AG2003/9865, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 166 (8 January 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 7, ANZ House 13 Grenfell St ADELAIDE SA 5000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N 1252
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN

AG2003/9865

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LK of the Act
by Hills Industries Limited and Another for
certification of the Hills Industries Limited
(Antenna & TV Systems Division {Manufacturing}
- Edwardstown) Enterprise Agreement

ADELAIDE

10.20 AM, THURSDAY, 18 DECEMBER 2003

PN1

MS M. LENIGER: I appear for Hills Industries.

PN2

MR S. HELPS: I am from Hills Industries.

PN3

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, Ms Leniger, can I take it that - Mr Helps, you may sit down if you like.

PN4

MR HELPS: Thank you.

PN5

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I take it that in this matter you rely upon the statutory declaration of Jill Franklin, is that correct?

PN6

MS LENIGER: Yes, I do.

PN7

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am happy to either hear a full submission from you or, alternatively, I'm equally happy simply to ask you questions as they arise from that statutory declaration.

PN8

MS LENIGER: Sure.

PN9

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you want the questions, or do you want to say your piece?

PN10

MS LENIGER: I will have the questions, thank you.

PN11

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sometimes people come in with a prepared script and they go away horribly disappointed if they don't get to use.

PN12

MS LENIGER: No, I'm not disappointed at all, thank you.

PN13

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I take you, first of all, to part 5.4, and ask whether you have a copy of the letter, or the written notice that was provided by the employer, outlining the intention to make the agreement?

PN14

MS LENIGER: I'm sorry, I do not have a copy of that.

PN15

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN16

MS LENIGER: The written intention was actually just to the Consultative Committee, it wasn't actually a written intention to all of the employees bound by the agreement.

PN17

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, so it was just the Consultative Committee that received that advice?

PN18

MS LENIGER: Yes, and then the Consultative Committee would actually then forward that, or talk to the employees and that was actually done back in April of this year.

PN19

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You don't have a copy of the act with you, do you?

PN20

MS LENIGER: No, no, I don't.

PN21

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: My associate is going to hand you a copy of section 170LK of the Act.

PN22

MS LENIGER: Thank you.

PN23

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is this section that underpins the application, if I understand it correctly, is that right?

PN24

MS LENIGER: That is right.

PN25

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, can I just take both you and Mr Helps through the critical aspects of that particular section, but before I do, can I indicate that, particularly for Mr Helps' benefit, the Act provides for a range of different types of agreements. There might be agreements reached between an employer and employees as a pre-cursor to the commencement of a new business. There might be what we call a section 170LJ agreement reached between an employer and a union and later confirmed by a valid majority of employees.

PN26

Alternatively, the Act provides the opportunity for an agreement to be struck directly between an employer and his or her employees. Now, that is section 170LK, that section sets out in quite specific terms the specific requirements that must be met in order for me to consider certification of the agreement. Those requirements particularly go to the process that has to be followed. There is no capacity in that section for me to overlook, or not have regard to the extent to which those process requirements have to be complied with.

PN27

The first of those that I will refer you both to is section 170LK(2), which requires that at least 14 days prior to the agreement being made, the employer must ensure, or take reasonable steps to ensure, that every person employed at the time whose employment will be subject to the agreement has at least 14 days notice in writing of the intention to make the agreement. Now, that does not say that the Consultative Committee can be provided with that information, and represents what I see as a fundamental difficulty in terms of progressing this matter this morning.

PN28

I will try and come up with an alternative proposal in a moment, but let me just take you through the other critical aspects of that section. Section 170LK(3) requires that:

PN29

At or before the time when that written notice is given to all employees the employer must take reasonable steps to ensure that every such person -

PN30

that is every person to be covered by the agreement -

PN31

has or has ready access to the agreement in writing.

PN32

The third critical requirement is that the notice that is to be given to every employee at least 14 days prior to the agreement being made, must set out the capacity for any employee who seeks to be represented by a union that has coverage to be represented. The fourth requirement is that if a union then requests the employer the opportunity to meet, the employer must meet and confer with that union. Now, if I'm understanding you correctly here, you are advising me that the notice of the intention to make the agreement was given to a Consultative Committee, which would represent a substantial difficulty in accordance with section 170LK(2).

PN33

I'm unclear as to the extent to which every employee either had or had reasonable access to the agreement in writing, as distinct from the Consultative Committee, and I'm unclear as to whether or not the notice of intention - albeit that it was just given to that Consultative Committee - set out the opportunity for people to be represented by a union, should they choose to do so.

PN34

MS LENIGER: I can - - -

PN35

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

PN36

MS LENIGER: I can confirm that there was no specific mention of giving people an opportunity to be represented by an organisation.

PN37

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. You see, those requirements are mandatory, there is simply not an option for me to certify an agreement unless those steps in the process have been undertaken.

PN38

MS LENIGER: Can I just confer with my colleague?

PN39

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You certainly can. Mr Helps can't help you, is that a correct understanding?

PN40

MS LENIGER: No, he can't help me. Mr Helps is part of the Consultative Committee as well and in the period when this was being negotiated I was actually off sick for four weeks. I thought maybe something had happened in between that time, but it obviously had not.

PN41

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. It might be best if I just ask Mr Helps a few questions at this stage. Mr Helps, can you tell me, first of all, how it was you came to be the employee representative?

PN42

MR HELPS: I was voted in earlier this year when my previous stint had expired.

PN43

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, so there was a vote of all of the employees to be covered by the agreement?

PN44

MR HELPS: Yes, that is right.

PN45

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Was it your understanding that the employees to be covered by this agreement were aware that if they chose to have a union involved in the process they could do so? Or is that a moot point?

PN46

MR HELPS: No, it wasn't my understanding as such, no.

PN47

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Now, Mr Helps, I'm going to ask Ms Leniger a couple of questions about the agreement itself. Please feel free to hop up and tell me whether you want to add anything or, indeed, detract anything from her answers. Ms Leniger, can I refer you first of all to clause 1.3. Can I clarify what I think is a typographical error first of all, in that the last sentence in that clause refers to "clause 4". I think it means "clause 1.4", is that correct?

PN48

MS LENIGER: Yes, it does, sir.

PN49

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, I have to say I did tie myself up in knots reading this particular provisions. If I understand it correctly, what the parties intend is that the agreement will have application to employees covered by both the Metal Engineering and Associated Industries Award, Part 1, and the Part 2 award?

PN50

MS LENIGER: Yes, that is right, sir.

PN51

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Provided those employees are employed in the Antenna & TV Systems Division of Hills Industries, is that correct?

PN52

MS LENIGER: That is right.

PN53

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you tell me whether those employees employed in that Antenna & TV Systems Division, interchange with other employees engaged by Hills Industries?

PN54

MS LENIGER: No.

PN55

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is a discrete provision, is it?

PN56

MS LENIGER: Yes.

PN57

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, clause 1.8, and in particular 1.8.1, refers to the Consultative Committee. How is that Consultative Committee established?

PN58

MS LENIGER: It is by vote for the employee representatives and management representatives are usually - unless it is custom and practice - that is the Manufacturing Manager and the HR Manager.

PN59

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. So it has some form of internal constitution, does it?

PN60

MS LENIGER: Yes, we have a charter.

PN61

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Presumably, that charter may be changed during the life of this agreement?

PN62

MS LENIGER: Yes, it may.

PN63

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If I understand 1.8.2 correctly, it is to the effect that if the parties to this agreement or, indeed either party to this agreement, consider there is a better way of operating, then the parties will discuss that. If they agree that the agreement perhaps ought to be changed, that changed proposal would be put out to the vote and depending on the outcome an application made to vary the agreement?

PN64

MS LENIGER: That is right, sir.

PN65

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, clause 1.11. If I understand this provision correctly it is to the effect that, unless this agreement overrides a specific provision of an earlier agreement, the earlier agreements will continue to operate, is that correct?

PN66

MS LENIGER: That is right.

PN67

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If I refer back then to 1.6, which calls up the Metal Engineering and Associated Industries Award, Part 1, if a provision of that award is inconsistent with an earlier agreement, then what do you say to me ought to happen? If I haven't spelt out the question clearly enough, please tell me.

PN68

MS LENIGER: No, I do - I am just trying to get my head around it myself, I'm sorry. Well, it states here that the agreement would take precedence to the extent of that inconsistency - - -

PN69

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that is the current agreement, I am taking it.

PN70

MS LENIGER: No, but this current - - -

PN71

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: My question goes to: if an earlier agreement - that is the previous agreement referred to in 1.11 - has a provision which does not sit comfortably with an award provision, then which of the two should I have regard to?

PN72

MS LENIGER: I would suggest that it would still be this agreement because this agreement still takes into consideration previous agreements.

PN73

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN74

MS LENIGER: So if the award changes - and my suggestion would be if the award changes to the benefit of employees - then we would actually apply clause - the other one that we just spoke about - and we would actually come together and maybe make an application to vary the agreement to take those - - -

PN75

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Can I put that in my words and you can tell me whether I have got it right or wrong. This agreement that I'm looking at today is to be read in concert with the Part 1 Metal Industry Award, except that where this agreement is inconsistent with that award, this agreement takes precedence?

PN76

MS LENIGER: That is right, that is the intention.

PN77

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This agreement should also be read in concert with previous agreements, except that where those previous agreements are inconsistent with this agreement, this agreement will take precedence?

PN78

MS LENIGER: Sorry, I don't - - -

PN79

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Must do by law. If this agreement updates a provision which is covered in an earlier agreement, then this agreement provision will apply?

PN80

MS LENIGER: Yes, that is right.

PN81

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, if the award contains a provision which is inconsistent with a previous agreement - - -

PN82

MS LENIGER: Because the award has been updated since the previous - - -

PN83

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Because the award has now been updated, it has been through a simplification process.

PN84

MS LENIGER: Yes.

PN85

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It may well contain provisions which, quite conceivably, don't sit comfortably with some previous agreements, then the parties would expect that the higher of whichever provision would prevail, is that correct?

PN86

MS LENIGER: That would be the intention, but to make sure that that is clear, we would have to apply for a variation of - - -

PN87

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You need not do so. If you are expressing it as an intention at this stage, then the parties can work on that basis because you are not really proposing to change anything in this particular agreement.

PN88

MS LENIGER: But the other previous agreements are - - -

PN89

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that is a matter for the parties to consider.

PN90

MS LENIGER: So we would be allowed - - -

PN91

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The majority of people wouldn't normally apply for a variation in that circumstance. You see, the answers to the questions that I'm asking are recorded on the transcript and most parties work on the basis that, if ever there was a disagreement over that issue, they will have regard to the answers they gave me at the time the agreement was certified.

PN92

MS LENIGER: I mean, obviously, for us it would be better if we were allowed to do that.

PN93

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN94

MS LENIGER: But my understanding has always been - - -

PN95

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you want to change this agreement, you have to go through the process.

PN96

MS LENIGER: Yes.

PN97

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm simply asking for an intention.

PN98

MS LENIGER: The intention would be that whatever the greater benefit, we would prefer to do that.

PN99

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN100

MS LENIGER: Thank you.

PN101

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If I can then take you to clause 2.3 as it appears on page 8, where there is a commitment to develop meaningful performance indicators, am I to understand that it is expected to occur over the life of this agreement?

PN102

MS LENIGER: It is, sir. It was actually a clause and a provision that we had in our agreement but unfortunately there wasn't enough effort or energy put into that, so there is been a recommitment to establish those performance indicators.

PN103

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 3.1 on page 9, states:

PN104

A training plan may be developed.

PN105

Who decides if the training plan is going to be developed? Is that a managerial prerogative?

PN106

MS LENIGER: It is managerial. We are currently redeveloping our performance development review process and as part of that we are hoping to develop a corporate - well, a divisional plan out of that. What we currently have would be individual training plans and to be completely honest they are not very effective, so we are trying to look at developing a divisional training plan.

PN107

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 3.3 refers to relevance Hills Industries occupational health and safety polices.

PN108

MS LENIGER: Yes.

PN109

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Am I to understand those policies are documented, that they are readily available to all employees and they may be changed over the life of the agreement?

PN110

MS LENIGER: Absolutely.

PN111

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 3.5 references the metal industry part 1 dispute resolutions provision. That provision through which I take it, the parties intend to refer to the Federal Commission, that is the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, operates as to simply provide for a dispute to be referred to the Commission. Am I to take it that with particular regard to 3.6 and the last sentence in 3.6, the parties intended if a dispute was to be referred to the Commission in accordance with clause 3.2 of the award then the Commission would have the power to, firstly, to conciliate and secondly, arbitrate.

PN112

MS LENIGER: That is the intention.

PN113

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 3.9 relates to journey accident insurance cover. Am I to understand that the compensated amounts referenced in the second last paragraph are based on average weekly earnings or are the based ordinary time earnings?

PN114

MS LENIGER: Average weekly earnings.

PN115

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, and there's reference in the second paragraph to a maximum period of up to 3 years, can I take it that the duration of the period up to a maximum of 3 years would be determined by the extent of the persons injury?

PN116

MS LENIGER: No, that wasn't actually the intention. The insurance cover that we have provides only for a maximum of 3 years cover.

PN117

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, so if the person was able to return to work at an earlier time they would do so.

PN118

MS LENIGER: We would expect them to do so, sir.

PN119

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 4.1 relates to wage rates, would it be possible to provide me with a wages schedule which detailed the amounts of the wage increases or amounts of wage paid?

PN120

MS LENIGER: Sorry, I do not have a copy of that on paper.

PN121

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. You don't need to provide it now.

PN122

MS LENIGER: Okay.

PN123

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But you could provide me with one?

PN124

MS LENIGER: Absolutely, yes.

PN125

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And before providing it to me, could you provide it to either Mr Helps or that consultative committee, so that they could sign off on it as an agreed document?

PN126

MS LENIGER: Mm.

PN127

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, 4.2 relates to the performance bonus, can I refer you to that schedule 1? If I understand that schedule correctly, it means that in effect, for every installation the employee receives credit on the basis of 1 cent in the dollar, is that a correct understanding or how should apply that particular schedule?

PN128

MS LENIGER: My understanding of this is, I receive information as to what the cents in the dollar profit for a 6 month period.

PN129

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So that is cents in the dollar profit or it is cents in the dollar charged?

PN130

MS LENIGER: EBIT, so earnings before income taxed. We classify it as profit, so after all the charges have been taken out, the profit amount for the particular division that we are looking I get a 12 cents in the dollar or 10 cents in the dollar amount and then that is the amount that has been agreed at, is then paid.

PN131

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, so for each television antenna installation job there might be a variable, so called profit component.

PN132

MS LENIGER: It is the profit - - -

PN133

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And that profit would be defined as the residual amount consequence upon the removal of all costs.

PN134

MS LENIGER: Associated costs.

PN135

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that a fair way of describing it?

PN136

MS LENIGER: I believe so, yes.

PN137

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That residual amount might vary between 0 and uncommonly, but something more than 20?

PN138

MS LENIGER: That is right.

PN139

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That amount in relation to each installation is then reflected in the bonus payments that are made on a 6 monthly basis.

PN140

MS LENIGER: That is right.

PN141

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Am I to understand the 5.1 to fundamentally mean that working hours are arranged between the employer and the individual employees?

PN142

MS LENIGER: That is right.

PN143

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But in that regard should I understand that the ordinary hours of work per week are 38?

PN144

MS LENIGER: Yes, they are, a 9 day fortnight.

PN145

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So that in effect, the award, 38 hour week arrangement, is applied but it is applied in ways that vary to suit the individual employee and employer requirements?

PN146

MS LENIGER: Yes, there are. There are penalty provisions after 38 hours that have been negotiated between the parties.

PN147

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If I can then refer you to 5.2 and to the very last sentence:

PN148

To be eligible to take time banked, the first employee to make a request to the leading hand will be approved.

PN149

How should I understand that provision?

PN150

MS LENIGER: It is to ensure that we have enough employees to actually continue production, so it sort of like a first come, first served kind of basis.

PN151

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, thank you. Now, clause 5.4 refers to a hand over overlap of 6 minutes, it references shifts. If I understood the answer to the question I raised relevant to 5.1 correctly, shifts may or may not be worked in a traditional sort of context?

PN152

MS LENIGER: That is right.

PN153

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Should I understand then that 5.4 simply says that, irrespective of the working hours arrangement there will be this overlap period of 6 minutes?

PN154

MS LENIGER: Where we do have one shift coming off and one shift coming on.

PN155

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, thank you. Where you have consecutive periods of work there will be a 6 minute overlap.

PN156

MS LENIGER: That is right. Yes, sir.

PN157

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 6.1 relates to redundancy and references schedule 2. Schedule 2 is simply a schedule setting out redundancy provisions in terms of, presumably, weeks of pay reflective of years of service.

PN158

MS LENIGER: That is right. All other provisions would go back to the award.

PN159

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, thank you. Finally, schedule 3 relates to long service leave, is the employer covered by the South Australian long service legislation or is the employer covered by a Federal long service award.

PN160

MS LENIGER: No. South Australian long service leave.

PN161

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Helps, do you want to add or detract anything from the answers that Ms Leniger has given me.

PN162

MR HELPS: No, that sounds correct.

PN163

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Leniger, as I advised earlier, I'm not going to be able to certify this agreement. If you want full written reasons as to the concern I have, then the opportunity exists to ask for those reasons within the next 7 days and I will provide them to you, but simply put, the reason for the conclusive I've reached in this regard is that the process requirements that are set out in section 170LK are mandatory. I'm certainly not suggesting that the parties set out with the deliberate intent to circumvent that process.

PN164

It is, I think, far more likely that the parties followed a process which was never actually lined up with that set out in the Act. If the parties choose they may repeat the process and in that regard, please take away that section 170LK and read through it. If I was presented with a new application with statutory declarations which demonstrated in terms of the information contained in them that the process was followed in accordance with that section of the Act, and that the application or the agreement that I was then given was the same as that which I now have been me or that it varied only in relation to the various clauses about which I've asked questions so as to address those issues.

PN165

Then I can indicate to you now that the agreement I have before me is consistent with the requirements of the no disadvantage test. The agreement has a dispute resolution provision, is of a duration envisaged by the Act and it does not contradict the Act. I would propose if I was satisfied as to the process to then certify the agreement from the date upon which I receive that information. If on the other hand the information provided to me did not enable me to reach a conclusion about the consistency with the process, or that the agreement was changed in some other way, then I would call the parties back in and we will clarify any outstanding issues.

PN166

That means that you won't get your agreement approved pre-Christmas. Please don't give me more information which you would say is in accordance with section 170LK within the next 14 days because I will then know you have a significant problem and I appreciate that the time delay might be substantially longer given the Christmas New Year period, but I can come up with no other alternatives other than to make that offer to you. Do you have any further questions of me?

PN167

MS LENIGER: No, my thoughts were just - so if we go through the process, in terms of people having access to the Enterprise Agreement, I don't believe that there will be any changes made to the agreement at all. So if we were to notify everybody that this has occurred and we need to go through the process and we gave everybody a written - how would we do that? I'm sorry, I'm a bit - - -

PN168

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Most businesses publish a notice to their employees by way of a letter.

PN169

MS LENIGER: We wouldn't need to word it in such a way that we are now going to start the process of negotiating Enterprise Agreement.

PN170

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You will need to - you could pre-empt the letter by referring to the difficulty you have had today.

PN171

MS LENIGER: Okay. That, sorry, was my question.

PN172

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The employees will need to be given the opportunity to consider that agreement, consider whether or not they want to invoke the assistance of the union and there will need to be a process established whereby the employees endorse the agreement yet again.

PN173

MS LENIGER: The same as a ballot.

PN174

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You will need to make sure that you both work through the various requirements set out in section 170LK and secondly ensure that you explain that process attaching information if necessary in terms of the replacement statutory declarations. Now, the potential does exist, as I would understand it, for employees to misunderstand the proceedings today. So that if you did want to have a decision published by the Commission that set out the reasons for the conclusion that I've reached, so as to eliminate any cause for confusion you do have that option.

PN175

MS LENIGER: Now?

PN176

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is a request that would need to be made either today or at some stage over the next 7 days. Preferably not on the 7th day.

PN177

MS LENIGER: Is that a formal application or I just can say?

PN178

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, you can either make it now or you can simply send in a letter or an email request.

PN179

MS LENIGER: I would like to make it now, if possible.

PN180

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well, I will publish a formal decision in that regard. It might just help clarify that I'm satisfied there's no intention to set about avoiding the obligations of the Act, but the Act does set out a very clear process. Mr Helps, are you happy with that approach, or have you got any questions about these proceedings today?

PN181

MR HELPS: No, I'm happy with that approach. That seems fine.

PN182

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Whilst I can't certify your agreement I will take the opportunity of wishing you both a merry Christmas. I will adjourn the matter accordingly.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.55am]