C2003/3914, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 4550 (13 October 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 6, 114-120 Castlereagh St SYDNEY NSW 2000
PO Box A2405 SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER CARGILL

C2003/3914

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

and

SIMPLOT AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
and ANOTHER

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re alleged award breach

SYDNEY

10.00 AM, THURSDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2003

PN1

MR I. MORRISON: Yes, if it please the Commission, I appear on behalf of the Australian Manufacturers Workers Union in this matter. With me today is MS JENNY DOWELL, the National Secretary for the further convention division of the union and MR BRUCE O'KEEFE, the organiser from the site.

PN2

MS V. PAUL: If the Commission pleases from the Australian Industry Group representing the respondents in this matter. With me is MR PETER YORK, MR MICHAEL HEDLEY and MR PETER SARGENT from Simplot.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Ms Paul. Yes, Mr Morrison?

PN4

MR MORRISON: Yes, Commissioner. Just prior to the hearing, there has been some discussions between the parties on how today should proceed and obviously, Ms Paul can put her position but it is my understanding that after brief submissions from both parties, it might be beneficial if we go into conference, both jointly and separately, if necessary, with your understanding of the situation. Then, we might have to proceed to fuller submissions after that, if the - if that is necessary. So what I might do, if it pleases, is move to a broad outline of the issues. Ms Paul can obviously have her way and say what she has to say and then if necessary - if appropriate, commence the conference. Commissioner - - -

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Morrison, just before you start, I gather there has been a similar matter before Commissioner Redmond some time ago?

PN6

MR MORRISON: There was, yes.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: What has happened to that?

PN8

MR MORRISON: It is my understanding that that has not really gone anywhere. While there was supposedly some broadbanding to occur and some discussions to occur, those discussions have not been beneficial. Conciliation in private between the parties has not been - has not achieved what we say has to be the outcome.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Which is an alleged award breach. You do realise you have notified it as an alleged award breach and there might be issues about whether I've got anything - power to deal with that.

PN10

MR MORRISON: I'm aware of that, yes. We know the limitations of the Commission with regard to award breaches, but this is basically a matter that can easily be fixed by the company honouring their obligations. It is as simple as that.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well, that is what most award breaches are about, Mr Morrison, if there are such allegations. But anyway, we will see where we go.

PN12

MR MORRISON: Yes, Commissioner, this - as I said - this matter simply raises the company not engaging in the broadbanding process, as they require to do as a result of a decision by Commissioner Holmes issued in 1994 and 1995 with - regarding a new food preservers classification structure. I might add that most companies completed this process in '94/'95 but for some reason, Simplot did not engage in this process until the year 2000. This is the result of a substantial number of our members at the Bathurst site being graded at the wrong classification.

PN13

In 2000, Simplot engaged in this broadbanding process at Bathurst, but there is some conjecture as to whether they actually completed the process in fact. We are advised today, for instance, that there are still 15 members who have been incorrectly classified, as a result of the process they attempted to put in at the Bathurst site. Also, Commissioner, Simplot has incorrectly broadbanded many of the members who were affected by this broadbanding process at the Kelso site and we say this is because it occurred without any involvement of the AMWU, which I'm sure, the Commissioner is aware, would have made the matter more successful and as in fact, they are required to do.

PN14

Now, Commissioner, with the certification of the new EBA, the company is trying to implement its new classification and training structure. However, the company is seeking to place employees into new categories while they were incorrectly classified previously. So what we are saying is, the down-flow from the incorrect classification will significantly disadvantage our members by any new classification and training structure that is introduced. They are in fact, starting from a false premise. What we are saying, Commissioner, is the company has to first and foremost complete the re-classification that was required from the Commissioner Holmes' decision.

PN15

Get that right, then they can move on to the new structure, to the new process. But until it is done correctly - the past is corrected - they will always have a false outcome in the future. So all we are saying is, co-operate with the union. Work with the union, get it right, what they should have done 6 or 7 years ago. Get that right, then they can move on into the future. So that is what we are seeking. There has been lots of letters, correspondence meetings. Still haven't achieved anything.

PN16

It has resulted in under-payments of wages for some period of time for our members. It is involving our members having the wrong classifications. It is easy to fix and that is where we should be moving to. I will leave my initial statement there, unless you have any further questions, Commissioner.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: I was just going to ask, Mr Morrison. You have mentioned the sites at Bathurst and Kelso. It is not an issue, I gather, at any of the other Simplot sites or - I just wanted to make sure it is -

PN18

MR MORRISON: I'm advised no, it is not.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: No, okay. Thank you. Yes, Ms Paul?

PN20

MS PAUL: Ma'am, as a preliminary issue with regards to the proceedings today, we are prepared to - and are quite happy to concede to have the matter break into a conference with the Commission's assistance in resolution of this. We reserve our rights with respect to the matter proceeding in terms of the Commission arbitrating or making a determination, based on jurisdictional objections but also based on some practical objections, ma'am, that we do believe that this is a matter that because of the history of it, which will require we seek submissions - well, an outline of the union's position and their evidence prior to any hearing, so that we can put forward our evidentiary material at the same time.

PN21

But for the purpose of today, ma'am, we are happy to move into a conference process, subject to what I've just said. Just briefly for the record, ma'am, the award being - the decision being spoken about is in relation to an award, the food preservers' award which had a degree of classification. We don't dispute that that award got varied in such a manner or that position exists. What we dispute is that the application of that award and/or decision on the company, bearing in mind there has been an enterprise agreement covering the relationship between the employees concerned and the company - an enterprise agreement entered into with the union as from '93 through to current, which have covered - through a variety of different enterprise agreements and processes - training and classification.

PN22

So we suggest there is no claim in that sense, able to be made for the broadbanding in accordance with that decision, as a first point. The second issue which we wish to raise, ma'am, if this is an issue about an award breach, we don't believe this is the appropriate jurisdiction for the matter to be brought in any event, and don't concede such claim. Other than that, ma'am, we believe that all discussions with regards to broadbanding and the evidence that we have been instructed with, all broadbanding exercises have been covered by the company in conjunction with the union and training plans and policy documents have been developed in conjunction with the union. Other than that, ma'am, we would be happy to move into conference, subject to the Commission's acquiescence of that.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Paul. Mr Morrison, did you want to respond to that. I don't think there's anything particularly contentious, is there. I mean, obviously you disagree with what the company's position is. Otherwise you wouldn't be here, but - - -

PN24

MR MORRISON: Yes, but as far as Ms Paul's submission, no, we don't think so.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, in that case, we will move off the record and into conference.

OFF THE RECORD

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED