BP2002/5189, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 5040 (11 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 5158

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER GAY

BP2002/5189

APPLICATION FOR INITIATION OF
BARGAINING PERIOD

Application under section 170MI of the
Act by The Association of Professional
Engineers Scientists and Managers Australia
and Another for initiation of bargaining
period re Austin and Repatriation Medical
Centre, Studley Road, Heidelberg

MELBOURNE

9.40 AM, WEDNESDAY, 29 OCTOBER 2003

Continued from 20.10.03

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: Gentlemen, do you want to report on the record or off the record?

PN73

MR ARTIS: If the Commission pleases, I thought it would be useful just to summarise where we are currently at on the record.

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, thank you.

PN75

MR ARTIS: And then, subject to what Mr Corboy says, perhaps a brief discussion in conference at the end.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN77

MR ARTIS: We were last before the Commission on 20 October and I would like to just summarise where I believe the discussions are at in relation to our outstanding claims. With respect, a number of the matters in relation - and I believe it is exhibit VHIA2 which is the VHIA response to our claims - a number of the matters are notated as agreed in that document but may need rewording, that is the actual notation on the document.

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN79

MR ARTIS: I am simply putting back to the VHIA that with the exception of what is numbered in the exhibit as 20 overtime, the Association doesn't see any need to reword any of those clauses. Number 20 needs rewording because it is a direct take from the MSAV agreement and it does refer to clauses in the MSAV agreement may obviously have to be adjusted - - -

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: But, Mr Artis, when you say something doesn't require in your view rewording, is that - has there been - and I understand that is a consequence of the position that you hold about the need for rewording, and one understands that, but is it the result of there having been close discussion between you and Mr Corboy about why you think it does and you - - -

PN81

MR ARTIS: Well, ours is a very - there hasn't been close discussion on these particular points, ours is a very general proposition that the claims we have made are in identical terms to that which Mr Corboy's members have agreed to for the vast majority of public hospital professional employees and for that reason we can't see what is achieved by rewording them in any way whatsoever.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: But have you seen - have you had the benefit of seeing what Mr Corboy's redraft on some of these is?

PN83

MR ARTIS: Well, at this stage we haven't got to those items we discussed in conference at the last - - -

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. All right.

PN85

MR ARTIS: - - - these are items which weren't discussed in detail at the last conference - - -

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN87

MR ARTIS: - - - because they are effectively agreed. But I am just now drawing the Commission and Mr Corboy's attention to the fact that they are agreed - - -

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN89

MR ARTIS: - - - subject to rewording. And I am putting the view of the Association we don't see any need to reword them at all and we would just like to clarify that and then put it to one side. The second group of claims fall into the category of, if you like, agreed, subject to suggested changes that the VHIA have made, and they were discussed at the last conference. Suggestions were made and Mr Corboy was going to take those suggestions back to his members, specifically in relation to conference leave and part time employment.

PN90

After the conference last week I did send an e-mail to Mr Corboy putting the view that, in addition to those two particular clauses, that with respect to study leave as well we didn't see any point again to rewording those particular clauses. We really don't see that as the main game and it is taking our focus off what probably is the hardest issue that we are trying to overcome, and that is lack of funding for claims which cost money. We fail to see what we are going to achieve by making changes to words in clauses which already apply for the vast majority of health professionals in the hospital system, particularly if they then alter the intend and effect of those clauses.

PN91

Time has moved on, Mr Commissioner, and obviously human resources practices change over time, but if I were to take you back to 1991, and the Commission's structural efficiency exercises, I recollect that one of the big items on that agenda was commonality of conditions and organisations were very keen to encapsulate the conditions for all their employees into one document and have them apply equally. What we are seeing here is that we have agreement which provide conditions of employment - - -

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I understand that point, Mr Artis.

PN93

MR ARTIS: - - - for 99 percent of health professionals and we now have a group of employers who have agreed to those, agreed to those conditions, trying to change them for the smallest group in the hospital system. We see that as just a distraction from the main game. With respect to the higher qualifications allowance, that falls into the category of more information required, and I did e-mail Mr Corboy on 22 October a proposed clause which referred to biomedical engineering qualifications. The final category is perhaps the most difficult category, and they were the claims which go to an increased on call allowance, payment for telephone calls, increases in minimum payment for call back, and extra leave if you don't have four days clear on call.

PN94

We had a discussion last week, it seems the situation is that meeting these claims is a possibility of some but not others. We raised issues to do with the individual budgetary situations, I guess, of each hospital and how they relate to the departmental budget. And we wanted to explore those further; we haven't had the opportunity to do that at this stage so I will now wait for Mr Corboy's response. If the Commission pleases.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And is that because the parties haven't had the opportunity to meet?

PN96

MR ARTIS: We have not had a meeting since the last report back.

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I see. All right. All right, thank you. Yes, Mr Corboy.

PN98

MR CORBOY: Thank you, Commissioner. The focus from the last time we were before you was for me to go back to my members and see if I could get some further agreement across the field. I have e-mailed the members and also took the opportunity of a meeting on Monday afternoon for another matter to raise the biomedical engineers again, and I had a similar group of IR and HR practitioners at that meeting. It is unfortunate I cannot advise that I have reached a consensus from the employer's point of view.

PN99

The hospitals that raised concerns, which I have alerted Mr Artis to, have not altered in their view for their own reasons. Each hospital has specific reasons why they have particular concerns about granting these claims. So unfortunately the employers are - we have achieved a lot of further discussion but we are no further down the path of having one document for Mr Artis. As far as meeting Mr Artis to work through the rewording, I think both he and I haven't had a chance to do that, and the way we have worked together in the past I think that will be a fairly quick process.

PN100

But the main game, as he has characterised it, is trying to get a common set of conditions which is agreeable to all employers.

PN101

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN102

MR CORBOY: So from that point of view, I cannot advise any special - any progress despite my best efforts on this particular matter.

PN103

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. We will go off the record.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED