C2004/1602, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 1179 (29 March 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 6444

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER SMITH

C2004/1602

TELSTRA CORPORATION GENERAL
CONDITIONS AWARD 2001

Application under section 113 of the Act
by the Community and Public Sector Union-PSU
Group, Victorian Region re the inclusion of
safety net pay increases and allowances
available under the 1999-2003 Safety Net
Review decisions and the inclusion of test
case standards for the supported wages system

MELBOURNE

4.48 PM, WEDNESDAY, 17 MARCH 2004

PN1

MR T. VEENENDAAL: I appear for the Community and Public Sector Union.

PN2

MR N. BRETAG: I appear for the CEPU in this matter. Appearing with me today is MR C. COOPER.

PN3

MR D. BRAJEVIC: I appear for Telstra, sir, and with me is MR F. GERDTZ.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN5

MR VEENENDAAL: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, this application is in two parts. Firstly the application seeks to apply safety net adjustments for the last five Safety Net Review decisions from 1999 to 2003 in respect to the salary barrier component at schedule B of the award, and also in respect to both expense and work-related allowances in accordance with the National Wage Fixing principles, but it also seeks to insert a new clause in the award in respect of supported salary payments for employees with disabilities. would like to tender two orders. I have also got some other documents to tender, or another document to tender, and that is a table relating to the allowance calculations, Commissioner.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: The first document - I see. There are three documents, aren't there?

PN7

MR VEENENDAAL: Yes.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: The first document is in relation to a draft order. Is that in relation to allowances, is it?

PN9

MR VEENENDAAL: It is in relation to allowances, but it also deals with the salary barrier.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, very well.

PN11

MR VEENENDAAL: In schedule B of the award.

EXHIBIT #CPSU1 DOCUMENT RE ALLOWANCES AND SALARY BARRIER AND ATTACHMENT

EXHIBIT #CPSU2 DRAFT ORDER FOR SUPPORTED WAGE

PN12

MR VEENENDAAL: Commissioner, if I can deal with CPSU1 first. Firstly in relation to allowances again we have simply applied expense - the appropriate methodology for expense-related allowances in accordance with the CPI movements and they are provided for at the meal allowance at 20.1 in the attachment, Commissioner. In respect to the work-related allowances we have applied the Glass Merchants decision formula in accordance with the wage fixing principles in a similar way to that which I made submissions about on the last occasion. I don't intend to repeat those submissions now.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN14

MR VEENENDAAL: The only controversy I think about this at the moment - perhaps it is an exaggeration to call it a controversy - is that there is some state of confusion currently about the current rate for the salary barrier in the award, and it may even be that the likes of Mr Bretag or Mr Cooper could shed some light on this and I would certainly call upon them to do so if they can. But what I found, Commissioner, are two orders. There was an order made in May 1996 at Print N2159 which is referred to in the attachment, which describes the salary barrier at that time as 51,190.

PN15

You would expect that the salary barrier would probably go up from there in accordance with the 1997 and so on and so forth National Wage cases. But what I also found was an order at PR902661 made by Commissioner Lewin in relation to award simplification, and that might in itself indicate the answer to the question, made on - - -

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Reducing the salary barrier.

PN17

MR VEENENDAAL: I beg your pardon?

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Reducing the salary barrier.

PN19

MR VEENENDAAL: Yes. Reducing the salary barrier to 42,891.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN21

MR VEENENDAAL: Now, I am getting into the ground of speculation but it may be that the salary barrier was reduced consistent with the Paid Rates Review decision principles. That may be the case. I couldn't find anything, although I haven't looked overly hard to find any reference to it in the Commission's various decisions in respect to award simplification. They may be there, they may not be there. But what I would suggest is this course of action, Commissioner. Unless - - -

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: The wage rates may have changed themselves, which changed the barrier.

PN23

MR VEENENDAAL: That may well be the case, Commissioner.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN25

MR VEENENDAAL: Certainly the conversion from paid rates to properly fixed minimum rates - - -

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN27

MR VEENENDAAL: - - - may have led to the Commission reviewing the barrier. I think that might be the answer, but given that I haven't got anything I can put specifically to the Commission in that regard - - -

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN29

MR VEENENDAAL: - - - I will suggest this course of action. On the one hand, perhaps Telstra or one of the other parties can shed some light on - by way of documentary evidence to shed some light on the subject. In the alternate, Commissioner, I would simply suggest that given that the latter of the two orders is the order of Commissioner Lewin, I think the Commission has to prefer that order, or the reference to salary barrier in that order over the 1996 order, and therefore we would submit that it seems appropriate to pick up the 42,891 figure. Nevertheless, I have left this open at this time and you will note at paragraph 1 of CPSU1 I have simply included both amounts. I have made a calculation for both amounts.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN31

MR VEENENDAAL: Obviously the 1996, I have included the 1997 and 1998 wage case decisions. In respect to the smaller figure, the 42,000 figure, given that the adjustment was made in 2001 I have only included recent wage case decisions in respect to that adjustment. So I think that is something that perhaps we can leave in abeyance until such time as one of the parties wants to step forward and shed some light. But if that isn't available to the parties, or there is no further light to shed, I think I would simply suggest that the order be made consistent with the decision of Commissioner - or the order made by Commissioner Lewin on 28 March 2001. I have a copy of that if the Commission wants to sight it.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: It is all right. I can get a copy of it.

PN33

MR VEENENDAAL: But I am not intending to tender it at this time. That deals with CPSU1. In respect to CPSU2 I would only say this, Commissioner. Firstly, I would submit that supported wages systems are a test case standard. The Commission may, if it considers appropriate, include test case standards pursuant to principle 4 of the current wage fixing principles. I would also refer the Commission to section 143(1C) of the Act. That provision in the Act does not make a reference to supported wages systems and it seems to suggest that, or it seems to provide expressly for the inclusion of a supported wage system for employees with disabilities in awards.

PN34

The only other thing I can say about this, Commissioner, is that the recent Full Bench decision - that is the 2003 Full Bench decision, did make a reference, a very brief reference at paragraph 238 to parties considering as part of a safety net adjustment application the inclusion of the model supported wage clause in the award. In some respects I am picking up on the words of the Full Bench, and I am simply saying to the parties that it is something that they may wish to consider including in the award. I am not going to press either part of the application today, Commissioner. I would simply suggest a similar course of action to the course of action I suggested in respect to matter 1602.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Veenendaal.

PN36

MR VEENENDAAL: Thanks, Commissioner.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Bretag?

PN38

MR BRETAG: Thank you, Commissioner. We have no in principle objection to the applications made by the CPSU in this matter. However, given the fact we only received this application yesterday we would also like the opportunity to check it further, and Mr Veenendaal is suggest around about a week.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN40

MR BRETAG: And that is no problem to us.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN42

MR BRETAG: In respect of the two salary barriers, I could probably only confuse the Commission in that regard, because it is quite possible in fact that there should be two salary barriers. That is what my memory says, but I don't know whether in fact these figures relate to that or not. I know Mr Gedtz over there is smiling. I think he has got the same concern that I have. So as I said, we probably need to work that one through as well. So I suspect a week might help us all. Thank you.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Marvellous. One other question. Are there apprentices at Telstra?

PN44

MR BRETAG: We would like to have apprentices. We don't have any any longer.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: No. I have been steadily varying every award of the Commission to provide for school-based apprenticeship.

PN46

MR BRETAG: Skill based or - - -

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: School-based.

PN48

MR BRETAG: School-based apprenticeship.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN50

MR BRETAG: Right.

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: You might have a look at that, too, to see whether that is worth putting into the award. I have done all the major awards. I have currently reserved in relation to the building industry, particularly the concerns of the ETU.

PN52

MR BRETAG: Well, given those last - - -

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: That part of an organisation called the ETU.

PN54

MR BRETAG: That is right, yes. We will certainly look at it, Commissioner, and - - -

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Because it has helped young people who want to combine training with education.

PN56

MR BRETAG: We will certainly look at it.

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks. Seven days?

PN58

MR BRAJEVIC: Thank you, sir.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well. Let me know if I need another hearing. If not, we will just issue the orders sought. We will probably streamline them a bit, but issue them as sought. Thank you for your attendance. The matter is adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [5.00pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #CPSU1 DOCUMENT RE ALLOWANCES AND SALARY BARRIER AND ATTACHMENT PN12
EXHIBIT #CPSU2 DRAFT ORDER FOR SUPPORTED WAGE PN12