C2003/5552, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 4855 (5 November 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 5054
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER GAY

C2003/5552

COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION

and

STATE OF VICTORIA (EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE)

Notification pursuant to section 99 of
the Act of an industrial dispute re
application for a compulsory conference

MELBOURNE

2.14 PM, MONDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2003

Continued from 14.10.03

PN181

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Hill, I am happy for you to go first.

PN182

MS HILL: Thank you. Commissioner, as a result of last week's hearing we took your advice and we officially wrote to The Honourable Rob Hulls, Minister for Industrial Relations. I would like to hand up a copy of that. As you can see from that document I have just handed up we outline once again what our issues in dispute are about, and we also encompass the resolution that was passed by our members' meeting, which also reflects what it is we are seeking, which is our revised offer to the government.

EXHIBIT #CPSU3 COPY DOCUMENT FORWARDED TO THE HONOURABLE ROB HULLS, MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

PN183

MS HILL: Thank you. We are asking the Minister to intervene, basically, and to try and resolve this matter because it is - obviously it is starting to get ridiculous, from our side of things. We have had no response from that. That was faxed through to the Minister's office last Thursday, and in that letter we actually do say that we hope that:

PN184

We await your response with anticipation as it is our hope to have something positive to report prior to Monday's AIRC hearing.

PN185

We have heard nothing. The only other document we have received is from The Honourable Steve Bracks, who is just actually responding to correspondence we sent to him on 1 August, so there has been about a 10 week turnaround on that. But nonetheless he has replied. It is of no great significance I would say, other than to say that at that time we had asked all of the Members of Parliament to turn their minds to this dispute and to support us, and he is basically saying that in regard to these negotiations that he has - Joint Services Department are employing these people and he has left it for negotiating the enterprise agreement with them.

PN186

There is no real - there is not a great deal of substance in that. I won't bother handing that up. So, Commissioner, really we are in Mr Aird's hands, to see whether he has any instructions from his masters, because we have heard nothing.

PN187

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN188

MS HILL: Thanks.

PN189

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Aird?

PN190

MR AIRD: Mr Commissioner, as a result of the last meeting there were a couple of issues that we believe were outstanding. One was a letter that Karen Batt wrote to the two presiding officers in which they talked about using the Electorate Office Officers Enterprise Bargain in other enterprise bargains. I just wanted to correct what I believe was a misconception, and I would like to offer up Karen Batt's letter. In it basically she says yes, that what has happened with the electorate officers has never been used in the past. She makes no commitment about it being used in future negotiations, which is slightly different than I believe the slant was put on that at the last time.

PN191

THE COMMISSIONER: Just a moment, Mr Aird.

PN192

MS HILL: Is that dated 28 July?

PN193

MR AIRD: Yes.

PN194

MS HILL: Yes.

PN195

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

EXHIBIT #A1 LETTER OF KAREN BATT DATED 28/7/2003

PN196

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, and I will read that, Mr Aird, and what is your point?

PN197

MR AIRD: My point, it talks about the past. It doesn't talk about the future. My recollections from the last meeting was that the letter gave a commitment it wouldn't be used in the future, and the letter does not give that commitment.

PN198

THE COMMISSIONER: Did you seek such a commitment?

PN199

MR AIRD: I understand that in discussions it was said that letter might help, and the point was made it did make a commitment that it did - it was made in the last hearing that this letter, said basically it wouldn't be used for future negotiations.

PN200

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I remember that point. I understand - - -

PN201

MR AIRD: And I just wanted to turn around and say the letter doesn't say that.

PN202

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you have made that point, Mr Aird.

PN203

MR AIRD: Yes.

PN204

THE COMMISSIONER: But importantly for this case I am asking you, do you say that that is a detriment? The fact that it is - it has that feature that you have just highlighted. That is a detriment to the ongoing negotiations. Is that a retarding factor that you would like to see remedied?

PN205

MR AIRD: No. No. It is not a retarding factor.

PN206

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you.

PN207

MR AIRD: Mr Commissioner, the other point was about a confidential meeting that was held between the Speaker and a member of staff. I have now spoken again with the Speaker. The meeting was as a result of a request from a staff member for a confidential one-on-one meeting from the Speaker. At that stage the Speaker has informed that an offer was put to her. She said she would look at it. When it came back said, well, that might be able to work and was told no, it had to be a caveat. The Speaker would just like it known that she didn't instigate the meeting. it was done at someone else's request and it was confidential and it was one-on-one.

PN208

The other point, Mr Speaker [sic], I said I would make a commitment to get back some figures. I did send some e-mails to Ms Hill but it appears that she hasn't got them because she didn't mention it. One was on the staff levels for the top three levels, level 9, level 8 and level 7, and the numbers, which is 78 full-time equivalent for level 9; 20.8 for level 8; and 14 for level 7.

PN209

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

EXHIBIT #A2 E-MAIL DATED 15/10/2003

PN210

MR AIRD: I also said I would follow up on how much of staff related expenses was unused. $210,000 approximately, and I am not going to worry about the hundreds, was used in 2002/03, which would leave 156 approximately unused. But I was also able to follow up with Treasury as to what happens to that money. Yes, the Parliament is able to carry over that money, but it is then taken - that amount is then taken of our bottom line, so it is not as though we have that money sitting in our budget. So the money is just not there to play with in this financial year. I offer up that e-mail as well.

EXHIBIT #A3 E-MAIL FROM MR AIRD TO MS HILL, 9.41 ON 16/10/2003

PN211

MR AIRD: In regard to the letter from The Right Honourable Mr Rob Hulls, Minister for Industrial Relations, that was faxed to me from his office on Friday, and the Parliament still has not received an official, from the CPSU, outline of the change of agreement. I have taken on board what you said at the last hearing, and what was re-said here. We also received a copy of a newsletter that was sent out to staff members, but again I would just like to make the point that again, for the information that was sent to Mr Hulls should again have been sent to the Parliament as the employer. I understand Mr Hulls' office will be responding to the CPSU.

PN212

To come back to the two issues that were left to be discussed, staff related expenses. As the $155,000 is not here to be carried over it is not something that we can then - now bargain with to set up another allowance this financial year. Also the 12 months of postponement for an agreement with no staff cuts is something we can't agree to either. So unfortunately that is where we stand.

PN213

THE COMMISSIONER: What was that final point? Did you say 12 months postponement of agreement - - -

PN214

MR AIRD: I am sorry. There is a new agreement for 12 months, if I remember correctly. So it should have been the new agreement for 12 months with no staff cuts, we cannot agree to it. That is it.

PN215

THE COMMISSIONER: And does the Joint Services Department have a proposal to put today to the CPSU, Mr Aird?

PN216

MR AIRD: No.

PN217

THE COMMISSIONER: Have you got a position as to how the negotiations can be advanced?

PN218

MR AIRD: No, not really, Mr Commissioner.

PN219

THE COMMISSIONER: Does that conclude your submission then, Mr Aird?

PN220

MR AIRD: That concludes my submission.

PN221

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN222

MS HILL: Commissioner, the CPSU is so frustrated that we are just being treated with such contempt by Joint Services and the government. Quite frankly, to start with, the letter that the sought from Karen Batt, which is referred to as A1, that was dated 28 July. It has taken them from 28 July to 20 October to tell us it was deficient. We have never known that until today. So I don't even know what that point is supposed to be about. If they wanted something else, or further commitment from Karen Batt they could have just simply asked.

PN223

In relation to - I am not even going to bother going on about the discussion that the Speaker had with one of our people because the repercussions of what happens when people leave this Commission and go back up to Parliament House and the whispers start going in people's ears. So I am not going to touch that discussion. But as far as we have always been concerned we have got $365,000 of overtime that we are allowed to access. We have just heard today that there is 156 of that left over from last year and yet we can't use it. They are going to put it back into the coffers. That is an amazing, you know, I can't believe that they would even try that one on, and to say that in order for us to keep our Federal link to salaries they won't commit to no job cuts, well, that is a contemptible position to put, I believe.

PN224

Now, in terms - there is a couple of things that Mr Aird has said. Clearly the e-mail that I sent to the presiding officers, which was our newsletter, which did encapsulate the new offer, which did encapsulate the resolution that was passed by members, he fails to tell you that part of that e-mail - it was an attachment I sent, the newsletter, was:

PN225

For your information this is the revised offer.

PN226

Or words to that effect. Yes, we did write to Minister Hulls and we wrote to Minister Hulls because we had understood that that was a - - -

PN227

THE COMMISSIONER: Before you go on with that letter, Ms Hill - - -

PN228

MS HILL: Yes.

PN229

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, that e-mail you refer to - - -

PN230

MS HILL: Yes.

PN231

THE COMMISSIONER: I haven't got that, have I?

PN232

MS HILL: I don't believe you have. I have got a copy of the actual newsletter here, which I am more than happy to hand up, which enshrines the resolution which has the new offer in it.

PN233

THE COMMISSIONER: It is really the communication I am interested in and how it was put.

PN234

MS HILL: Yes.

PN235

THE COMMISSIONER: And you say, do you, that it sets out your present position?

PN236

MS HILL: Yes. Certainly.

PN237

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, look, if you haven't got a copy we will have a copy made.

PN238

MS HILL: Yes. That would be great. I have got it here. There you go. There is a copy for you. In fact, it says the Members of State Parliament staff members endorse revised offer, and then it enshrines the offer. So I don't know how more clearer we can be.

PN239

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, this is a document headed "The Gazette".
EXHIBIT #CPSU4 DOCUMENT HEADED: THE GAZETTE

PN240

MS HILL: Yes.

PN241

THE COMMISSIONER: And who was this sent to?

PN242

MS HILL: That was a - The Gazette is the name of our newsletter, and that goes to all of our members, but I also sent a courtesy copy to the presiding officers, Ms Maddigan and Ms Gould. Sorry, Commissioner, was that CPSU2?

PN243

THE COMMISSIONER: 4.

PN244

MS HILL: 4, was it?

PN245

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN246

MS HILL: So it is crystal clear from CPSU4 what our position is. Now, we keep coming back to this Commission and we keep hearing Mr Aird sit there and say, well, something wasn't good enough, or "You are not coming to me. I have got no money" and, you know, "I will give you information but you can't give me," you know, "I can't deal with you." This negotiating process is a farce. From 1 April we have been trying to negotiate with these people and this is what happens to us, and I am just appalled that this would come from a Labor government, quite frankly, and the fact that Mr Bracks has taken 10 weeks to even respond to a letter we sent him on 1 August, you know, just enshrines that.

PN247

I have no idea where we can go other than - we would call on you, Commissioner, to try and start getting the other side moving, because we are ready. We are revising our offers, we are trying to talk to anyone we can, we are having off-the-cuff meetings and then we enshrine those - what we are seeking. We do it properly and officially, and these people just aren't prepared to talk to us. They are not prepared to talk to us about any of the claims on the table, other than to say we are going to have job cuts, and we can't accept that. That has been our bottom line from the very word go that we would not keep our salary increases is that meant job cuts.

PN248

We will not sacrifice job cuts for our money, and our money is - we are entitled to it. We are entitled to that link. It has been a link that we have enjoyed for two agreements, and I have no doubt these people are trying to come after it. They won't come after it for their own Members of Parliament who have a similar link, but because it is outside of the government policy, which was the risk they took when they offered it to us, they are now wanting to come after it, and obviously that is an appalling set of circumstances from our perspective. 1 April to now, and we are no further, other than the potentially losing jobs. If the Commission pleases.

PN249

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thanks, Ms Hill. Well, once again I will have a conference with the parties to see if this matter can be advanced. We will go off the record.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [2.29pm]

RESUMED [3.47pm]

PN250

THE COMMISSIONER: We have had once again in this difficult position that arises in these agreement renewal discussions lengthy and very frank discussions. Regrettably though, the position hasn't advanced at all. There is essentially a stand-off in the positions, and it is unnecessary and perhaps undesirable to too closely essay what has caused the current near paralysis in the negotiations. Sufficient to say though that some of these considerations have been very closely identified in the frank conferences I have had with the parties, and I am grateful for the degree of frankness. Now, I am concerned, having considered all these things, that discussions surrounding the renewal of the agreement have not progressed.

PN251

I don't think the current position is a satisfactory one. Interestingly, the Joint Services Department and the CPSU do not oppose a meeting which includes representation from the Ministry for Industrial Relations, and I note that recently there has been a communication from the CPSU to the Ministry seeking assistance. It may well be that such a meeting will assist in providing clarity as to issues presently not agreed. It doesn't do for the Commission at this stage to comment to any great degree upon the strategic balance, or the strategic considerations that affect each party's formulation of its own position.

PN252

I am however prepared to say that it seems to me that major concessions can be made and can be teased out if each side, or if the other side thinks there will be a reciprocal reflection in the negotiating position. Now of course where that finally emerges is the challenge facing the parties. Such a meeting, as I expect the parties will now use all their efforts to convene, should take place as soon as possible, and assuming that the Industrial Relations Ministry is able to be represented. Should either party at any time be concerned about the progress of the matter or the conduct of the other side they can ask for the matter to come back on urgently and it will.

PN253

At that meeting each side should prepare a position statement setting out the position of the party preparing the statement in relation to the non-agreed issues. I will adjourn sine die. Thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.51pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #CPSU3 COPY DOCUMENT FORWARDED TO THE HONOURABLE ROB HULLS, MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PN183
EXHIBIT #A1 LETTER OF KAREN BATT DATED 28/7/2003 PN196
EXHIBIT #A2 E-MAIL DATED 15/10/2003 PN210
EXHIBIT #A3 E-MAIL FROM MR AIRD TO MS HILL, 9.41 ON 16/10/2003 PN211
EXHIBIT #CPSU4 DOCUMENT HEADED: THE GAZETTE PN240