C0085/499, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 1208 (30 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 6464

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY

C No 00854 of 1999

TRANSPORT WORKERS GARBAGE
(ACT) AWARD 1990

Review under Item 51, Schedule 5 Transitional
WROLA Act 1996 re conditions of employment

MELBOURNE

9.50 AM, FRIDAY, 19 MARCH 2004

Continued from 10.2.04

THIS HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BY VIDEO LINK AND RECORDED IN MELBOURNE

PN58

MS J. TISDALE: I am from the Transport Workers Union.

PN59

MS A. HANCOCK: I appear for Brambles Australia Limited.

PN60

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. I received from parties some correspondence in relation to the developments to date. Are you able to tell me any more about it at this stage, Ms Tisdale?

PN61

MS TISDALE: A little, your Honour. I haven't yet seen the Brambles correspondence that was sent this morning, although, Ms Hancock - - -

PN62

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You haven't seen it?

PN63

MS TISDALE: No, I haven't been to my office this morning.

PN64

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you have a copy of that, there? Here, use this copy. Just show that to Ms Tisdale.

PN65

MS TISDALE: I have had a number of discussions with Ms Hancock, though. I am not anticipating that any of this will come as a surprise. I am not sure that this document does reflect all of our discussions yesterday, but perhaps - - -

PN66

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You might want to sit down, Ms Tisdale, in case you are not being reflected very well on the other screen.

PN67

MS TISDALE: Thank you, your Honour. Well, in terms of the letter that we sent to the Commission, dated 12 March 2004, there has been some progress on some of those outstanding issues. I think probably half of those are now no longer problems. There have been some subsequent matters raised by Brambles, I think, but they have only just had an opportunity to make a very close reading of the document and a close comparison with the current unsimplified award; and that has brought some other concerns for them.

PN68

I think though fundamentally the differences between the parties at the moment relate to a number of the allowances. As your Honour will recall, there were some - there was a separate, a two part structure for the wage rates and allowances in the current award, and we are replacing that with one structure that covers all kinds of waste. In the old award some allowances were only attracted to parts of the structure and not others and some of those things were incorporated into higher rates in the other part of the structure rather than being a separate allowance.

PN69

So at the moment Brambles have raised with me issues such as, for example, a meal allowance and a footwear allowance. So the meal allowance and first aid, for example, only apply to people doing a particular kind of refuse work. We say if we are bringing it all under one, then those things should, of course, apply to everyone. So there are issues like that that I think the company need to get some more advice and some further instructions on. We are approaching this from a perspective that the minimum rates conversion is something that - - -

PN70

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Excuse me a moment. Yes, sorry, Ms Tisdale.

PN71

MS TISDALE: The minimum rates conversion is something that's foisted upon us and there will be some losses for our members out of that, but we are not looking - - -

PN72

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well there won't actually be losses, they will just be residuals, won't they? I mean, when you say losses, the award will contain the residual amounts which would be offset against any future safety net adjustments.

PN73

MS TISDALE: Although that's not how it would work at the moment, your Honour, given that we have attempted to substitute different a classification structure with rates of pay that are already fixed minimum rates. The rates of pay, though, are protected by enterprise agreements. But there are a number of - there are a number of consequential issues that I am not sure the company has had an opportunity yet to properly consider all of the implications of.

PN74

But essentially we are approaching this from a perspective that we want an award to come out of this where the rates are fixed in accordance with the Commission's requirements, but the rest of the award is relevant and appropriate to the work that is being carried on and that this isn't - there is no kind of overly technical approach that is going to mean - that is going to exacerbate the disadvantage that is going to come through the minimum rates conversion process.

PN75

So that is the perspective that we are coming at it from. I do think that with some further discussions or some wider discussions, at least most of these - I am confident, actually, that all of the matters will be able to be resolved, but we are certainly not there at the moment.

PN76

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. What do you say, Ms Hancock?

PN77

MS HANCOCK: Yes, your Honour. As stated by Ms Tisdale, there have been ongoing discussions between the parties over the past month. I have sent through to you correspondence, this morning, in which I have outlined where the company believes the principal differences are at the moment, however, in examining that, the majority of those relate to the simplification component and we strongly believe that those will be able to be resolved and some of them already have been resolved and are in the process of being included in the re-draft of the document. The main concern the company has, as Ms Tisdale has pointed out, is the minimum rate adjustment.

PN78

By bringing across the classification structure of the Transport Workers Refuse Recycling and Wage Management Award we have now caused for ourselves quite a problem with working out what to do with these allowances that did before only apply to certain parts of work, and whether to leave them at that or whether to change the allowance to mean something else. The other problem that has arisen during the investigation into these allowances is that a lot of these allowances are now quite archaic and not many people are actually paid under these allowances, any more, if any at all.

PN79

So this needs to be gone through. I think, as part of this process we need to assess which still do apply and which don't apply any more. So the company sees the best way forward from here is to sit down further with the Transport Workers Union and we are planning to do that in the next week or two with other representatives of the company who understand these allowances very well and, hopefully, we can move towards getting an agreed position on that aspect of the simplification. Thank you, your Honour.

PN80

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Just bear with me a moment. How much time do you think you need to seek to resolve the matters, Ms Tisdale?

PN81

MS TISDALE: I think that we will have a pretty good idea within about two weeks, but I think we will probably - I think we will probably need about four weeks to finish it. I am mindful that I said that last time, though, your Honour. We certainly have been trying.

PN82

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am not suggesting otherwise. All right. Well what I proposes to do is to allow the parties until 16 April to confer and seek to resolve the outstanding matters, but in the event that the matters are not resolved by that date then the parties will be directed to file in the Commission and serve on each other any evidentiary material upon they wish to rely and there written submissions in support of their contentions as to the provisions of the award they wish to preserve or change; and the matter will then be set down for hearing on Friday, 28 May, for arbitration.

PN83

Now, in saying all of that, I just want to indicate - I note, for example, in the list of outstanding matters that Brambles has provided to me this morning, there are some aspects, and I think it's the case also of the TWU matters, that will require an application under section 113 for a variation of the award; for example, the superannuation clause that Brambles has indicated that it wishes to insert into the award is not already in the award. Is that correct, Ms Tisdale?

PN84

MS TISDALE: That is correct, we have taken the opportunity to substantially modernise the award, we have varied it - - -

PN85

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I have no difficulty with that, all I am saying is that any variation should be preserved by a section 113 application. So, do you want to say anything about my proposal, Ms Tisdale? No. Ms Hancock, do you want to say anything about my proposal?

PN86

MS HANCOCK: No, your Honour.

PN87

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well in those circumstances, I will direct the parties to meet and confer on all the outstanding matters in the award simplification process. In the event that the outstanding matters are not resolved by 16 April 2004 then each party is to file in the Commission and serve on the other party any evidentiary material upon which they wish to rely and their written submissions in support of their contentions on or before 14 May, that is, 2004, and any outstanding matters will then be fixed for hearing and determination on 28 May, Friday, 28 May at 10 am.

PN88

MS TISDALE: Thank you.

PN89

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Anything else? No. Ms Hancock, anything else from you?

PN90

MS HANCOCK: No, your Honour.

PN91

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. Very well. The matter is adjourned. Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY, 28 MAY 2004 [10.03am]