the Commission understands is Mr Gnatz, for his information. At the report back on 18 September - and the Commission notes that it does have an efficiency rate in its mind as to what should be deemed to be fully operational - the Commission will consider those monitoring figures and if it believes the equipment reaches that rate that the Commission has in its mind, the Commission will deem the equipment to be fully operational and will not interfere in the proposed redundancy process.

PN102

If, however, the equipment does not reach the efficiency rate that the Commission has in mind, then it will confer with the parties on the best means of achieving that figure. Do the parties understand the Commission's statement and recommendation?

PN103

MR KNOWLES: Yes, we do, Commissioner.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Knowles. Mr Borowick?

PN105

MR BOROWICK: Yes, Commissioner.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. The Commission will stand adjourned and we will reconvene on 18 September at 10 am. Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2003 [9.51am]