C2004/1177, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 1056 (24 March 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 2, 16 St George's Tce, PERTH WA 6000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 285
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

DEPUTY PRESIDENT McCARTHY

C2004/1177
C2004/1178
C2004/1179

Application under section 127(2) of the Act
by Pacific Industrial Company (WA) Pty Ltd and
Another for an order to stop or prevent
industrial action re the Hismelt Kwinana
Plant Project site.

Application under section 127(2) of the Act
by Thiess Pty Ltd and Another for an order
to stop or prevent industrial action re the
Hismelt Kwinana Plant Project site.

Application under section 127(2) of the Act
by United KG Pty Ltd and Another for an order
to stop or prevent industrial action re the
Hismelt Kwinana Plant Project site.

PERTH

10.14 AM, TUESDAY, 9 MARCH 2004

PN1

MR P. COOKE: I appear on behalf of the applicants in these matters: Pacific Industrial Company (WA) Proprietary Limited; United KG Proprietary Limited; and Thiess Proprietary Limited. If it please the Commission.

PN2

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN3

MR L. EDMONDS: I appear on behalf of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union sir.

PN4

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. I have listed these matters this morning, they were lodged, I think, last Friday and it appears that they were not desired to be listed that day or over the weekend, nor at that stage yesterday, although I think my office received a request yesterday that they be listed yesterday afternoon. However, I had other matters listed for then so now is the first available practicable opportunity for these matters to be dealt with. Thank you Mr Cooke?

PN5

MR COOKE: Thank you sir. Yes, we appreciate the listing. Due to the requirements of the rules in terms of service upon employees, it has been the practise of the contractors on the site that their preferred method of service upon the striking employees has been by mail and with the normal presumption of service that has been effected. Therefore, this was the - as required by the rules we have served the applications. This is the first opportunity that we could have reasonably been before the Commission, other than yesterday afternoon with service having been properly effected. What we say sir is that there is unfortunately a pattern of industrial behaviour that has developed on the Hismelt Kwinana Plant site.

PN6

This is an important project. It represents downstream processing of the State's resources in terms of secondary processing of iron ore in what is a research and development plant designed to provide new ways, or a changed method of iron making from the traditional blast furnace approach. This plant, sir, could really be built anywhere in the world. There is no reason why it has to be built in Kwinana. The client, the Hismelt Corporation, have chosen to build it on the site of their previous research and development plant, but the industrial activity that has plagued this project since 16 January, if one turns to the first application, sir, 1177 of 2004, sets out a reasonably sorry history of industrial behaviour by the Metal Workers' Union.

PN7

This, sir, just looking at the industrial action this year, in the middle of January there was a dispute over ice handling procedures and two working days were lost. There was a strike action on 3 February; on 16 February; 17 February and 18 February, because somewhere in the Perth metropolitan area the ambient temperature reached 37.5 degrees celsius. That matter was brought to the Commission and ultimately an order was issued by the Commission arising from those proceedings. The order, unfortunately, dealt only with the issue of the industrial action over the ambient temperature. The order is found at print PR944166.

PN8

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What do you mean "unfortunately" Mr Cooke, that is all that was sought?

PN9

MR COOKE: As I said sir, unfortunately because that was - before I finished, that was all that was sought. We contemplated and were in the process of looking at further industrial - further section 127 applications to deal with what we saw as an ongoing pattern of industrial behaviour, because on 20 February there was strike action organised by the Metal Workers' Union over a local content campaign broadly described and a protest rally directed at the Fremantle Port Authority, that again impacted on work on the Hismelt project and then on 5 March there was a further strike action over a claim that Thiess Proprietary Limited employed a Mr Glen King, I have been advised.

PN10

Now, what we say sir, that is just looking at the schedule of industrial action that has affected Pacific Industrial Company. Thiess Proprietary Limited and United KG, both of whom have been on the project for a longer period of time, have a more extensive history of industrial action that has affected them. If one looks at the schedule in paragraph 10 of the Thiess application, there were three disputes in October of 2003 that were variously over political issues, or industrial campaigns, organised by one union or another, but all of which affected the metal workers employed by the companies and there was a further dispute over the metal workers objecting to Pacific Industrial Company being engaged as a contractor on the Hismelt Kwinana Project Plant site.

PN11

And what we say, sir, is that when one looks at the authorities in these matters, there is a clear pattern of industrial behaviour occurring and the pattern is that the union are showing a flagrant disregard of any semblance of using dispute settlement procedures, or more reasonable methods of addressing their industrial grievances, than simply going on strike when it suits them. We seek today, sir, an order in the broadest possible terms to prohibit all industrial action by the metal workers and their members, engaged by these three contractors on the Hismelt site and we seek it for a term long enough to cover the expected duration of construction on the site, which I am advised is to run through till October of this year.

PN12

There is no hardship in this, because the unions have - or the Metal Workers' Union has recourse to this Commission should issues vex them, or grieve them, to such extent that they feel the need to agitate them. But what the Metal Workers' Union I am afraid will need to be ordered to do is to behave in a reasonable manner, because left to their own devices, they have shown, by their conduct on the site to date, that they are incapable of achieving that level of behaviour, of their own device. There is plainly, we suggest sir, a sustained pattern of illegal and illegitimate industrial action on the site and this pattern of behaviour has to be addressed and given the inability of the Metal Workers' Union to address it of their own volition, the only recourse the contractors have, is to an application pursuant to section 127 of the Workplace Relations Act before this Commission.

PN13

There is, as we speak, industrial action occurring. It has been occurring since Friday morning of last week. The industrial action is ongoing. As we are advised there is a report back meeting for tomorrow morning, but we are not advised that that is for a return to work, or because the union have - the union have given no indication that there will be a return to work tomorrow morning, further just that there will be a further meeting of the striking employees. In the sense of establishing jurisdiction, we say that it unquestionably exists, there is Federal certified agreements between the Metal Workers' Union and the three applicants that are certified and there are within term and they cover the work that the employees are carrying out on the project.

PN14

There is industrial action that has occurred, there is industrial action that is occurring currently and one can surmise that if the metal workers remains true to form that on the next occasion that they have a grievance it will be dealt with by way of further industrial action. There has been no occasion where the metal workers have sought to raise any matter with this Commission regarding this project through any form of dispute settlement procedure. There is sporadic, at best, attempts to address issues with the employers and by and large that it is on a take it or leave it basis of negotiation whereupon demands are put forward and if they are not met then strike action ensues.

PN15

On other occasions where we have had the disputes that are industrial campaigns, be it over the Coal Royal Commission, or concerns over the performance of the Safety Regulatory Authorities, or over local content, then they are issues that the employers are powerless to address. In the case at hand sir, as it has been advised to ourselves, the demand is that Thiess Proprietary Limited employ a Mr Glen King on the project. Now, putting that to one side, because there is no obligation, or there is no right that the union have under the certified agreements to nominate employees who will be engaged on the project with any particular employer, but there are two employers that are subject of this industrial action: United KG and Pacific Industrial Company, neither of whom have had any demand put upon them at all.

PN16

So there has been no act or omission on the part of those two employers that has led to their employees taking strike action and it gets to the point of absolute futility for those employers to believe that the existence of a dispute settlement procedure is providing any benefit to the conduct of their industrial relations on the site. The strike action, sir, as we indicated, as the evidence will show, is severely impacting on the progress of works. There are other employees who are not subject to the industrial action, particularly crane drivers who are having to be stood down by some of the contractors because they cannot be usefully employed during the strike.

PN17

The work that these contractors are doing is not the completion work on the project, other contractors and other disciplines of contractors, need to move into the areas that Thiess, United KG and Pacific Industrial complete, in order to carry out electrical and other works and therefore the ongoing strike by the metal workers employees of the three applicants, will have commensurate effects on the work available to other contractors on the site. So there is not only a delay to the three applicants sir, there are stand-downs of their employees who are not otherwise involved in the industrial activity, or the current industrial activity and there is commensurate delays and costs that will fall upon other contractors who are following on behind the three mechanical contractors subject to this application.

PN18

So what we say, sir, is that there is, as I said, a quite persistent pattern of industrial action on the site involving the Metal Workers Union and that the only way that we can see that will be reasonably addressed, is by the issuance of an order in the broadest possible terms and I am sure it doesn't get any better every time I say it, because it doesn't get any better from where I say it, but we rely upon some of the authorities of this Commission sir, in seeking such an order, particularly the decision of the Full Bench in the matter of Cole v Allied Operations Pty Ltd and the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union and others, the decision reported at 73 IR 311 and rather than quoting the decision at length, we rely on the dictor of that decision which sets out that the Commission can deal with industrial action, that is probable, it can look at the pattern of conduct of industrial action and it can look at the history of the conduct of industrial relations between the parties.

PN19

And if so moved to do the Commission can issue an order prohibiting further industrial action and we say that is the appropriate - when one applies the principles set out in the Cole v Allied Operations Pty Ltd case sir, we say that the proper application to the principles set out in that decision in the circumstances of the facts at hand, lead one to the view that the issuance of such an order is an appropriate step in this case. We would further refer the Commission to the decision of VP Ross, found at 79 IR 239, in the matter of Patrick Stevedores No.1 Limited v Patrick Stevedores No.2 Limited, a decision published on 13 February 1998 and again the tests set out there where the Vice President said and I quote, or extract from the decision:

PN20

There is an onus upon the applicant for an order pursuant to section 127 to establish at least on prima facie ground that there are adequate ...(reads)... the Act and understanding the relationship of the power and its effect of its exercise to the scheme of the Act in terms...

PN21

The decision then quoted the Cole v Allied case:

PN22

And thirdly that the exercise of the discretion requires the Commission be satisfied that it is appropriate to direct that a relevant industrial ...(reads)... illegitimate in a sense warranting that it should attract appropriately a direction by the Commission that it cease, or not occur.

PN23

And we say sir, that those principles, when applied to the case at hand, are firmly met. We say there is plainly not much difficulty discharging an onus that on a prima facie basis that there is industrial action occurring. We say that the jurisdictional grounds, as set out under section 127 are plainly met. We say that this is not that we are saying that there is no - we are aware that there is an exercise of discretion required by the Commission in dealing with the application for an order, but we say that the Act cannot be read as to being seen in any sense as condoning industrial action being taken on a continuing and ongoing basis and in this case in quite a regular basis, every time a union has a demand that is not otherwise agreed to by the employers and that is what we say is occurring at the Hismelt site with these three employers.

PN24

We say further, sir, that the industrial action that has been occurring is in a sense illegitimate and certainly not in any sense protected industrial action and I don't think the union would seek to portray it as such. The issues they complain of are not, we would say, issues that - of such an order or magnitude that they require people to remove themselves from the work place before they can be dealt with and the fact of the matter is this has simply become a convenient mode of operation by the unions - by the Metal Workers' Union, I shouldn't use the term in the plural form, by the Metal Workers' Union in lieu of the sensible conduct of industrial relations.

PN25

Over the page in the Patrick's decision, VP Ross looked at a number of factors that he believed should be taken into account when contemplating whether a section 127 order should be made and these were: (1) the conduct of the parties and we say that there is nothing that the applicants have done in these proceedings which would say have provoked or exacerbated the industrial action in question and therefore are relevant to the determination of whether the action is legitimate. Particularly in the case of United KG and Pacific Industrial who, as I indicated, have not had any demands put upon them, they have simply had their employees remove themselves from the work place.

PN26

The second factor VP Ross pointed out was compliance with the disputes procedure and we say that in looking at compliance with the disputes procedure the metal workers in this case are found sadly wanting. We say fundamentally there has been none in any effective sense. And then thirdly: certified agreements that whether there are certified agreements made under the Act and whether they are within their nominal expiry - within their nominal date of expiry and we say in each of these cases sir - in each of these applications certified agreements of that sort have been made, are within term and there is no anticipation that the agreements should be set aside, or read down.

PN27

The third decision that we would refer the Commission too is the Full Bench decision in the matter of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and Another v United Construction Pty Ltd and Others, found at 91 IR 394, also found at print R7918. This was an appeal decision by the CFMEU and the AMWU over an order made by Commissioner O'Connor on the Worsley Expansion Project site whereupon he made an order to do with - it was an application brought to him regarding industrial action occurring over inclement weather and he made an order that the unions complaint was broader than the grounds relied upon and broader than the reasons for decision published by the Commissioner in that matter and it was submitted that the orders made by the Commissioner went well beyond specific threatened industrial action and went on to enjoin all industrial action.

PN28

Now what we say, sir, is that from that decision at page 397 the Full Bench found that the orders made by the Commission were too wide and they exceed the range of industrial action was found to be threatened and probable. However, the Full Bench did not, in the final paragraph at page 397 of the published reasons for decision and I quote:

PN29

In the course of the appeal proceedings submissions were made regarding whether section 127 of the Act empowers the Commission to ...(reads)... the applications which were before the Commission. However, the Commissioner made no findings in that respect.

PN30

End of quote. What we say, sir, is that there is plainly the ability for the Commission to look beyond the current industrial action and look at the pattern of behaviour that has affected this site since October of last year and particularly the pattern of behaviour that has occurred in the last six weeks and we say that when the Commission looks at that there are appropriate - and we say there will be appropriate evidence to support this, that the Commission could be moved to make an order addressing not only the current industrial action, but future industrial action impacting on the site and we say there is sufficient there to form a view that industrial action, or the pattern of behaviour leads one to the view that further industrial action is probable.

PN31

In that sense, sir, we would also refer the Commission to a decision of Commissioner Grainger, published on 12 February 2004, found at PR943618 and what is significant is that again - - -

PN32

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: When was that published?

PN33

MR COOKE: 12 February 2004, sir. If it please the Commission I have a spare copy I can pass up, I accidentally pressed the print button twice, I'm good like that on computers. What is significant, sir, that this is a decision pertaining to three unions and a construction project being undertaken at the Shell Geelong Oil Refinery. There was a - the first paragraph sets out that there was a section 127 decision issued by Commissioner Grainger in September 2003, that was unsuccessfully appealed and ran from 2 September 2003 until 31 December 2003. And then the order lapsed through the effluxion of time.

PN34

But what is clear is that when one reads the decision and rather than go through the facts of the matter in detail, the submissions of the company are set out, or summarised, in paragraph 27, paragraph 1, or sub-paragraph (i) of 27 sets out on the submissions on jurisdiction. They then relied on the matters raised in the application and the long history of industrial disputation in the site, that what they said at sub-paragraph (iv) of 27, was that in the absence of a 127 order every disagreement leads to strikes at this site and the pattern they relied upon, remembering this is only conducted this year, was a strike on 20 January; a strike on 23 January; a strike on 9th and 10 February and a night shift strike on 11th and 12 February.

PN35

So there were four disputes that took place before the matter - in the six weeks before the matter made it to Commissioner Grainger and what we say sir, is that although the union submissions which are set out in paragraph 28, over the page, the unions stated that there was no industrial action presently occurring on the site and they alleged there was nothing threatening, impending, or probable and they sought to explain the industrial activity between 20 January and 10 February. Ultimately Commissioner Grainger found and without going through it in laborious detail, he is satisfied in paragraph 32 - - -

PN36

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment Mr Cooke. Thanks Mr Cooke.

PN37

MR COOKE: Thank you sir. In paragraph 32 Commissioner Grainger set out his findings on the basis of the evidence that there had been industrial action happening persistently at the site until there was an order pursuant to 127 made in September 2003. When that order expired industrial action occurred between 20 January and 12 February 2004 on four occasions without recourse to the dispute settlement provisions of the relevant certified agreements and that notwithstanding the submissions of the unions, it appeared to him probable that industrial action would be taken again in the near future and that work was governed by the certified agreement and that the application was brought by an employer who was plainly a person affected by industrial action within the meaning of section 127(2)(b) and Commissioner Grainger was moved to exercise his discretion to make an order pursuant to section 127 of the Act.

PN38

What we say, sir, is that other than on the occasion of that matter, there was no industrial action actually occurring. There is industrial action actually occurring as we speak here. But the pattern of behaviour that the Commission found to form a basis a finding that industrial action was happening, threatened, impending or probable went to full disputes over the course of about a month. And we say, sir, that by that yardstick, the pattern of industrial behaviour on the Hismelt site is far more extensive and of a style that warrants to be prohibited by way of order of this Commission in order to, as I said, regulate the behaviour of the Metal Workers Union and seek compliance with what could be seen as more the norms of industrial behaviour in this country.

PN39

We submit, sir, that plainly that if one looks at the authorities there is sufficient jurisdiction - or the jurisdictional tests that we need to meet, are met in this matter. And we say that when one looks at the authorities you have the discretion open to you to make an order in the terms sought. We say that such an order should be all encompassing because if it is limited to any particular topic or topics of industrial behaviour, then that is only to encourage the unions to seek to make - raise industrial action on the basis of some issue not otherwise covered by the order.

PN40

So we say that an order needs to be reasonably broad and all encompassing. And we say that the order should have a reasonable period of time. The job has, as I said, over six months to go. There has been this pattern of behaviour that two of the contractors have been dealing with since October of last year. And we say that enough is enough, and they are entitled to relief from this illegitimate and illegal industrial action being taken by the AMWU.

PN41

That being our opening submissions in this matter, sir, we would now seek to call evidence.

PN42

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What evidence are you seeking to call?

PN43

MR COOKE: Evidence from each of the three employers, sir, as to the industrial action that has affected them, and is currently affecting them. Unless the union don't dispute that there is industrial action that has occurred, and is currently occurring.

PN44

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So who are the witnesses you are intending to call in?

PN45

MR COOKE: Mr Baumgartel, who is the project manager for Thiess. Mr Hewitt, who is the project manager for United KG. And Mr Short who is the manager project support for Pacific Industrial Company.

PN46

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Just a moment, Mr Cooke. Mr Edmonds.

PN47

MR EDMONDS: Yes, sir.

PN48

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In terms of assertions of industrial action occurring now, do you have any comment on that?

PN49

MR EDMONDS: Well, sir, I am instructed that the employees have withdrawn their labour at this point in time, sir, over the issue of the employment of Mr King. With respect to the register of industrial action, sir, some of those issues are well traversed - - -

PN50

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leaving aside the register by the - that is the outline of - outline in the application I take it you are referring to. But in terms of persons not working now, are you disputing that there is industrial action occurring now?

PN51

MR EDMONDS: No, sir, there is industrial action occurring at this point in time, sir.

PN52

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN53

MR EDMONDS: We would say, sir, that the alleged pattern - we say that there is no pattern of industrial action, that the alleged pattern has in actual fact been dealt with previously in this Commission. There is a decision on foot, sir, which deals with a reasonable number of those stoppages, sir. And as such, there is not a sufficient pattern to justify a broad and all encompassing order for the life of this project.

PN54

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In terms of industrial action occurring now, do you have any comment about an order issuing?

PN55

MR EDMONDS: If I could have a minute to take some instructions perhaps, sir?

PN56

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I will adjourn for five minutes.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.50am]

RESUMED [11.08am]

PN57

MR EDMONDS: Yes, sir, thank you, sir. I have had the opportunity to take some instructions, sir. With respect to Mr King, sir, I can advise the following. At the nickel refinery, sir, in Kwinana in February, sir, Mr Noel Donkin who is the manager of Aim Maintenance addressed a mass meeting of his work force and indicated to his work force that Mr Glen King had indeed been blacklisted from that site, and indeed from all sites, sir.

PN58

Now Glen had never worked for Aim Maintenance, sir, yet Noel was aware of him and aware that he had indeed been blacklisted. Following that statement, sir, the union became aware of it and indeed other workers in the Kwinana strip actually became aware of that statement, sir. The workers in the Kwinana strip have resolved to campaign to get Mr Glen King a job. As a result of that, sir, there has been some ongoing discussions over the last three or four weeks between Thiess and the AMWU to try and organise employment for Mr Glen King on this particular job.

PN59

Following those discussions, sir, which have not been fruitful, the workers employed by Thiess and indeed the other workers on the Hismelt Kwinana, sir, have decided to take action in support of Glen King, sir, which has led us to the situation we are in today I suppose, sir. With respect to any orders issuing, sir, I would say that if orders do issue in relation to the actual industrial action that is occurring at this point in time, that they should be confined to this particular issue and they should be for a limited period of time.

PN60

We would say, sir, that there is not a pattern or not enough of a pattern to justify a blanket order for the balance of this particular project. And just to briefly address the register of industrial action, sir, I would say this. There was some action last year, sir, in 2003 over specific issues, sir, which are not likely to occur again. There was a dispute on 16 January, sir, over the handling of ice on the project. That was a health issue, sir, over the handling of ice which is indeed a foodstuff. And that particular issue has been resolved.

PN61

With respect to 3 February, 16 February, 17 February and 18 February, where work ceased on account of the temperature reaching 37-and-a-half degrees celsius, we would say, sir, that that matter has been adequately traversed in a previous matter in front of you, sir. Indeed a decision has been handed down in relation to that matter, and that decision has been accepted by the work force. 20 February, sir, was indeed a one-off issue, sir. And finally, sir, on 5 March, sir, there was this issue involving Mr King.

PN62

We would say, sir, that these are discrete issues, and it is not sufficient to justify a finding that there is a pattern of industrial action occurring, sir. So if orders do issue in relation to this matter, sir, they should be confined to this issue, and they should be for a limited period of time.

PN63

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

PN64

MR COOKE: Sir, perhaps Mr Edmonds might want to seek further instructions. By Mr King's application for employment with Thiess, he acknowledges he was employed by Aim Maintenance. Now what Mr Edmonds has just said is in direct contravention of what Mr King put down on his application for employment. So one of them has to be wrong. Now if he had a problem with a former employer who is not party to these proceedings, I don't wish to traverse it. But to say that he didn't work for Aim Maintenance would - we have documentation received by Thiess here where Mr King has signed that he did work for Aim Maintenance.

PN65

So as it is, we don't understand why a problem between Aim Maintenance and Mr King should be causing disputes on the Hismelt site. But Mr Edmonds has either put false information to the Commission, or Mr King has put false information on his application, one of the two.

PN66

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Edmonds?

PN67

MR EDMONDS: Is it important for me to address that particular issue, sir?

PN68

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is not important.

PN69

MR EDMONDS: Okay, thank you, sir.

PN70

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am going to adjourn for a few moments. Thank you.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.13am]

PN71

RESUMED [11.51am]

PN72

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. It appears to me that an industrial action is occurring. I have considered whether an order should issue now, and have decided that I will issue an order now. I have not formed a view as to whether there is a pattern of industrial action and if there is whether it is such that an order should issue, nor the potential terms of such an order. For an order of the nature sought by the applicants, the applicants will need to establish the basis for its assertions, and will be given that opportunity.

PN73

The applicants have indicated they intend calling three witnesses in support of their application. But given the nature of the order sought, and the basis upon which the applicants intend establishing that an order should issue, I am of the view that the respondent should be given full opportunity and be informed of the basis of the applicant's case, including the nature of the evidence intending to be led.

PN74

For that purpose, I will list the matter for a hearing at a later date. And prior to that hearing, require that the applicants provide the basis of their claim and an outline of the evidence that they intend leading in order to allow the respondent union the opportunity to be prepared for contesting any of that evidence. Or indeed, prepared for leading their own evidence.

PN75

In that respect, I will and intend issuing directions in that respect. With respect to the order I will issue now, it will be directed that industrial action generally, as that appears to me what is currently occurring, and there has been no suggestion to satisfy me, nor evidence or proposal to call evidence, that it will cease occurring, or if it does cease occurring, that it will not recur. The order will be for a period of one month, which should enable sufficient time for the hearing and consideration of the wider and extended order sought, should the applicant wish to pursue the order of the nature they have indicated they wish to seek.

PN76

Orders will issue by my Associate, and be made available immediately and provided to you now. The matter will be relisted in due course. This matter is adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.53am]