C2004/2542, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 1700 (5 May 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 6870

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON

C2004/2542

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

and

SOCOBELL OEM PTY LTD

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of an industrial dispute re recommendation of
Full Bench decision (PR900841) at Para (22) to
lodge a fresh application for the making of an award

MELBOURNE

10.08 AM, MONDAY, 26 APRIL 2004

PN1

MR A. COLE: I appear on behalf of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union along with MR P. DI FELICE>

PN2

MR R. DALTON: I seek leave to appear for Socobell and with me is MS J. SPRY, the Human Resources Manager.

PN3

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the application for leave to appear?

PN4

MR COLE: No objection to leave being granted.

PN5

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted. Mr Cole.

PN6

MR COLE: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, today, I have just had the opportunity of speaking to Mr Dalton prior to the hearing. Today, as you are aware, the matter comes back on again for the Commission as a result of the Full Bench decision in print 900841, a matter that the Commission as currently, your Honour, was party to that particular decision. It is a question then for the parties how to progress this particular issue.

PN7

The union is of the position to avoid confusion - in terms of some of the documentation, which is now some five years since it was originally served, and going through my own documentation and having a look at exhibit numbers, it may lead to some confusion in terms of relying on previous material before the Commission in terms of this particular application.

PN8

Your Honour, we would be of the view that we would start afresh, if you like, subject to going into conference after I make my submission and Mr Dalton responds. We believe that probably the best way to handle this matter and to ensure that there is no judicial errors arising from the previous document, that we end up having arguments about - that a fresh log of claims again be served on the company, along with a letter of demand and the notice of service, statements of fact, et cetera, all of those issues be dealt with at that stage and then programming by the Commission as to the hearing of the evidence and also the hearing of any witnesses the union wishes to put forward in respect pursuant of its claim.

PN9

But perhaps, if I let Mr Dalton respond to those issues and then we have a short conference, may be the best way to proceed.

PN10

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Dalton.

PN11

MR DALTON: Thanks, your Honour. Well, the questions about the dispute before the Commission did arise in my brief review of the initial documentation, so if the AMWU want to start afresh and serve a log of claims, et cetera, then that is a matter for them. My client doesn't oppose the union adopting that course. It doesn't seem to me that there is anything further to be done in this particular setting if the union want to do it in that way.

PN12

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there something wrong with the original dispute finding?

PN13

MR DALTON: Well, the - I am not sure. It really depends what is left of the original dispute finding; I don't have that documentation with me. Mr Cole says that that was served some five years or so ago. I am just simply responding to what he has put and saying that he would prefer to start afresh and if that is the case then there doesn't seem to be much to do today.

PN14

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Cole, I wonder about the efficiency of a further serving of a log of claims.

PN15

MR COLE: The efficiency - well, the log of claims, your Honour, has been served three times. It was served in June of 1999 and a letter of demand referring to that log of claims - and I will hand these two up - were again served on Mr Bellesis on 30 September of last year, following which discussions took place as I understand between Ms Spry of the company and Mr Di Felice of the union as to not progressing the matter at that time as they were involved in enterprise bargaining negotiations or in the run-up to enterprise bargaining negotiations.

PN16

A letter again was served on 16 March 2004 and, as I say, it refers back to the original log of claims that was set, but I just have some concern, your Honour, that - and certainly don't want to get into issues relating whether the original log was appropriately served; we believe that it was. It was accepted by the Commission at that point in time. A dispute was found. The matter then went to - at initial hearing a decision was made by the Commission. The union then forwarded to the Commission additional evidence, following which the Commission reversed the original decision in terms of which was the appropriate underpinning award.

PN17

This led to a stay application being made by Mr Dalton, I think, at the time, from Freehills, along with an appeal to the Full Bench. The Full Bench subsequently quashed the original decision of Commissioner Foggo and gave the union the ability under clause 22 of its decision to be able to pursue the matter again.

PN18

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but in terms of the - you see, these letters don't seem to be - don't on the face seem to me to be logs of claims. They are letters of demand in respect to award coverage.

PN19

MR COLE: Yes.

PN20

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They are not on the face of it, logs of claims demands. Is there an original log of claims demand?

PN21

MR COLE: Yes, there is.

PN22

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And what is the problem with relying on that? When was that served 19?

PN23

MR COLE: '99.

PN24

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN25

MR COLE: There are variations now to that log of claims.

PN26

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So you want to serve a fresh log of claims?

PN27

MR COLE: Yes, we believe that that is the cleanest way to handle the whole thing.

PN28

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Well, then, you just need to do that, don't you?

PN29

MR COLE: Yes, we do.

PN30

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So there is - I mean you will serve the log of claims. I don't know whether the company will agree to it or not. If they don't, then presumably you will file in the Commission a notification of alleged industrial dispute.

PN31

MR COLE: Yes.

PN32

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And that will mean a new file that will be dealt with.

PN33

MR COLE: Yes.

PN34

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So we won't be dealing with this matter under this file.

PN35

MR COLE: Yes, that is right, your Honour.

PN36

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Well, I presume I just adjourn the matter.

PN37

MR COLE: Yes.

PN38

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. I will adjourn this matter.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.17am]