C2003/1055, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 809 (12 March 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
DX 305 Melbourne Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N VT1769

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER LEWIN

C2003/1055

TXU ELECTRICITY

and

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC,
ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING
AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re threatened and actual bans by
linesmen in relation to certain duties

MELBOURNE

3.02 PM, FRIDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2003

PN1

MS M. BARE: I seek leave to appear on behalf of TXU Electricity and I have with me MS L. TERESINSKI, MR D. MATAZONI, MR P. WALTERS, MR P. HORVATH and MR N. MARTIN who are all representatives from the company.

PN2

MR D. RILEY: I appear on behalf of the CEPU Electrical Division.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Is there any objection to the application to appear?

PN4

MR RILEY: No, Commissioner.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Leave is granted. Yes, Ms Bare.

PN6

MS BARE: Yes, Commissioner, as you will have seen, this is an urgent section 99 application and I am pleased to report that we have had some discussions just prior to this hearing which may provide a temporary resolution of this matter. In brief, TXUs line workers in the central region have been refusing to operate switches on ring mains which are also known as backbone switching. They are refusing to do that because they claim that this work should be paid at a higher level.

PN7

Now, the fact of the matter is that a number of the employees that are taking the action have actually been undertaking these duties for some years and been paid at their usual classification. In addition, the classification structure that they work under was actually negotiated between the ETU and management at the end of September 2001 and we would say that the classifications that they work under already clearly encompass working on ring mains.

PN8

Rather than going to the full argument about why the current classifications encompass these duties, I did want to just inform the Commission why we were seeking an urgent hearing. While some of the workers for some weeks have been refusing to undertake these duties on some occasions which has interrupted planned work, the employees today widened their action, so that they were refusing to undertake duties in emergency situations.

PN9

For example, today in Eltham, the employees made safe some electricity lines, but would not write out a permit saying what part of the system they had isolated from the electricity supply. Now, as a result, there were a number of customers in Eltham that were currently off supply and this obviously could have very serious implications, for example, customers who are relying on the electricity supply for life support machines.

PN10

In addition, with the weather the way it is today, if that action continues over the weekend, TXU fears that there may be a situation where there are cross-arm failures and there are pole fires and, for example, if this resulted in, say, 40 faults, it could potentially put 40 to 50,000 customers off supply over the weekend. Now, prior to this hearing, as I said, we did have discussions with Mr Riley and we do understand that he has made contact with employees in the central region and instructed them that they should resume their full duties including backbone switching, so we hope that that might have resolved the situation for the weekend, but we would ask that perhaps we can have further discussions in conference, but we would be seeking to have a report back, say, next Wednesday, to see where we are at on these matters. If the Commission pleases.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Riley.

PN12

MR RILEY: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, there was a classification structure negotiated in September 2001. I actually didn't take part in those negotiations. We formed a small committee of shop stewards to do those negotiations. I suppose what we really need to do is probably get that committee together again, because there is some confusion around that.

PN13

The operation that Ms Bare refers to is a very, very extensive, comprehensive skill which takes on a lot of responsibility and it is a serious role within the company. Historically, the company had people who were allocated as regional operators whose sole responsibility was to take on that task. With the massive down-sizing within the company, we I suppose embarked on a multi-skilling process where some of our members picked up some of those extra duties which were done by the regional operators in the past.

PN14

Talking to my committee, the members of that committee, Commissioner, they are instructing me that the understanding that they had is that if people were at 2.5, at the top of their classification band and then went off and did this extensive training and grabbed this new skill, that they would be recognised and rewarded with one pay band. That hasn't taken place and obviously we need to sit down and talk about this issue again.

PN15

As far as the bands go, Commissioner, I am unaware why they were escalated this morning. There was no real directive from me. I have written a letter off to the company in the past to say that our members will work within their pay level and classification level, not above, but I am unaware why it was escalated this morning. I have since notified those individuals to operate as per normal until such time as we have this meeting on Tuesday to try and resolve this issue. If the Commission pleases.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I am in the hands of the parties to some degree and I gather that as far as the Commission is concerned, the request is that the matter be adjourned until next week. Is that right?

PN17

MS BARE: Yes, Commissioner Lewin, that is right, although we might benefit from perhaps having some discussions in conference now with yourself.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, I am happy to do that, but it would be useful I think just to get on the record some understanding of the issues that are broadly described as whether or not the maintenance of switches on ring mains is within a particular classification or perhaps whether or not there was some collateral agreement about the way in which multi-skilled employees with specified additional training might be remunerated. It seems to be either one or other or both of those two things are the issues. Is that right?

PN19

MR RILEY: Yes. Commissioner, historically under the EEEE Award, my members would finish their apprenticeship, come out at 2.1, then after every nine months with a number of skills before then, they would progress up to 2.5. Historically, 2.5 was the cut-off for the ETU and the three band was the ASU. A lot of people did different skills to progress up those pay bands. No two people did exactly the same. They might have done different things, depending on the different area. In the classification structure, because TXU has people in the rural area and in the CBD, it has always been historical that the ring feed operating around central was done by regional operators.

PN20

The guys up in the bush, because they don't have extensive systems like they do in the city, they would do a lot of the operating themselves, so that is where we have the anomaly, Commissioner, where if I was up say Wodonga, I may have done a bit of operating in my progression from 2.1 to 2.5, but around central, I wouldn't have done that because there is always an allocated/designated person as the regional operator who took on that task and that is why the guys around central feel a bit harshly done by, because if you look at the extensive skills that the guys need to I suppose produce or to undertake, it is a very complex position, complex job and the guys feel that they are being a bit harshly done by because they are at 2.5, picked up this really big skill and there is no recognition or reward for it.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: You say to me, I think, correct me if I am wrong, that you had some conversation with someone about the remuneration of people who did that. Is that right?

PN22

MR RILEY: Yes. Commissioner, I am at a bit of a disadvantage because I had I think it was three or four shop stewards on the committee. I like to delegate and we have stewards doing different committees. I contacted Kevin Loveday and Kyle Pool before this Commission hearing and both reiterated the position that I am stating. It was their understanding that if - - -

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Whose understanding?

PN24

MR RILEY: Our position on the committee.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: I am not sure who is who here.

PN26

MR RILEY: They are my two shop stewards who represented the ETU in the negotiations.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: And it is their understanding?

PN28

MR RILEY: That is right, yes. It is their understanding - - -

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: That if they were at the top of the 2.5 classification point, that multi-skilling on this particular task by means of acquiring additional competence would be remunerated by?

PN30

MR RILEY: A pay level.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: A pay level?

PN32

MR RILEY: Yes.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: And so that would take them to what?

PN34

MR RILEY: 2.6.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: There is no 2.6.

PN36

MR RILEY: Well, level 6, Commissioner.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, I am looking at the agreement certified by - I am sorry, I am looking at the award. I beg your pardon. I should look at your agreement.

PN38

MR RILEY: I don't think the agreement actually has the structure in there, Commissioner, just percentage increases.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, so I am looking at the right thing, am I, when I look at the classification provisions of the award?

PN40

MR RILEY: Yes. It is 3.1, sorry, Commissioner.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: 3.1, yes, that is right.

PN42

MR RILEY: That is the old EEEE Award, yes.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: So you say that the understanding of the delegates was that if someone was fully competent at 2.5 and they acquired additional competence for these ring main switches, whatever they may be, I have no idea - - -

PN44

MR RILEY: I will just clarify that, Commissioner. What it is, the people go and they open and close different points and divert the electricity and what is so I suppose unique about this - - -

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand. I get the picture now, so they actually operate the - - -

PN46

MR RILEY: Yes, operate, yes.

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: And so if they obtain the necessary competence to operate those switches as required, in addition to their 2.5 competency, that they would be reclassified at 3.1 in accordance with clause 9.2 of the award for the purposes of the agreement. Now, that is what you say the delegates believed was the case. When did they come into this state of mind?

PN48

MR RILEY: That has been their position all along.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, is that what they want to happen or what they thought the company was going to do?

PN50

MR RILEY: Well, Commissioner, I have made it quite clear to them that I was going on transcript today, what is your recollection of the outcome of that committee meeting and - - -

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, let us just situate this committee meeting. You are referring to a meeting that took place some time ago, are you?

PN52

MR RILEY: Yes.

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you know when it took place?

PN54

MR RILEY: No.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: But in essence you are saying that there was a meeting and at this meeting there were representatives of the company, is that right.

PN56

MR RILEY: That is right.

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: This subject matter was discussed and what you have been told by your delegates is that they understood that the result of the meeting was the reclassification that you and I have just been discussing would take place, in the circumstances we have been discussing?

PN58

MR RILEY: That is correct, Commissioner, and they are currently going through their notes.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, so that is what they are pursuing.

PN60

MR RILEY: Yes.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, whether or not the company did or didn't give them that undertaking or impression or whatever, that is their aspiration, that they want to be classified under those circumstances at 3.1 for the purposes of the agreement, is that right?

PN62

MR RILEY: That is correct, Commissioner. Just to clarify, though, with the TXU classification structure, we have sort of got rid of the 2/3 band. It is just levels all the way up, that is all, so 3.1 equates to I think 6 or something.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well, I am confused again, but I will stay with the 3.1.

PN64

MR RILEY: 3.1, yes, for the purposes of the EEEE award. Thanks, Commissioner.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Whatever that means. No doubt we will find out in due course and, as I understand the position of the company, the view is that the employees are appropriately classified at 2.5.

PN66

MS BARE: Commissioner, the company's position is that these matters about classifications were negotiated as I said at the end of 2001. If I could hand up a document that might illuminate this somewhat - sorry, 2000 it was, not 2001.

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: Could you just describe what this is, please, Ms Bare?

PN68

MS BARE: Yes, Commissioner, this is described as the electrical line worker career path document.

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: And what is the history of it? When did it come into - in 1999, by the look of it.

PN70

MS BARE: No, it was finalised in 2000.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: This has got a date on the bottom of it.

PN72

MS BARE: I think that was just the date that the EBA was certified, Commissioner.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: I see, so this agreement - sorry, is this an agreement?

PN74

MS BARE: Yes, Commissioner, it is an agreement. In fact, a number of employees were actually reclassified as a result of this document.

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let me just check with Mr Riley. Do you recognise this?

PN76

MR RILEY: Yes, Commissioner.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: And you accept that this document was produced by agreement?

PN78

MR RILEY: Yes, this is the document that the small committee - it was the outcome, Commissioner.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, we might just mark that.

EXHIBIT #N1 ELECTRICAL LINE WORKER CAREER PATH DOCUMENT

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: Go ahead, Ms Bare.

PN81

MS BARE: And, for example, as a part of this competency structure, there were employees who were reclassified upwards because they undertook substation duties and that was certainly agreed as part of this document, but it was not agreed that ring main operators would be classified upwards. Now, if you just refer to level 3 in this document, you will see that the third dot point down mentions operating field as defined, then if you turn towards the back of the document and, I am sorry, it doesn't have page numbers, there are defined levels of competence and, sorry, two pages further on there is a page headed operating and then under operator field, it lists operation of HV equipment including ACRs, regulators, isolators, switches, manual and auto and that is where we say this type of switching was clearly encompassed by that statement.

PN82

Now, it is noted that ring main switching is no different to the switches that are ordinarily operated by these employees, except as I understand it that the switches may be contained in a metal box. The operators operate under direction from the control room. Now, at one point, some years ago, there were regional operators who operated on ring mains, but that classification was abolished some five years ago. And as I mentioned before, a number of employees have been undertaking this sort of work for a number of years without making any issue about what rate they are paid at and the company thinks that this issue may have arisen because it decided that it wanted more employees to undertake this sort of work and it needed to make sure that they were properly trained in dealing with the metal boxes, etcetera, that is associated with this type of work.

PN83

So they organised some training for those employees and this seems to have prompted those employees and the other employees that were already undertaking these duties to claim that they should be paid at a higher rate and as I say, Commissioner, the company's view is that is simply not the case on the basis of this classification structure that was agreed.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: Was this matter actively discussed during the negotiations that led to the 2002 agreement? Do you know?

PN85

MS BARE: Commissioner, can I just take a minute to get some instructions on that?

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Certainly.

PN87

MS BARE: Commissioner, I am instructed that all operating was discussed as part of those negotiations and that would encompass ring main operating.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: So to the extent that Mr Riley says that there was a meeting at which this subject was discussed, you accept that?

PN89

MS BARE: We accept that it was discussed.

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: That is all.

PN91

MS BARE: Yes.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: And I infer from what you said earlier that you think it was settled.

PN93

MS BARE: Yes, that is right.

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: And that it was settled such that the employees would be paid at the 2.5 level or at the level prescribed by the agreement, rather, and in accordance with N1.

PN95

MS BARE: Yes, that is right.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, Mr Riley, it seems that we have sorted a little bit of the gap here in the sense that the instructors that are providing you with the information as to why the dispute exists are not present and I think in any future proceedings, it is probably desirable that they be present.

PN97

MR RILEY: In the interim, Commissioner, I am prepared to give commitment on transcript that there will be no industrial action now that it is in front of you, Commissioner.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN99

MR RILEY: I just want to point out that, as you can see, level 3 makes reference to operating. These guys are already at level 5 and it is a comprehensive skill and they are sort of saying, well, why should we pick something up? We have picked up skills to get to this point and the company is getting a freebie out of us.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: I think I understand what they are saying and that is that they are paid according to a module, a skill set and that they have filled out the qualifications in order to achieve the 2.5 classification without this work and therefore this should be perceived as an addition to the value of their work and remunerated accordingly. On the other hand, the company says this was actively discussed and the classifications were drawn and provided the work falls within the parameters of the agreement, then there is no obligation on the company to pay any more. I think I see the positions of both parties reasonably clearly now in general terms. In more specific terms, I think it possibly requires a little bit more investigation.

PN101

MR RILEY: Well, what I will do, Commissioner, for Tuesday's meeting, I will notify my stewards who are on that committee to make sure they are present and hopefully we can have - - -

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: How many of them would there be?

PN103

MR RILEY: I think it might have been four. I think we had one from north, central, east and we had a fitter, I think, but we don't need all them, Commissioner. We just probably need the guys relevant to the operating, with expertise there. I would have probably two, I would say.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: It seems to me that what you are arguing about is the application of the terms of the agreement. Would that be accepted, namely the classification provisions?

PN105

MS BARE: Yes, when you say the agreement, are you referring to the enterprise agreement?

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN107

MS BARE: Can I just take some instructions for a moment? I understand, Commissioner, just to clarify, that apparently under the EBA there was to be a reclassification process, but it didn't define it further to that, so that document didn't form an attachment to the agreement. It was an outcome of something in the agreement.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: The agreement actually requires that the parties submit any grievance or dispute to the steps set out in clause 7. It doesn't distinguish between matters concerning the application of the agreement or other industrial matters. It just takes a generic approach to disputes and says they are all subject to clause 7.

PN109

MS BARE: Yes, that might well be the case, Commissioner.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: So that if that is the case, then the nature of these proceedings are at step 4 of clause 7 of the enterprise bargaining agreement.

PN111

MS BARE: Yes, that is right, Commissioner.

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you accept that, Mr Riley?

PN113

MR RILEY: Yes, Commissioner.

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: So I think in the circumstances, the matter has been listed relatively quickly, largely because of the concerns about the effect of the dispute on the customers of the company of whom there are many and the desirability of trying to arrange for there to be no industrial action that could cause disruption to the provision of electric supply. I can't deal with this matter next week, unfortunately, but I will be able to deal with it in the following week. I can list the matter for 11 am on the 3rd, but I wouldn't be able to take it any further that afternoon. Is there any reason why that is not a convenient time?

PN115

MR RILEY: That is convenient for me, Commissioner.

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well.

PN117

MS BARE: Commissioner, we don't have any issue with that time, as long as there is an understanding that prior to that hearing, the employees will work normally and that is including working on these ring mains.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand that that is what Mr Riley has undertaken to do and he has now confirmed that, thank you, so I will adjourn these proceedings to 11 am on 3 March. Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 3 MARCH 2003 [3.27pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #N1 ELECTRICAL LINE WORKER CAREER PATH DOCUMENT PN80