C2002/5451, Transcript of Proceedings [2003] AIRCTrans 951 (20 March 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N VT2020

A 20.3.03

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER FOGGO

C2002/5451
C2002/5452

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO STOP
OR PREVENT INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Application under section 127(2) of the Act
by Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited
for an order re an alleged threatened ban by
supervisors on processing pay in the
automated pay system to commence from 6 am Monday
18 November 2002 at the Grieve Parade, Altona
site

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AUSTRALIA
LIMITED

and

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

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of an industrial dispute re an alleged threatened
ban by supervisors on processing pay in the
automatic pay system to commence from 6 am Monday
18 November 2002

MELBOURNE

12.14 PM, FRIDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2002

PN1

MR R. DALTON: I seek leave to appear for Toyota in relation to both applications, and with me is MS BOX.

PN2

MR M. ADDISON: I appear on behalf of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, together with MR G. LARKIN and shop stewards from the site. Commissioner, I would object to leave; however, I understand that Mr Dalton is going to seek that we go into conference, so on that basis I reserve my position with regard to section 42.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. For the purposes of today's hearing, leave is granted. Mr Dalton.

PN4

MR DALTON: Thanks, Commissioner. You have got the section 99 notification of an alleged industrial dispute. The dispute is between Toyota and the AMWU. The division of the AMWU involved in this dispute is the Technical, Supervisory and Administrative Division. The dispute involves supervisors employed by Toyota. I understand that in fact the dispute relates to supervisors who are employed at all relevant sites of Toyota not just the Altona manufacturing plant. So it applies to supervisors employed at Altona, Port Melbourne and in Sydney.

PN5

The section 127 application is made by Toyota. Again it is directed at the AMWU and supervisors. The section 127 seeks an order against the union and the supervisors to stop industrial action which is threatened in relation to the dispute. Commissioner, if I need to get to this in more formal stages of proceedings I will obviously need to change the order because at the moment it is framed just in relation to Altona and as I said the dispute and the threatened industrial action relates to supervisors at the other sites.

PN6

Commissioner, the terms of employment of the supervisors are covered by two workplace agreements that have been certified by the Commission as presently constituted back in March 2002. One of those agreements covers the Altona manufacturing plant and the other covers the other sites being Port Melbourne and in Sydney. The agreements, on my instructions, are in all relevant respects identical. The dispute that these applications relate to concerns a claim that was made by the T and S Division during negotiations for those workplace agreements.

PN7

The claim was for additional competency based payment because of the proposed move from a manual system of processing pay to an automated system that is entered into the computer system. Commissioner, at all relevant times the supervisors have been responsible for authorising and recording time and attendance for the employees whom they are responsible for supervising. And what was proposed was that rather than doing that in a manual fashion the supervisors would do it by entering the data into the computer system. This computer system, Commissioner, is called Access 2 and it has been implemented since March of this year and the supervisors have been entering the time and attendance data into Access 2.

PN8

Commissioner, the big advantage of Access 2 is that the software automatically processes the raw time data into pay so it is able to process overtime, shift loadings, allowances and other variations on ordinary pay based on the time that is entered for a particular employee. Under the manual system supervisors just simply entered the time that was worked by an employee and that paperwork was then sent through to the payroll and payroll had to work out the processing of the pay through their specific knowledge of the entitlements to overtime penalties and the like.

PN9

Now the computer system does it all for you and the information is all there on the screen. Now, a working party was established to deal with the T and S Division issues. Commissioner, you will probably be familiar with that negotiating of process at Toyota. Various working parties are set up to deal with specific issues and as I said a working party was responsible for working through the T and S specific issues. So the working party had to deal with this Access 2 related claim by the T and S Division for an additional payment.

PN10

Commissioner, if I can hand you up a couple of documents which explain how this Access 2 issue was negotiated. Commissioner, I have handed you three documents. The first one should read "Memorandum of understanding competency/skill provisions" and it is two pages long and it is signed by various parties back in October 1992.

EXHIBIT #T1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING COMPETENCY/SKILL PROVISIONS

PN11

MR DALTON: Commissioner, I am instructed that this is memorandum of understanding between Toyota and various unions in relation to how review of competencies would be conducted. And on my instructions this is the process that is still applied at Toyota. The second document is a memorandum of understanding reached between the company and the Federation of Vehicle Industry Unions. It is a much more recent and it was signed by the parties in the middle of 2001. This is a memorandum of understanding that specifically deals with Access 2 and the pay recording systems at Toyota.

PN12

Two main features were involved here. Firstly, the swipe card for employees so that people can find out exactly when an employee enters the site and leaves the site and that helps supervisors in working out the time that is to be entered for a particular individual. The second part of it is the Access 2 and on the second page you will see - about just a bit more than halfway down the text you will see a sentence there "Supervisors and managers will be responsible for authorising pay through electronic means using information from the Access control system." So on my instructions it was agreed that the supervisors would be doing this Access 2 time entry. That agreement was reached back in the middle of last year.

EXHIBIT #T2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE FEDERATION OF VEHICLE INDUSTRY UNIONS

PN13

MR DALTON: The third document, Commissioner, I am instructed is an extract from a memorandum of understanding reached between the company and the FVIU regarding a whole range of issues related to the workplace agreements reached in March 2002. You will see this document is dated at the bottom left of the page 1 March 2002. And this extract is page six of that memorandum and item C there is Access 2. So notwithstanding the agreement that had been reached in the middle of the year prior to that Toyota has agreed to a process of an independent assessment of the competencies required to operate Access 2. Commissioner, perhaps if I give you the time to read that.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that is fine.

PN15

MR DALTON: I am just instructed by Ms Box that the - that agreed process for implementing Access 2 is expressly referred to at clause 19.1.6 of the workplace agreement.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: What clause was it?

PN17

MR DALTON: I am looking at the Workplace Agreement Altona. I assume it is the same provision for the other agreement, page 31 of the handbook but it is clause - - -

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: No, what is the clause?

PN19

MR DALTON: It is 19.1.6.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN21

MR DALTON: There are two key issues involved in this agreed process, Commissioner. The first is the agreed appointment of an independent assessor. The parties have been a bit slow to move on this and my latest instructions are that there is not a firm agreement in relation to the appointment of an assessor. I am instructed that if there were to be any competency based increase that that operates retrospectively and therefore - or that may explain why the parties have not exactly been rushing to finalise this particular process. The second - - -

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Retrospective to when?

PN23

MR DALTON: Certification of the agreement. The second issue, Commissioner, is the terms of reference for the competency assessor, that is, how is the competency assessor once appointed to decide whether or not a 2.5 per cent competency skill payment should be made in relation to the operation of Access 2 by the supervisors. There is not an agreement on that. That is the major point of contention on my instructions. The AMWU want it to be conducted by reference to National Competency Standards as set through the metal industry and Toyota want it to be done consistent with the way the competency assessments have always been carried out on site.

PN24

And I do not propose to go through that in detail but it is described generally in that 1992 memorandum of understanding, exhibit T1. So unfortunately the parties are at odds on the two key issues that are required to be resolved for the process for implementation - or for the process of considering whether operation of Access 2 is a significant net addition to the value of the work performed by the supervisors. Commissioner, there is another document I would like to hand you because it deals with the process for working through issues during the life of the workplace agreement.

EXHIBIT #T4 WORKPLACE AGREEMENT 2002 IMPLEMENTATION

PN25

MR DALTON: Commissioner, I am instructed that this document was finalised 31 May 2002. You will see the date of that at the bottom left. It is a set of procedures for working parties to continue to work through various issues for implementation. Obviously Access 2 and the assessment of competencies was a matter for implementation and so this process is required to be followed. In a nutshell, Commissioner, it requires the parties to try and reach agreement on the matters they are supposed to reach agreement on and if they can't reach agreement the issues are to be referred to two sponsors.

PN26

There is a company sponsor and a union sponsor of each issue that is the subject of implementation. So the sponsors, Commissioner, for this Access 2 competency matter are Chris Harrod, who is the General Manager, Human Resources, and the union sponsor is Mr Bob Duke who is a senior tech delegate. Now, if the sponsors can't resolve it through discussion then the implementation process that is at exhibit T4 provides that the matters to be elevated to the senior consultative group which is comprised of directors of the company and senior officials of the relevant union and the SCG is to try to resolve it.

PN27

Commissioner, taking you back to exhibit T3 you will note that the parties I think acknowledge that this particular issue may be a difficult one to reach agreement on. The parties have specifically said that any dispute with respect to this matter shall be referred to the Commission for determination. So in my submission the union and the supervisors have failed to comply with either process. That is, they have filed to comply with the process for implementation of working party issues as outlined in exhibit T4 and they have failed to follow the Access 2 specific process that contemplates referral of the dispute to the Commission for determination. And that is set out at exhibit T3.

PN28

What we have seen is disagreement between the parties, a level of exasperation presumably by the supervisors which has led to them threatening not to process the pays from 6 am on Monday. Needless to say, Commissioner, should that ban on the way that work is being performed since March 2002 be implemented that has the potential to delay processing of pay with the obvious disruption that that may cause amongst the workforce. Commissioner, as Mr Addison outlined at the start I am instructed that we are prepared to adjourn into private conference to see whether firstly, the union will commit to withdrawing the threat of industrial action and commit to the agreed processes for resolving this Access 2 competency issue. If the Commission pleases.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Mr Addison.

PN30

MR ADDISON: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I think the factual background that Mr Dalton has put out isn't too far from the mark. Certainly there is an agreement in number 7.1.6 to implement the new Access 2 system. However, as Mr Dalton also pointed out in exhibit T3 there was a further subsidiary agreement with regard to the implementation of the Access 2 system. Commissioner, I don't know whether you have a copy of all of the letters of understanding. I am happy to hand that up just for completeness.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN32

MR ADDISON: Whereas Mr Dalton said, Commissioner, exhibit T3 is in fact page six of the overall letters of understanding between parties and that deals with a whole range of issues. The current - - -

EXHIBIT #A1 LETTERS OF UNDERSTANDING

PN33

MR ADDISON: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, my instructions are that the letter of understanding at page six which deals with Access 2 during the course of the negotiations the company sought to introduce the new system. My instructions are that a claim was put to the company with regard to additional remuneration and the company offered at that point in time a 1.5 per cent increase to employees who were involved in the Access 2. It was put to the company that that was not sufficient increase in remuneration given the fact that we at that time believed that the matter was subject to quite rigorous skills development. Commissioner, I only actually have one copy but the training package for the new competency is quite extensive. I can't hand a copy of that up at this point in time. I guess I can if I could get it back.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it is not required.

PN35

MR ADDISON: Fine. So the skills - the additional competencies we say are quite extensive. There have been numerous meetings since the certification of the agreement. You will note, Commissioner, in T3 that there is a commitment that the matter be concluded within three months of certification of the agreement. That three months is well and truly blown out. And you will also notice, Commissioner, that the words in T3 are quite deliberate. The words deal with the question of independent assessment of the competencies required.

PN36

Further down it talks about evaluation based on competencies which may - and I say may, Commissioner - result in 2.5 per cent increase. There is no - that is not a set figure however. It could be less, it could be more, depending on the competency.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: Where did you find the word "may"?

PN38

MR ADDISON: If the evaluation determined that payment is not warranted it is agreed that the structure review group will identify the waiting and extent if any new system or technology should receive a competency skill. So 2.5, in my submission, is somewhat indicative. it is an indicative figure, it is a figure that is believed to be commensurate with the skills that are required but there is clearly some discretion in that paragraph with regard to the matter.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that is not how I read it.

PN40

MR ADDISON: Is it not?

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: No. I read it as the maximum that would be available would be 2.5 because it is specified but that - and then you go on to the next sentence.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: With regards - - -

PN43

MR ADDISON: The extent of any waiting - - -

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, with regards to if a payment is not warranted. So 2.5 is the top and you move downwards. That is my understanding of it.

PN45

MR ADDISON: Yes. Well, Commissioner, I guess based on my instruction that 1.5 per cent was offered by the company in the initial. It is unlikely that no payment would be found particularly given the training package that is involved. Our position is that the matter should be dealt with through the Nationally Accredited Competency Standards. Now, I hear Mr Dalton talk about metal. Commissioner, I am sure that you would be familiar with other competency standards as well. There is, for instance, Nationally Accredited Vehicle Industry Standards which could well be used not locked into the Metal Competency Standards necessarily.

PN46

The appropriate Nationally Accredited Competency Standards should be used and as I say, Commissioner, the words in T3 are quite deliberate and they deal with competencies. As I understand the difference between the parties the company do not wish to agree to the competencies - Nationally Accredited Competencies - being the benchmark against which the acquisition of skill is to be measured. They want to use some other system. Commissioner, there seems to have been a number of meetings. Can I hand up a letter that was sent to the sponsor, the company sponsor, Mr Harrod, on 1 November of this year.

PN47

That was sent by Mr Larkin. In the letter Mr Larkin lays out the fact that the matter has been going on for some period of time, that there is dissatisfaction amongst our members, the NWT and TS and A members with what they perceive to be stone walling of the matter seeking some progress on the matter and indicating that there be a further meeting held on the 13th. Now, we say that there was lots of advance warning given to the company that this matter was about to create a problem.

PN48

Commissioner, we say given the fact that there was a deliberate commitment to have the matter dealt with and finalised within three months, a commitment from the company that it currently would use competencies as laid out in T3, that the company would not unreasonably withhold agreement about who the assessor was going to be, that the company is in fact in breach of its commitments via T3 and the letters of understanding. Commissioner, we are happy to go into conference to see if we can reach some agreement on the process by which we can deal with this matter. Obviously if it gets to a more formal stage then we will be putting submissions at that point in time. If the Commission pleases.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you, Mr Addison. Yes, we will move into conference.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #T1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING COMPETENCY/SKILL PROVISIONS PN11
EXHIBIT #T2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE FEDERATION OF VEHICLE INDUSTRY UNIONS PN13
EXHIBIT #T4 WORKPLACE AGREEMENT 2002 IMPLEMENTATION PN25
EXHIBIT #A1 LETTERS OF UNDERSTANDING PN33