AG2003/9269, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 5216 (27 November 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 7, ANZ House 13 Grenfell St ADELAIDE SA 5000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN

AG2003/9269

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LJ of the Act
by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy
Union, Construction and General Division, SA
Divisional Branch and Another for certification
of the LPH Painting Company Pty Limited/CFMEU
Collective Agreement 2003

ADELAIDE

10.48 AM, MONDAY, 10 NOVEMBER 2003

PN1

MR M. HARRISON: Appearing with MR MARK GAVA for the applicant, CFMEU.

PN2

MR M. HOWARD: I appear for LPH Painting Company Proprietary Limited and appearing with MR A. PAPP-HORVATH.

PN3

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Howard. Mr Harrison?

PN4

MR HARRISON: This is initially an application for an extension of time in which to bring these proceedings. I think you have experienced the sort of problem we have in this case, in a couple of cases last week. My friend, Mr Gava, went on holiday. He executed his statutory declaration but it was left in abeyance for us to seek statutory declaration from Mr Papp-Horvath, which we didn't achieve until 20 October. It is my understanding that there hasn't been a significant change in the work-force with LPH since the valid majority meeting was held on 26 August 2003 but perhaps my friend, Mr Howard, could verify this.

PN5

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, Mr Harrison, when do you say the valid majority meeting occurred?

PN6

MR HARRISON: My understanding - well, let me check in view of the - - -

PN7

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps I should preface my comment by saying the two statutory declarations have different dates.

PN8

MR HARRISON: Yes, I notice it has been changed to September in 6.2 of the employers' statutory declaration, which would be understandable if he arrived at a different view, where we say it is 26 August. Well, ours wasn't signed until 26 September. I wonder if you would excuse us whilst we check our diary.

PN9

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

PN10

MR HARRISON: No, we say from our records and diary entries and documents which are consistent with it, that it was 26 August.

PN11

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Howard, what is the employer position on when the valid majority meeting was held or the date upon a which a valid majority of employees voted in favour of the agreement?

PN12

MR HOWARD: Pardon me, your Honour. The statutory declaration - a little bit of history, so I can probably bring you into where we were. My friend has asked for an extension of time, which we would support. Why there is this circumstance and why the stat dec was changed. I was undertaking this exercise on behalf of LPH Painting and come October, I hadn't heard anything. I knew Mr Papp-Horvath had been having industrial problems as a result of the negotiations of the agreement and he informed me that he had signed a copy of the agreement. He then - I said: had you gone any further and he said: no. I said: what about stat dec?

PN13

He said: I need to do one and I then suggested he better come in post-haste and sign a stat dec. Now the stat dec was given to him - we already had stat dec here and 26 August was crossed out and September put in there. It couldn't have been August, because at that time, I was actually still making variations to documents for him and discussing issues with him. It would be more likely September - late September than it would have been late August, unless there is substantial proof. It would have to be because as I said, my phone call and the reason why the stat dec was done by ourselves and Anne Lyche was my inquiries regarding what was the status of the agreement, because I have actually been working on that document for him since - the first agreement was back in July 2003.

PN14

As I normally do with my documents when people haven't come back to me within a reasonable period of time, I ask the question as to what is the progress of the document with their employees and/or the union.

PN15

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, Mr Howard, if there is uncertainty about the date upon which the majority of employees voted in favour of the agreement, then how do you put it to me that I can be at all confident that the employees had the documentation for the 14 days prior to it?

PN16

MR HOWARD: I don't think there's a doubt about the document being with the employees. The last document that I actually made changes to was late July, early August, so there were continuing negotiations between Mr Papp-Horvath and his employees at the time and then subsequent the union. I would be quite confident there was a 14-day period between the changes to the agreement and the fact of the certification - sorry, the fact of the document being given to the men and a 14-day period lapsing before there was any vote on the matter.

PN17

But I'm not in a position to state the actual date, because I certainly wasn't party to any voting of a valid majority of employees. It would only have to be the - prior to the company and the union official themselves, who give the actual statement as to what date. I merely - - -

PN18

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Was your client - is your client's recollection that he was a participant in the meeting that resolved to support the agreement?

PN19

MR PAPP-HORVATH: Sorry, could you repeat the question please?

PN20

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it your recollection, Mr Papp-Horvath, that you were a participant in the meeting that resolved to support the agreement?

PN21

MR PAPP-HORVATH: Yes, I was.

PN22

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. That happened sometime in September?

PN23

MR PAPP-HORVATH: I believe it did. It is very hard to pin-point the dates. I know I went to the CFMEUs office to sign a stat dec but I'm not actually sure what date it was, but I just don't believe it was 26 August. My diary indicates that I wasn't there on that date but I'm sure it was early or mid September, I'm just not sure of the date.

PN24

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, can I be clear about this. The date you are talking about is the date upon which the employees voted to endorse the agreement?

PN25

MR PAPP-HORVATH: The date the employees voted to endorse the agreement was sometime prior to that - well prior to that.

PN26

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You see - perhaps Mr Howard could show you a copy of the statutory declaration and if you look at paragraph 6.2, that requests that you specify the date the agreement was approved by a valid majority of employees. It is that date that I'm endeavouring to establish.

PN27

MR PAPP-HORVATH: Well, without trying to confuse the matter even more, it was probably agreed - the majority of employees probably agreed before the 26 August, but again, it is - - -

PN28

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Were you present at a meeting of your employees, where they voted in favour of the agreement? They actually formally had some form of vote?

PN29

MR PAPP-HORVATH: Yes, I was. There was a meeting at Trades Hall and I was there and there was a vote taken.

PN30

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you tell me when that was?

PN31

MR PAPP-HORVATH: No.

PN32

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN33

MR PAPP-HORVATH: Again, I would probably need to check my diary to check the exact date but I think that the meeting was more of an impromptu meeting, because there was a fair bit of - - -

PN34

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If it was an impromptu meeting, did it just happen that 16 people happened upon Trades Hall?

PN35

MR PAPP-HORVATH: I just can't recollect. It is very hard to pin-point what actually happened.

PN36

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN37

MR PAPP-HORVATH: I mean, I know my men were there, but I think at that point in time, my men were actually - yes, it is very hard to remember. There was so much that happened. I know I'm not being much help to you.

PN38

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, it is not so much a matter of helping me, it is more a matter of helping yourself.

PN39

MR PAPP-HORVATH: No, I realise that.

PN40

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Have there been any changes to the number of employees engaged by yourself between the end of August and the present time?

PN41

MR PAPP-HORVATH: There would have been another two or three which have come on board.

PN42

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, Mr Papp-Horvath. Mr Harrison, this presents me with somewhat of a dilemma.

PN43

MR HARRISON: Well, it is my submission that the best evidence is that from the applicant's - - -

PN44

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no evidence at this stage, there are various submissions.

PN45

MR HARRISON: Well, with respect, I tender the statutory declaration of Mark Gava, which in my submission, is evidence and the best evidence. We are able to expand upon it on oath if necessary. His records are quite clear. He personally called the meeting of the members - of the employees and presided at it. It is the 26th - with respect, it wouldn't matter whether Mr Papp-Horvath is correct or we are, we are still out of time, albeit perhaps a lesser period out of time, but the same test would apply with - in our respectful submission - as to the quality of the work-force.

PN46

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, can Mr Gava tell me anything about the way in which the meeting that he says was conducted on 26 August occurred and the extent to which the employee decision to endorse the agreement was a majority decision or a unanimous decision, or what form it took?

PN47

MR HARRISON: He can go further and tell you that there was more than one meeting. A meeting some weeks before the valid majority meeting that actually put amendments to the members for their consideration.

PN48

MR GAVA: Yes, I did call the meeting on the 26th as it has been presented to you. It was not actually at the Trades Hall. We have had numerous meetings beforehand and you know, there's a fair bit of history behind this particular agreement, due to different circumstances. They have had - the document has been going to and fro with certain different changes to it and I called a meeting on a specific site - building site on the 26th. There was a majority of workers there - I believe there were about 14 or 15 from recollection. We put all this - you know, we had a meeting and put it all to the men and they agreed that - on that particular date - that they were happy with that document.

PN49

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Gava, how long ago was it, previous to the meeting that you say occurred on 26 August, that the last change was made to the agreement?

PN50

MR GAVA: It would have been about 3 weeks or so, something like that, from memory.

PN51

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Which building site was it that you met with the employees on?

PN52

MR GAVA: The employees?

PN53

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN54

MR GAVA: On the Torrens parade ground project.

PN55

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. You say that all but two of the company's employees at that stage were present?

PN56

MR GAVA: Yes, from memory there was 14 there, yes.

PN57

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How did you promote that agreement proposal? Once the last change had been made to it, how was that information disseminated to your members or to the employees?

PN58

MR GAVA: It was given to employees by way of document, that - - -

PN59

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did each employee get a copy of the document, or was there a single copy that was then circulated?

PN60

MR GAVA: Yes, that was correct at that stage.

PN61

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, which of those two? Everyone got one?

PN62

MR GAVA: There was - there would have been half a dozen copies, I would say, at that stage, yes.

PN63

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you tell me when those copies were made available to the people?

PN64

MR GAVA: Copies?

PN65

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, when were the half a dozen copies of the latest agreement proposal upon which you say the employees voted on 26 September - of August, given to the employees for their consideration?

PN66

MR GAVA: They would have been given to - I would have had a copy with me and then I would have gave a copy to - I would have given a copy to them I would say within the next 2 days. I went around to various sites.

PN67

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: When you say you had a copy with you, you had a copy with you on 26 August?

PN68

MR GAVA: Yes.

PN69

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. The employees voted on 26 August?

PN70

MR GAVA: Correct.

PN71

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: When did the employees - or when were the employees given a copy of the agreement upon which they voted on 26 August?

PN72

MR GAVA: Within - as I say, within the next few days I believe.

PN73

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They weren't given it before the meeting on 26 August?

PN74

MR GAVA: Well, there was already numerous copies which kept on getting changed and amended and the document was basically the same, except for my colleagues down here kept on, you know, changing things. So there was a couple of amendments made which I had a copy on that particular day which they all agreed to. We had a full discussion over the document with considerable time - about three quarters of an hour and they agreed with what was in that particular document.

PN75

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, Mr Gava. Mr Harrison, how do you say to me that even if I were to extend the time frame for lodgement of this application, I could approve the application on the basis of the information Mr Gava has given me?

PN76

MR HARRISON: Well, I don't. I concede that this matter has got to go for a fresh vote.

PN77

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think it does. What I propose to you, for your comment, is that the parties would go back again and provide a copy of this agreement to the employees, with that requisite 14-day notice. That the employees would then vote on the document and that I would need to receive new statutory declarations. But that it might assist the parties if I went through the agreement and raised the various questions that I have about it.

PN78

In the event that the document that went back to the employees was identical with that which I have before me now, then I would take on board the answers that you might give me now and eliminate the need for a further hearing. In the event however, that were changes made to the document which may in fact suit the parties, then the parties would need to attend. What do you say to me about that proposition Mr Harrison?

PN79

MR HARRISON: Well, we are simply indebted to the Commission for that facility.

PN80

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. Mr Howard, what is your view on first of all the extent to which I can proceed this morning?

PN81

MR HOWARD: I would say your Honour, that the course of action you have intimated to my friend is probably the appropriate course because there is an uncertainty as to the date of the meeting between the employer and the union representative, and therefore it leaves the Commission in a question of doubt as to the actual day that the document was approved, and I guess further on from your question whether or not the employees concerned had the document for 14 days before approving it. So on the basis of the uncertainty, I would agree with the course of action that you have put to my friend.

PN82

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Harrison, can I refer you to clause 1.4 of the agreement proposal which seeks to exclude specialist painters. Can you explain to me how I should understand or what I should understand by the term specialist painter?

PN83

MR HARRISON: I think on this occasion, we were not the authors of this document and I think it is a provision suggested by Mr Papp-Horvath and perhaps he could explain it to you.

PN84

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Howard, are you able to explain to me the concept of a specialist painter?

PN85

MR HOWARD: I can't your Honour, but Mr Papp-Horvath certainly can.

PN86

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Mr Papp-Horvath?

PN87

MR PAPP-HORVATH: A specialist painter in my industry, your Honour, is someone who I may need to employ at a time in order to perhaps to do a specialist finish like a wood grain finish or a marble finish on a project where one of my employees does not have the skill to actually carry out that sort of work, but I have been in situations in the past where that sort of painter does come at a different rate, virtually that their own rate is what they can charge but I don't believe it would be right if they to fall under my enterprise agreement because they would only be with me for a short amount of time.

PN88

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Mr Harrison, I understand from Mr Papp-Horvath that he does not currently have any specialist painters and hence, they were not involved in the negotiation of the agreement. Does that definition operate to as to be consistent with your understanding?

PN89

MR HARRISON: Yes.

PN90

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. Clause 1.5 references the National Building Industry and Construction Industry Award of 2000 or any work falling within the constitutional coverage of the CFMEU - gives rise to two questions, is there any other work falling within the constitutional coverage of the CFMEU to which it is proposed this agreement applies?

PN91

MR HARRISON: Not in the habit - if a wood grainer turns up, he will be.

PN92

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that is precisely the issue as I understand the operation of 1.4 it is such that the agreement would not apply to a specialist painter?

PN93

MR HARRISON: That is right.

PN94

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Notwithstanding, the fact that they might well fall within the constitutional coverage of the CFMEU. Is that your understanding?

PN95

MR HARRISON: Yes, it is the case. Presumably they get someone who - a painter that does windows like happens sometimes, they would fall in.

PN96

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If I can then take you to clause 2.4 which is the grievance disputes procedure, and refer you to 2.4.3 which references 2.3.2. Can I suggest that the parties may have intended to refer to 2.4.2?

PN97

MR HARRISON: Sorry, 2.4?

PN98

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 2.4.3 reads: the period prescribed in 2.3.2 above will operate, and continues. Can I suggest that that reference to 2.3.2 might in fact be intended to be 2.4.2.

PN99

MR HARRISON: Yes, it is clear that is the case. It is a typing error.

PN100

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr Howard, does that reflect your understanding?

PN101

MR HOWARD: That would reflect my understanding your Honour.

PN102

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Howard, while you are up could Mr Papp-Horvath confirm to me that if I look at the process detailed in that disputes procedure:

PN103

In the event that an employee was not a member of this union, or indeed possibly even not a member of any union.

PN104

Does the capacity exist for that employee to be represented by a union or a representative or their choice?

PN105

MR HOWARD: There certainly does, your Honour. There would be - if the employee was not a member of a union then it would be available to them to have somebody else represent them. Certainly I notice in 2.4.4 it states:

PN106

Work will continue without interruption whilst the employee representative discusses the dispute.

PN107

Etcetera, etcetera.

PN108

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you. Mr Harrison, clause 3.2 relates to casual employees. Am I to understand that 3.2.2 operates so that casuals receive or are - may be required to work an average 36 hour week from the commencement of the agreement, or is it intended that casuals would receive the 36 week benefits from the same date, being 1 January 2005, as applies to other employees?

PN109

MR HARRISON: Yes, with respect the inarticulate major premise is there.

PN110

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. 3.2.5 reads: the loading prescribed in 3.3.4 above. Should I understand that to mean 3.2.4 above?

PN111

MR HARRISON: With respect.

PN112

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 3.9 details a work practices review. Am I to understand that the parties expect that will occur over the life of the agreement?

PN113

MR HARRISON: It would indeed.

PN114

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 3.10.4 talks of the provision of sick and accident income maintenance insurance. The first question I have there is, how should I understand the words "all eligible employees"?

PN115

MR HARRISON: In my submission, from past instructions I have had on similar clauses, that means persons covered by this agreement.

PN116

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Other than casual employees.

PN117

MR HARRISON: Other than those excluded.

PN118

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Are you able to tell me whether the parties have an agreement of the quantum and the extent to that insurance cover? Am I to understand that for example, that it is 104 weeks, a 2 week initial waiting period and that the cover is for what amount?

PN119

MR HARRISON: Well, here it says: monthly average earnings.

PN120

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Howard, does that reflect your client's understanding?

PN121

MR HOWARD: My client currently has insurance of IUS and the situation is that the monthly premium which would be adjusted in line with the insurance company's provisions, would be equal to the amount required by the company employees for their monthly average earnings. That is exactly how it would occur, your Honour.

PN122

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is 104 weeks with a 2 week waiting period?

PN123

MR HOWARD: 104 weeks' cover.

PN124

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 3.11 relates to specific company requirements. It refers to the company's occupational health safety and welfare policy. Am I to understand that policy is a documented policy, that it is readily available to employees and that it may be changed during the life of this agreement?

PN125

MR HARRISON: Well I understand it is true on both accounts.

PN126

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 4.1.1.2 on page 15 refers to: the prescribed probationary period. How should I understand that provision?

PN127

MR GAVA: That is as it reads, your Honour. That new employees who start with the company will be on the basic award.

PN128

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: For how long, Mr Gava?

PN129

MR GAVA: Well, my understanding - - -

PN130

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The reference there is to a prescribed probationary period. I am trying to understand what it is that the parties meant by that set of words?

PN131

MR PAPP-HORVATH: Perhaps I can assist the Commission here. Your Honour, it refers to clause 3.4 probational employment, where each new employee other than a casual employee will serve a probationary period of 8 weeks. That rate of pay would apply for the first 8 weeks of employment and at that completion of that the rates of the agreement would apply.

PN132

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 4.5 relates to CPI adjustment where if I understand the intention of the parties correctly, it is that on or around August of each year, the rates set in or the increases set in this agreement will be compared with the adjustment that would be made to the National Building and Construction Industry Award, and in the event that the percentage difference is such that the award allowance is increased by more than the increases set in this agreement, there would be a corresponding adjustment to this agreement. Is that correct?

PN133

MR HARRISON: That is my understanding if it please the Commission.

PN134

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, clause 5.3.1 relates to the 36 hour week. It does refer to the National Building and Construction Industry Award of 1990. Am I to understand that the parties intended to refer to the relevant clause of the 2000 award?

PN135

MR HARRISON: Yes, indeed.

PN136

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 5.5.1 relates to the meal break. How should I read that provision in consent with 3.11.11? It is simply the case that 5.5.1 details in more specific terms than the meal break otherwise scheduled at 12 noon?

PN137

MR HARRISON: That is a restatement, with respect.

PN138

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN139

MR HARRISON: 3.11.11 the 12 noon is synonymous with the reference from 5.5.1.

PN140

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 7.5.2 on page 29 specifies that:

PN141

The company will not exercise undue influence for the purpose of avoiding its obligations under the agreement in persuading the prospective employee to insert a false address.

PN142

I realise that clause comes from the award, but should I understand, Mr Howard, that the employer not use any influence.

PN143

MR HOWARD: The employee will surely use no influence at all, your Honour.

PN144

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 8.2 talks of a training program. Am I to understand that the parties intend to do that over the life of the agreement?

PN145

MR HARRISON: That is my submission.

PN146

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 9.2.3 on page 35 refers to the industry agreed procedure on inclement weather. Am I to understand that that reference is to the agreement reached between the Masters Builders Association and the CFMEU, and more particularly, that that agreement is set out in a colour brochure which is readily available to all employees on each site upon which they are working?

PN147

MR HARRISON: That is my instructions.

PN148

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Finally, more of an observation, 10 details an understanding of the parties. It is appropriate that I observe that because that understanding sets out arrangements that are expected to apply subsequent to the nominal expiry of this agreement, the potential exists for the parties to reach a new agreement which would supersede and make this arrangement a nullity as such. I have some questions over its enforceability that would not necessarily be an impediment to certification, and you need not comment on that one, Mr Harrison.

PN149

Now, in the event that I was given a new set of statutory declarations which allowed me to form a view about the extent to which the requirements of section 170LT, LJ and LV and that the agreement that was attached to them was identical with that set out before me this morning, then I can advise the parties that on the basis of the information given to me today, I would not convene a further hearing, and that I would take the answers that I have been given today as being applicable to that same agreement.

PN150

On that basis, I would then be satisfied that the agreement met the requirements of the no disadvantage test, that it contained the necessary dispute resolution provision, which has been clarified today and that it is of a duration envisaged by the Act. Accordingly, I would propose to certify the agreement from the date upon which I received that additional material. In the event however, that the agreement was changed in any way, or that the material provided to me was such that I was not able to reach a definitive conclusion about the requirements of the Act, then the matter would be called on again.

PN151

Mr Harrison are you happy with that approach?

PN152

MR HARRISON: Yes.

PN153

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do need to stress that employees will need to be given 14 days' notice of this document prior to their voting. It would probably also be very good, that in the event that Mr Gava went away on any further annual leave that you might check up on the progress of this one for him.

PN154

MR HARRISON: Yes, indeed.

PN155

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Howard, are you happy with that approach?

PN156

MR HOWARD: I am happy with that, your Honour. There is one point that I wish to confirm the question you asked my friend in relation to 3.2.2, 36 hour week for a casual. 3.2.3 does have a clause that states the casual will be required to work an average 38, so you would assume that initially the 38 and then the 36 would follow in line with the full time employees.

PN157

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN158

MR HOWARD: I would be happy with that, your Honour.

PN159

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have taken it that with that exception, you are in agreement with all of Mr Harrison's responses.

PN160

MR HOWARD: I am in agreement with all, yes.

PN161

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That exception really just clarifies his answer?

PN162

MR HOWARD: That is correct. That is just a further clarification of the answer because I meant that is how the document probably is meant to read, your Honour. Thank you.

PN163

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. I will adjourn the matter on that basis.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.27am]