C2003/3969, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 4409 (1 October 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N 10584
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER MANSFIELD

C2003/3969
C2003/2776

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION
OF AUSTRALIA

and

LINFOX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
and ANOTHER

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re Linfox termination of Smiths
Snackfoods contract and the consequent effect
on jobs

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION
OF AUSTRALIA

and

LINFOX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Application under section 170LW of the Act
for settlement of a dispute re redundancy
on termination of Smiths Snackfoods contract

MELBOURNE

5.06 PM, WEDNESDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2003

Continued from 16.9.03

PN735

THE COMMISSIONER: Apologies for the delay; the other matter went a little bit longer than what we hoped for. Now, we left it yesterday on the basis that, Mr North, you were going to give your reply this afternoon. I should point out that the transcript is now available, just by way of information for people. And thank you to the transcript staff for making it available so quickly. But, Mr North, it is over to you I think.

PN736

MR NORTH: Thank you, Commissioner. Please forgive me if my submissions are a little less than polished, Commissioner. It is - - -

PN737

THE COMMISSIONER: I will take them to be as being at your usual standard, Mr North, which I think everybody has a high regard for.

PN738

MR NORTH: Well, if you mean that honestly, I thank you from the bottom of my heart, Commissioner. But, yes, I haven't had a great opportunity to give a lot of consideration to the case as presented to me in the Commission yesterday. In any event, I think it is important to go to the facts in any case as to the relationship of the agreements so I will go to that. First of all, Commissioner, I would like to point out also that I have seen no draft order at this stage so in terms of the comments I have made, they are more based on submissions that have been made, rather than any order that is sought. And in terms of determining the jurisdiction, it may be quicker to do it upon the service of a draft order by the union.

PN739

THE COMMISSIONER: I would imagine, Mr North, the union at this time really hasn't got a draft order in mind, excepting to the extent that it wishes this Commission to hear argument from the union as to the eligibility of a number of its members to be considered as redundant from the employment of Linfox. And subsequent to that matter being heard, then there could be orders prepared which reflect the outcome of the submissions that are made. At the moment Linfox is challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission to hear any evidence in this matter which is your right to do, of course.

PN740

MR NORTH: That is correct, Commissioner, but in terms of getting an idea as to what is actually sought, that might have assisted in terms of determining whether or not the Commission has jurisdiction but - - -

PN741

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Mr North, I am happy to call on Mr Johnson in relation to this matter but I would imagine an order in the case of a particular member currently employed by Linfox could be along the lines of that the member be regarded as redundant from the company under the terms of the enterprise agreement and that a suitable redundancy package be considered by the parties. Now, that is just an off the top of the head - - -

PN742

MR NORTH: Certainly, Commissioner. I guess I was making that more in regards to the fact that it may be - the relevance of my submission may be somewhat limited due to that fact. So I will be speaking in more broad terms than with regard to any specific order.

PN743

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let me hear from Mr Johnson as to what sort of order he had in mind.

PN744

MR JOHNSON: If I may, Commissioner, in perusing the transcript provided from yesterday's hearing I believe I outlined quite extensively the possible options that may exist for an order or a decision, rather, to be handed down from the Commission. I canvassed numerous possibilities without identifying any particular way in which we are pressing the Commission to head.

PN745

THE COMMISSIONER: But quite obviously, Mr Johnson - and you are just reminding us that you made those submissions on these points yesterday.

PN746

MR JOHNSON: That is right.

PN747

THE COMMISSIONER: But you would be seeking that this Commission give consideration to the claims of your members that they be regarded as redundant from the employment of Linfox due to no suitable employment being offered to them on their transfer from the Smiths facility.

PN748

MR JOHNSON: That would be the first option.

PN749

THE COMMISSIONER: And from there any order or conclusion to the matter could go to - from your point of view, you would be seeking that the individuals who make their arguments be regarded as redundant and that an order be made against the company to that effect, and you may also wish the order to include some reference to the standards of redundancy payments that should be made.

PN750

MR JOHNSON: That would be correct on the first option which we say would be available to the Commission to exercise. To assist Mr North, I am happy to identify another possible option and we are exploring these merely as jurisdictional facts - - -

PN751

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN752

MR JOHNSON: - - - to establish first the ability of the Commission to find it has jurisdiction. I referred yesterday to some letters which had been sent to employees representing offers of new employment to them, and I indicated that I would hand up those letters at a later date. I wish to hand those up now because it is pertinent to - - -

PN753

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, just before you do, Mr Johnson, is there an objection to that, Mr North? Mr Johnson wants to hand up some letters which - perhaps you could explain them again, Mr Johnson, please.

PN754

MR JOHNSON: Well, these are letters from the company. They are in the possession of the company.

PN755

THE COMMISSIONER: To individuals?

PN756

MR JOHNSON: To individual employees.

PN757

MR NORTH: No objection, Commissioner.

PN758

MR JOHNSON: And they essentially have been prepared on a pro forma basis, as I understand it, and Mr North may be able to confirm whether that is or is not correct. Did you wish to mark that, Commissioner?

PN759

THE COMMISSIONER: I would, Mr Johnson. I haven't got readily in front of me the list of exhibits we have got in this matter thus far.

PN760

MR JOHNSON: I don't believe that we marked exhibits yesterday, being the decisions that I handed up.

PN761

THE COMMISSIONER: No, we didn't.

PN762

MR JOHNSON: But that may not be as necessary as they - - -

PN763

THE COMMISSIONER: So it is J1 in that case, is it?

PN764

MR JOHNSON: That is right.

EXHIBIT #J1 LETTER TO MR B. MURDOCH, DATED 24/7/03

PN765

MR NORTH: This is a letter, dated 24 July, to Brett Murdoch, one of the affected members. It is an offer of weekly employment. I provide this to the Commission because it is relevant to one of the possible arguments that may be constructed and may be found by the Commission, and that is that these employees who were working at the Dandenong Smiths site had their positions declared redundant by the company, were entitled to a redundancy pay, were effectively retrenched by the company, and commenced arguably new employment with that company.

PN766

That being the case, we say it is open to the Commission on another construction to find or decide that these employees are entitled to receive a redundancy payment in accordance with the Mayne policy and to continue on in what we say is arguably new employment with Linfox. That is a possible construction which may be open to the Commission, and I make Mr North immediately aware of it now so that he may address that point. They are two possible outcomes. Obviously we have not been required to prepare or provide draft orders as these were not required as part of the directions issued by the Commission. So as far as we are concerned, we have complied with directions and have outlined the possible scope of application by the Commission of this dispute and the possible outcomes as well. If the Commission pleases.

PN767

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, thank you, Mr Johnson. Mr North.

PN768

MR NORTH: Thank you, Commissioner. With respect to what Mr Johnson has just said, the presentation to you of options does not make it clear exactly what the union is seeking in terms of an order. Obviously an order will have to be made arising out of the decision that you make, and it is not clear to the company at this time as to what exactly it is that is being sought. And in that respect, we are limited in terms of testing the jurisdiction of the matter.

PN769

THE COMMISSIONER: I hear what you say, Mr North, but - - -

PN770

MR NORTH: I am prepared to leave it at that at this point in time, Commissioner.

PN771

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN772

MR NORTH: It is just a comment I am making in terms of - - -

PN773

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. My response is that I would think that the company should be reasonably aware at this time what the union is seeking. It may not be aware of the specifics of a particular order the union is seeking but the overall objective of the union I think is reasonably clear. I tried to set it out in broad terms a few moments ago and Mr Johnson has reminded us that he made several references to it yesterday as well. But I hear your qualification that you are not as familiar as you feel you ought to be but, having said that, perhaps you ought to press on.

PN774

MR NORTH: Certainly, Commissioner, and was planning to. I wasn't seeking to run away from this afternoon.

PN775

THE COMMISSIONER: No, you might be pushing up the Linfox overtime bill if you don't sort of carry on reasonably quickly.

PN776

MR NORTH: We don't care about overtime at Linfox, Commissioner.

PN777

THE COMMISSIONER: I know that sort of a workplace, Mr North.

PN778

MR NORTH: I will certainly - I don't envisage taking a great deal of time, Commissioner, I must say also. Basically in terms of the issues raised yesterday, we say that the section 170LW application - sorry, a section 170LW application can be in terms of the application of the agreement. That is the purpose of that sort of application and it is limited to settling disputes as to the application of the agreement. The clauses in the respect enterprise agreements are restricted by virtue of the Act to that.

PN779

In terms of what was raised by the applicant yesterday in terms of a without prejudice trial of new positions, we say that our recollection of that is different to what the TWU has said, and that is all we feel we need to say at this point in time, Commissioner. We say that it is not appropriate to go to what was discussed in conference, and that is what we will say at this point in time because we don't believe that it accurately reflects those discussions that took place in conference in this Commission.

PN780

Therefore, looking at the agreements, there are two agreements in question here: one which has been referred to as the Smiths agreement which was the agreement that applied in particular to the Smiths site, and also the heads of agreement which was formulated between Mayne and the Transport Workers Union. The question is which one is applicable in this situation and what do any provisions say about redundancy in terms of what you have outlined before as to the context of this dispute. 6.2 of part A of the heads of agreement - which I had conveniently to a hand a moment ago, Commissioner, which seems to have escaped my attention at this - - -

PN781

MR JOHNSON: If I might assist, Mr North, I think it is at tab 14 in the applicant's outline.

PN782

THE COMMISSIONER: It is.

PN783

MR NORTH: I thank Mr Johnson for his assistance. 6.2 states:

PN784

Any pre-existing LWCA whose nominal expiry date is later than the commencement of part A of this agreement continues to apply ...(reads)... when such LWCA reaches its nominal expiry date.

PN785

That says that the agreement, referred to as the heads of agreement, does not apply until such time as the other agreement expires. The critical event, that is the cessation of work at that site, took place on 27 June 2003 which is prior to the nominal expiry date of that particular LWCA. In any event, that is consistent with section 170LY(1) of the Act which basically says the agreement that is first in time prevails to the extent of any inconsistency.

PN786

The Smiths agreement at clause 28 provides at paragraph 4 at: Security of employment:

PN787

If after extensive investigations, including alternative job offers, the parties conclude that retrenchment is the only option ...(reads)... on a redundancy package for the affected employees.

PN788

Linfox maintains its submission that that is the relevant clause to be considered, that there is nothing even if the heads of agreement was found to be applicable at the time, that there is nothing in that agreement which is inconsistent with clause 28 of the Smiths agreement and, therefore, that is the correct agreement to apply.

PN789

THE COMMISSIONER: So, Mr North, are you saying the heads of agreement is the correct agreement to apply or the Smiths agreement is the correct one?

PN790

MR NORTH: The Smiths agreement, Commissioner. My apologies if I was - - -

PN791

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I was confused.

PN792

MR NORTH: That may have been my fault, Commissioner, so I apologise in that regard. We say the employees have not been terminated, that to receive severance payment they would have to be terminated and that the Commission cannot make an order which terminates the employment of these affected employees. We say the union's submission regarding redundancy versus termination by reason of redundancy, with respect, Commissioner, is fanciful and flies in the face of any number of decisions since the TCR decision of 1984.

PN793

We just say that it is untenable that the Commission could order that people that remained in employment with the company that they were employed with prior were to receive severance payments and retain their employment with the organisation. For example, if Linfox was to do such, it would be subject to penalties from the Australian Taxation Office in that it would not be truly a bona fide redundancy. Under the Smiths agreement there is no reference to the 1994 policy. The Industrial Relations Commission should not fill the gap in this respect.

PN794

In annexure B of the materials that I provided to the Commission I included examples of a number of agreements that Mayne had that had security of employment provisions. For example, MPG Logistics (BHP Interstate) Agreement 2000 at clause 14, security of employment, provides:

PN795

If, after extensive investigations, including alternative job offers, the parties conclude that retrenchment is the only option, then the company will begin negotiation with the union on the application of the Mayne Nickless Limited Redundancy Agreement for the affected employees.

PN796

There is no such provision in the Smiths agreement. If, as the union said before - and I have only just seen the document that Mr Johnson has provided me with. I was not responsible for that document nor its despatch so at this point I had not seen it. Insofar as that is concerned, though, if he is saying that the employment has been terminated, then this would not be the appropriate path for any application seeking relief. It would, in fact, be under section 170CE of the Act.

PN797

The applicant referred to 4.4 of the Mayne agreement, 4.4 of part B of the Mayne agreement, to be specific, which states that:

PN798

The purchaser will abide by all written industrial agreements, whether registered or not, affecting the terms and conditions of employees and subcontractors whose employment or engagement is transferred to the purchaser after 1 January 2003 as part of the sale transaction, which are operative immediately prior to the transfer date. This will continue until an agreement is replaced by an LWCA.

PN799

In that respect, we say that it is not possible via that clause to make out that the 1994 policy applies. 4.4 refers to "written industrial agreements, whether registered or not - which are operative immediately prior to the transfer date." As put in submissions yesterday, Commissioner, we say that the 1994 agreement could not be operative on the basis that it had been superseded by the provisions of clause 28 of the Smiths agreement.

PN800

We say that it is necessary for the Commission to consider in making an order that it is required under section 111(2) of the Act where it refers to "unless the context otherwise requires" that the Commission needs to take into account sections 3, 90 and 95 when making any orders by virtue of that provision. Vice President Lawler made that comment in CPSU v Telstra, which I am not sure if the - I can't recall exactly if the Commission has a copy of that from Mr Johnson yesterday.

PN801

THE COMMISSIONER: No. Is this the recent Lawler decision?

PN802

MR NORTH: It is. It is the one - - -

PN803

THE COMMISSIONER: I have a copy of it, Mr North.

PN804

MR NORTH: You have a copy of it. I will provide one to Mr Johnson.

PN805

THE COMMISSIONER: That decision, of course, is under appeal from Telstra.

PN806

MR NORTH: I understand that and I was just about to say if his Honour is correct in that regard - I understand it is under appeal, Commissioner, and I was just - it was more a comment made during that decision rather than relying on the decision in toto. We say even if the heads of agreement did apply, that 7.6 of the agreement, which provides that:

PN807

In these circumstances, Mayne Group will use redundancy only as a last resort.

PN808

MR JOHNSON: Sorry, Commissioner. If I can intervene there, if I could get the reference from Mr North again, having now received a copy of the decision that he is referring to.

PN809

THE COMMISSIONER: The Telstra one?

PN810

MR JOHNSON: Yes.

PN811

THE COMMISSIONER: Which part of the Telstra decision?

PN812

MR JOHNSON: He referred specifically to a particular paragraph.

PN813

MR NORTH: It is at the bottom of page 19. Sorry, Commissioner, and apologies to Mr Johnson. As I was saying, Commissioner, 7.6 says that:

PN814

In these circumstances, Mayne Group will use redundancy only as a last resort.

PN815

The union submitted yesterday that the fact that it says "will use redundancy" was to infer that Linfox had to use redundancy. Linfox would submit that that sentence should be read in a manner which limits the use of redundancy. So the fact that the "only" comes after the "redundancy" rather than before it shouldn't be taken to mean that Linfox will use redundancy. In any event, we say this is not inconsistent with clause 28 of the Smiths agreement. We rely on the submissions made yesterday, Commissioner, in respect of the chronology of the agreements, ie, the Teskor agreement and the like. Do you wish me to go back to that? No, I didn't think so.

PN816

Nowhere in either agreement does it expressly state that the 1994 policy will apply. In some areas it refers to calculation in line with that but there is no express statement saying that for all employees of Mayne Logistics the 1994 redundancy policy will apply. There is nothing to that degree in either of the agreements. I must note too, Commissioner, that I have not had the benefit of seeing the transcript in this matter, so - in any event, clause 14.3 of the heads of agreement states that:

PN817

Any future redundancy payment by the purchaser will be calculated on the same basis which would have applied to the employee at the time the purchaser completes the transaction.

PN818

At the time the purchaser completed the transaction, clause 28 of the Smiths agreement applied. Nothing in the heads of agreement overrides that. Therefore, we say it is impossible to say that the 1994 policy and the application thereof is within the jurisdiction of the Commission to determine. We also say it is possible for the Commission to make an order which terminated the employees affected and that only in the event of termination would they be entitled to redundancy payments. Unless you have anything further, Commissioner - - -

PN819

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't, Mr North. Thank you.

PN820

MR NORTH: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN821

THE COMMISSIONER: Have you anything in reply, Mr Johnson?

PN822

MR JOHNSON: Yes, Commissioner.

PN823

THE COMMISSIONER: Brief, I hope.

PN824

MR JOHNSON: Relatively brief, Commissioner. Mr North makes reference to clause 6.2 of part A of the heads of agreement. I am going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons here and explore a further, possibly complicating, factor in that - - -

PN825

THE COMMISSIONER: Not necessarily a good line of submission, Mr Johnson, but go ahead.

PN826

MR JOHNSON: Nevertheless, it is relevant in all the circumstances. Clause 6 refers to LWCA.

PN827

THE COMMISSIONER: We are talking about the heads of agreement?

PN828

MR JOHNSON: In the heads of agreement. LWCA is defined within this agreement and for the context of this agreement at paragraph (e) of Definitions. That reads, (e):

PN829

LWCA refers to a local workplace certified agreement and means a certified agreement between Mayne Group and the TWU and which exists or is made pursuant to clause 5, 6 or 16 of part A and applies only in a certain state or to a particular business unit or site or to a combination of those.

PN830

Commissioner, it is possible, and we aren't necessarily forwarding this as a concrete view, that the definition of LWCA precludes the application or existence of the Smiths agreement as characterised as an LWCA, which means that the heads of agreement necessarily came into effect in full application upon certification, being 4 February 2003, with an operative date of 31 January 2003. It is again one possible construction, that the entitlements to redundancy benefits accruing under this agreement applied from 31 January 2003. I pose that merely for the Commission to consider.

[5.35pm]

PN831

Of further assistance to this, section 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act of 1901 gives us an indication of how laws are to be treated when new rights are created or intended to be created and replace existing rights. Specifically that Act refers to an interpretation of an Act but characterises an Act as applicable law. We would respectfully submit that a certified agreement is applicable law and yesterday I explained that the Commission had considered and had confirmed by the Full Bench of the Federal Court the concept of co-existence of enterprise agreements.

PN832

We specifically say that an application in this case of section 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act would necessarily require the Commission to look at the intentions of the parties in creating the Heads of Agreement. The intention of the parties in creating that Heads of Agreement was to confer rights; specific rights and obligations on the parties to that agreement. Those rights, because they are specifically stated, replace previous rights that existed under a proper interpretation.

PN833

That, once again, goes to the point that Mr North made that the Heads of Agreement does not apply until the nominal expiry date of that agreement so they are issues for you to consider in making your decision in this matter. Mr North made the point that the applicant's submission regarding the possibility of an employee receiving redundancy payment and continuing in employment is something which flies in the face of the TCR decision and other decisions adopted by the Full Bench.

PN834

We say that the TCR decision and those other decisions relate to circumstances where there has been termination for reasons of redundancy as opposed to looking at the situation arising of a position redundancy. I characterised these points yesterday in quite specific terms and in a fair amount of detail to illustrate that they are different concepts at law and I will leave you with that thought, Commissioner, that it is an absolute possibility that that situation that I have posed could apply in this situation.

PN835

Mr North identified the possibility of penalties applying from the Australian Taxation Office because redundancies may not be bona fide. Commissioner, I respectfully submit that if this Commission finds a redundancy is bona fide, that the Australian Taxation Office would be very reluctant to cut across the jurisdiction of this Commission in the way described by Mr North. Mr North makes a further point that if termination has indeed occurred that section 170CE is the applicable section of the Act under which our members should seek remedy to this situation.

PN836

We are not necessarily saying that termination has occurred, Commissioner. We are putting it forward as one of a number of possibilities and possible constructions. In any event, I refer you to the United Rubber decision which I noted yesterday and to the possibility that this Commission does have jurisdiction to exercise in relation to people who are no longer employees of the company. The final point that I want to make - second - it is the penultimate point that I wish to make, Commissioner, is that Mr North referred to clause 14.3 of the Heads of Agreement and identified that at the time of purchasing the relevant company, clause 28 of the Smith's agreement applied.

PN837

He very selectively quotes clause 14.3 of the Heads of Agreement because I will read the rest of it and the rest of it is at the final part of the clause 14.3:

PN838

(ie the calculation will be in accordance with Mayne policy).

PN839

ie is a specific - has a specific meaning, it is an explanation of the material preceding it. Commissioner, the Mayne policy referred to in clause 14.3 is the Mayne redundancy policy; the 1994 policy which this company, the respondent, was very much aware of when they were in negotiations for the purchase of the relevant company. They very much were aware of the obligations that they were entering into in that clause 14.3 and the relevant company that was purchased was very much aware of what that obligation meant. There is a strict intention of the parties to have the Mayne redundancy policy apply.

PN840

Mr North has referred us to a decision, Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Telstra Corporation, print 933892. You correctly identified, Commissioner, that this decision is subject to appeal and it is a decision by a single Vice President of the Commission. It may be contrasted or distinguished against the decision by Senior Deputy President Lacy in the Maritime Union of Australia v Plant Services, a decision which has been adopted by Full Benches of this Commission and a decision which referred to CFMEU v AIRC in the High Court of Australia.

PN841

Commissioner, respectfully, the High Court is a superior Court and tribunals in this jurisdiction are required to comply with the decisions of the High Court and the decision of the High Court in CFMEU v AIRC was very specific insofar as it identified that section 89A of the Workplace Relations Act did not limit the capacity of this Commission to make a decision. We say that that decision referred to Mr North doesn't affect, in any material way, the submissions put by the applicant in this matter and request that the Commission make a finding that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter. If the Commission pleases.

PN842

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Johnson. Good. That completes the submissions on the jurisdictional issue. I am not in a position to give an indication to the parties at the moment as to how this matter be determined. I do hope to be able to do that quite early next week. I will make a real effort to resolve that. I do have a full day matter on tomorrow and Friday. In fact I am double-booked for Friday at the moment and I hope to issue a decision by Tuesday the 23rd. I am going to pencil in a resumption of this matter at 9.30 am on Friday the 26th.

PN843

In the event that the decision next week is to the effect that jurisdiction is available to the union to pursue its claim we will commence evidence in regard to the specific members affected by the claim on Friday the 26th and I would suggest, Mr Johnson, that if it goes that far, that perhaps we attempt to deal with say four of the cases on Friday the 26th, this is subject to everybody doing what they feel they have to do come the decision and we will see how that works in terms of where we might go with the other matters. Now, I would just remind that I am going on leave on 6 October for three weeks but if we were to go ahead next Friday; Friday of next week and hear four matters, I would attempt to get a decision on those matters by the following Wednesday, 1 October.

PN844

Now, all of that is very very ambitious, as I think you would understand here, but that is what we will attempt to do because I think it is important, having spoken with the individuals concerned, that this matter be resolved as soon as practicable and I - with the exception of the initiative that was mapped out yesterday for a number of those individual employees to meet with officers of the company to talk about further training opportunities, other individuals were in a state of almost limbo and people were saying to us, as you aware, that the remuneration they are receiving now is seriously inadequate to keep their families together, to keep their homes and so forth and they are trying to make up their mind what their future ought to be and how it ought to be organised.

PN845

And the sooner this application of the TWU is disposed of, the better for all concerned so people know whether or not this Commission has jurisdiction, for a start, and if it is found that there is jurisdiction, then, well, there are certain things that can flow from that and it may be that any decision I might make may be subject to other proceedings regardless of which way it goes.

PN846

And Mr Johnson I think you have indicated that the union feels quite strongly about this and may wish to consider an appeal and I think Mr North has indicated roughly the same way so I will do my best to get the parties in a position where, if they want to consider the substance of the application, they will be able to do so but that will be in the hands of everybody concerned when the decision is handed down which, as I say, I will endeavour to do by Tuesday/Wednesday of next week. Good. This matter is adjourned.

ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2003 [5.47pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #J1 LETTER TO MR B. MURDOCH, DATED 24/7/03 PN765