|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220
Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
Tel:(03) 9672-5608 Fax:(03) 9670-8883
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
O/N 6901
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DUNCAN
C2003/6799
MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA
and
SKILLED ENGINEERING LIMITED
Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re terms and conditions of employment
MELBOURNE
10.52 AM, WEDNESDAY, 28 APRIL 2004
Continued from 16.4.04 in Brisbane
PN4495
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before we start I regret the late start. It was occasioned by some confusion in our office and in no one else's about the actual time we were to start so I hope we don't lose too much as a result.
PN4496
MR BROMBERG: Your Honour, just a couple of house-keeping matters if we can, before Mr Krogh goes into the witness-box. We did write to you yesterday giving a batting order and I will deal with that further in a moment but we did that in part on a basis that Ms Paul and I had reached some accommodation in relation to some of the witnesses who will not be required for cross-examination.
PN4497
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.
PN4498
MR BROMBERG: I just want to indicate the nature of that accommodation and perhaps, if it is convenient, tender now the statements.
PN4499
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The statements that relate to those people? Yes, sounds sensible.
PN4500
MR BROMBERG: Yes, firstly, the witness statement of Ms Bernadette O'Neill, if your Honour could go to that.
PN4501
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN4502
MR BROMBERG: Would your Honour go to paragraph 4.
PN4503
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN4504
MR BROMBERG: Would your Honour strike out in the last line of paragraph 4, everything after the word "MUA."
PN4505
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN4506
PN4507
MR BROMBERG: Thank you, your Honour. There is then a witness statement which your Honour should have of a Mr Flask, F-l-a-s-k.
PN4508
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have certainly seen it.
PN4509
MR BROMBERG: George Flask is his first name. I seek to tender that your Honour without any change.
PN4510
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, without any change.
PN4511
MR BROMBERG: Yes.
PN4512
PN4513
MR BROMBERG: Thank you, your Honour. Now then, so far as our witnesses are concerned, that only leaves two witnesses that we intend to call, the first is Mr Doleman and he will be available tomorrow, and then your Honour, in our letter to you of yesterday we referred to Mr Darren Driscoll and asked that a summons be re-issued for 6 May in Sydney to him. There is already a summons issued and we have been trying to make it as convenient as possible for him. I expect that I will only be with him for a very short time. He is Sydney based and we thought, your Honour - I had spoken to my friend about it and she agrees, we thought your Honour that he could be conveniently dealt with on 6 May in Sydney, rather than going to the trouble and expense of flying him here.
PN4514
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, quite.
PN4515
MR BROMBERG: I doubt that he will be in the witness-box for longer than 15 minutes.
PN4516
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All up?
PN4517
MR BROMBERG: Well, I don't know. I can't speak for my learned friend - - -
PN4518
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, of course.
PN4519
MR BROMBERG: - - - but I doubt that he would be.
PN4520
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right then. Well that is perfectly satisfactory as far as I am concerned.
PN4521
MR BROMBERG: Yes, thank you, your Honour.
PN4522
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The summons will be re-issued. It will be to the effect that Mr Driscoll will be summonsed to give evidence in Sydney in the matter on behalf of the MUA in Sydney on 6 May, 2004.
PN4523
MR BROMBERG: Yes, thank you, your Honour. Now, then - I think my learned friend would want to tender a couple of statements of her own and I have some comments to make about those but I can do those as she does that.
PN4524
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, Ms Paul, we will deal with that.
PN4525
MS PAUL: Thank you sir. To that end sir, we take you to the statement of Mrs Ceccomancini - Claude Ceccomancini, signed on 5 April.
PN4526
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm wondering, were they in black folders?
PN4527
MS PAUL: That would have been in the folder, sir, that was provided. Sir, if it is of assistance I can give you my copy and if I could just get a copy back later.
PN4528
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It will help if you do, thank you, Ms Paul. I think we are embarrassed by the fact that some material simply hasn't come. Yes?
PN4529
MS PAUL: Sir, we seek to tender that unchanged.
PN4530
MR BROMBERG: I have no objection other than I ask that the following be recorded in relation to Mr Ceccomancini's evidence, and as I understand it, it is by agreement. Would your Honour record that Skilled confirmed that a Mr Gordon Bell was an employee of Skilled until about 6 months ago, that Skilled had a telephone contact for him at least as of 6 months ago and that no attempt has been made to contact him for the purpose of giving evidence in these proceedings. So on the basis of that being recorded, we don't have an objection.
PN4531
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Well it is recorded, is it not?
PN4532
MR BROMBERG: Yes, yes.
PN4533
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. I mark the document.
PN4534
MS PAUL: We have no objection to that, sir.
PN4535
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We have no objection to that, yes.
PN4536
MS PAUL: The others - I'm sorry, sir?
PN4537
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just bear with me while - - -
PN4538
PN4539
MS PAUL: Sir, there is a further statement of my self, dated 6 April, which would have been actually faxed to yourself, sir.
PN4540
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I think I have that.
PN4541
MS PAUL: I do have a copy but it is a rather - - -
PN4542
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think I have seen it.
PN4543
MS PAUL: Sir, if it helps, I do actually have a copy. Unfortunately I do have to apologise, it is rather tattered at the moment because it has been dragged around.
PN4544
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That will save me looking. I'm sure that has made it but it would be quicker if I take your offer. Now, Mr Bromberg, have you anything to say about this one?
PN4545
MR BROMBERG: Yes. You will see that in both paragraphs 2(b) and 2(e) of the statement, Ms Vasuki - I'm sorry, Vasuki Paul says that what she said was not provided as evidence of what had happened. It is really a point for submissions but we want to make it clear that we regard, and we will put to you in submissions, that the conversation that occurred and what was put by Ms Paul was, and is, evidence of her understanding of her instructions and we just want to make that clarification. It is not a point for cross-examination really but with that being clarified we have no objection.
PN4546
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well I take that as being a matter that will be dealt with in submissions.
PN4547
MS PAUL: In submissions, sir.
PN4548
PN4549
MS PAUL: Sir, can I just clarify that you actually have a copy of Mr Krogh's statement.
PN4550
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No I don't.
PN4551
MS PAUL: Okay. I have a problem sir because I don't actually have a copy of it.
PN4552
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Not at all.
PN4553
MS PAUL: Sorry, sir, I have a copy for myself, sir, but in terms of the fact that there - - -
PN4554
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Glad one of us has. No, I will have to make do without it, Ms Paul.
PN4555
MS PAUL: Okay, and there's two other volumes of material as well, sir.
PN4556
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that is right. I am aware of that. That is how I realised that we didn't have the complete papers.
PN4557
MS PAUL: Yes sir.
PN4558
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have no idea what has happened but we might just clear up how much it affects us. Not that I'm not going to press on but so that you are aware of what documents are not here. Today, Mr Bromberg, you have completed what you intend to do by way of statements, have you not? You are not calling anybody else today?
PN4559
MR BROMBERG: No, no, I was intending to cross-examine Mr Krogh and given the time, I doubt that we will get past him today to be honest, your Honour.
PN4560
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That may be just as well.
PN4561
MR BROMBERG: I must thought, your Honour, I am most concerned that your Honour does not have his witness statements because I think your Honour will find it difficult to follow the cross-examination.
PN4562
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I fully appreciate that, Mr Bromberg, but I will have to bear that.
PN4563
MS PAUL: Sir, if I may, I am happy to provide your Honour with my copy if we could take a quick break so I can just make a set with the - of the actual statement and provide you with the other two to use for the purposes of b
PN4564
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I am sure Mr Bromberg would prefer that course, would you not?
PN4565
MR BROMBERG: Yes.
PN4566
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, I will do that. Thank you, Ms Paul. I will adjourn for 5 minutes.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.07am]
RESUMED [11.35am]
PN4567
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Paul?
PN4568
MS PAUL: Sir, we would seek to call Mr Neville Krogh as our witness.
PN4569
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: My associate will be with you directly Mr Krogh.
PN4570
MR KROGH: Thank you sir.
PN4571
MR BROMBERG: While we are waiting, your Honour, we can provide your Honour with a folder containing a statement of Owen MacKenzie and its attachments which we may need but may not, but it also relevantly contains a statement of Mr Krogh which I understand you now have a copy of, but you don't have a copy of the attachments.
PN4572
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is right.
PN4573
MR BROMBERG: And this does contain the attachments, other than N12 and N13 which are two folders - - -
PN4574
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: N13 we have.
PN4575
MR BROMBERG: You have.
PN4576
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: N12 we appear to have.
PN4577
MR BROMBERG: Yes. I think that is borrowed.
PN4578
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is borrowed.
PN4579
MR BROMBERG: So your Honour, with this folder you will have a complete set.
PN4580
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, for Mr Krogh.
PN4581
MR BROMBERG: For Mr Krogh.
PN4582
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, Mr Bromberg. Thank you Ms Paul.
PN4583
MS PAUL: That is okay. Sir, just as a preliminary issue, because one of those folders in 12, I think, is my version of it - or in 13, is my version. The witness does not have that attachment with him. I just draw that to your attention as we may need to provide.
PN4584
PN4585
MS PAUL: Mr Krogh, did you cause to provide a statement on 7 April 2004?---That's correct.
PN4586
Are there any amendments you seek to make to that statement?---There are a number of amendments.
PN4587
Sir, if I might just take you directly to all the amendments and then have the witness swear the statement.
PN4588
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well.
PN4589
MS PAUL: At paragraph 9 and paragraph 10, on page 2 - on the first line of paragraph 9 where there is a reference to "this criteria was only used by Neville and myself" that should actually read "Owen", and at paragraph 10, the same correction. Where it says the reference to "Neville" it should actually read "Owen". At paragraph 30, 3 lines down where the date is "25 October 2003", that date should be "7 November 2003". Three lines down, paragraph 30? It was "25 October", should be "7 November". At paragraph 106, the second line, after the word "his", adding the word "personal" before the word "beliefs". At paragraph 154, second last line, after the first "and", delete the words "and shoe to no" and replace with "as there were no"?
PN4590
MR BROMBERG: Sorry, which line?
PN4591
MS PAUL: Second last line of paragraph 154? After the first "and" delete the "and shoe to no" and replace with "as there were no". Paragraph 169, 4 lines - on the fourth line, after the word "disgust", insert the words "in relation to the criteria" comma.
PN4592
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 169.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XN MS PAUL
PN4593
MS PAUL: Paragraph 169.
PN4594
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN4595
MS PAUL: The fourth line sir.
PN4596
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Fourth line.
PN4597
MS PAUL: After the word "disgust" add the words "in relation to the criteria" comma. The next page, still paragraph 169, the second-last line, after the words "end five are the" and before the word "copies", to have the word "working". Paragraph 217 is the next one, sir. Paragraph 217, on the second line that date should be "7 November 2003", delete "25 October 2003". 233, sir, second line, after the word "and" you need to add the word "he" and after the word "listen", it should read "listened" with an "ed". After the word "two" there should be a full stop. "He" should start with a capital "H" and at the end of that paragraph, instead of a full stop, a comma and the words "that he thought was beneficial". So at the end of that paragraph, comma "that he thought was beneficial" full stop.
PN4598
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We add the words "that he thought was beneficial"?
PN4599
MS PAUL: Yes sir.
PN4600
MR BROMBERG: Well, I didn't your Honour. I'm a bit troubled by that. Did your Honour have those words?
PN4601
MS PAUL: No, I am adding those words.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XN MS PAUL
PN4602
MR BROMBERG: I'm sorry, I misheard what your Honour said.
PN4603
MS PAUL: Sorry, just to clarify sir, I'm actually adding those words, "that he thought was beneficial". Sorry sir, going back to paragraph 1 in 76, the second line, after the word "test" it says "he". That should actually be "his".
PN4604
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: His was?
PN4605
MS PAUL: "His score was noted", sir. "He was upon, taking the test," it should be "his score".
PN4606
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: "At first he stays", he was at, and he was and "upon taking the test, his score was noted."
PN4607
MS PAUL: Yes sir.
PN4608
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.
PN4609
MS PAUL: At paragraph 240 sir, on the third line, after the words "Shuan stated while" - there is a word that says "seat", that should actually be "he".
PN4610
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He?
PN4611
MS PAUL: Yes.
PN4612
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XN MS PAUL
PN4613
MS PAUL: Sir we add a final paragraph, being paragraph 344, with the words "the documents contained in N4 and N5 and N14 to N19, inclusive".
PN4614
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a minute.
PN4615
MS PAUL: Sorry.
PN4616
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: N14 and 19 inclusive?
PN4617
MS PAUL: Inclusive in this statement are working documents and I refer to my supplementary statement, dated 22 April 2004, and attachment NA.
PN4618
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Supplementary statement of?
PN4619
MS PAUL: 22 April '04 and attachment NA being the documents which should have been attached.
PN4620
Mr Krogh, do you state that statement, along with those amendments, are true and correct?---That's correct.
PN4621
Sir, we seek to tender that statement.
PN4622
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Bromberg?
PN4623
**** NEVILLE KROGH XN MS PAUL
PN4624
MS PAUL: Mr Krogh, did you cause to have a supplementary statement drafted as well?---Yes, I did.
PN4625
Are the contents of that statement true and correct?---They are.
PN4626
Seek to tender supplementary statement of Neville John Krogh.
PN4627
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Subject to the same comments, Mr Bromberg?
PN4628
PN4629
MS PAUL: Sir, just for clarity sake, can I just confirm that you have two attachments with that statement, sir, which should be NA and NB.
PN4630
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I do have the attachments NA and NB.
PN4631
PN4632
MR BROMBERG: Mr Krogh, prior to working for Skilled, you were employed by a subsidiary of Patricks?---That's correct.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4633
Indeed, you were employed by that subsidiary until 10 November 2003, is that right?---That's incorrect.
PN4634
Is 10 November 2003 the time that you started with Skilled?---That is correct.
PN4635
Did you immediately come from the Patrick subsidiary to Skilled or did you have a break between?---I had a break between.
PN4636
When did you end your employment with the subsidiary of Patrick Jet Care Aviation Engineering?---I can't recall the exact date. I believe it was some 10-13 days prior to 10 November.
PN4637
Now, prior to employment with Jet Care Aviation, who were you employed by?---Prior to Jet I was employed by National Jet Systems in Adelaide.
PN4638
How long were you employed there?---I was employed there for a period, I believe, around 12 to 13 months.
PN4639
In what capacity?---I was initially employed as heavy maintenance manager for National Jet Systems, South Australia. Then I was moved to regional maintenance manager for National Jet Systems.
PN4640
Prior to that, where were you employed?---I was employed with Ansett Airlines Australia.
PN4641
In what role?---Initially when I was recruited for Ansett Airlines I was employed as the northern regional maintenance manager or operations manager and then promoted to South Australia and Northern Territory maintenance manager - line maintenance.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4642
How long were you in that job, roughly?---I believe it was just on 2 years. I was there until Ansett collapsed.
PN4643
Prior to the Ansett job, where were you working?---Prior to Ansett I was working for Queensland Police - sorry, prior to Ansett I as working for Great Western Manufacturing in Toowoomba.
PN4644
In what capacity?---General manager and operations and quality assurance.
PN4645
Prior to that you were with the police?---Prior to that I was working for Donhad Proprietary Limited in Townsville as work superintendent of mining and industrial and then Queensland police.
PN4646
How long were you in the Queensland Police Force?---A period of around 13 to 14 months.
PN4647
Were you employed in any other police force at any time?---No, I was not.
PN4648
Can you go to your supplementary statement and specifically can I take you to paragraph 10. You say:
PN4649
I have been informed...
PN4650
Then you go on to tell us what you have been informed, by whom were you informed?---I will need to get a copy - the supplementary I have here is not correct.
PN4651
The supplementary you have is not correct?---No, it is not correct.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4652
The document that you referred to is a document entitled: Supplementary Statement of Neville John Krogh, the document that you have given to me?---Sorry, can you repeat the question.
PN4653
The document you have given to me is a document headed: Supplementary Statement of Neville John Krogh, is it not?---That is correct.
PN4654
It is signed by you?---I would have to have a look at that document.
PN4655
Yes. Would you have a look?---Sir, this was the document that was initially signed by myself and was checked by the Skilled representative. On checking this document, the Skilled representative informed me that the numbering system, as you will see on page 1, starts at number 11 rather than number 1. So subsequently those numbers were adjusted to reflect the accurate numbering system and I resigned the document and forwarded it onto the Skilled representative.
PN4656
So are you saying the only difference between the document that has been filed in the Commission and the document you signed is the repagination of the paragraphs?---I would believe that would be correct, sir.
PN4657
All right. Now, do you have a copy of your supplementary statement as filed and can you go to paragraph 10?---Yes.
PN4658
Who were you informed - when you say:
PN4659
I've been informed that sections of the XL matrix were provided to the MUA.
PN4660
Who informed you?---Sir, during a planned meeting with the Skilled representative in regards to this matter, the Skilled representative informed me of the facts that she had - the Skilled representative had provided these documents to the MUA.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4661
Do you mean Ms Paul?---I do, sir.
PN4662
All right, thank you. Then if you go to paragraph 12, you say:
PN4663
I provided all these documents to the Skilled representative.
PN4664
Do you again there mean Ms Paul?---Sorry, sir.
PN4665
Paragraph 12, when you refer to the Skilled representative, are you referring to Ms Paul?---That is correct.
PN4666
Then you go on to say:
PN4667
As I was told to provide all documents...
PN4668
Can you tell us who told you that?---I was told by Mr Claude - I can't pronounce his last name, sir.
PN4669
Mr Claude - I will try and help you - - -
PN4670
MS PAUL: Sir, if I may, Ceccomancini.
PN4671
MR BROMBERG: Spelt C-e-c-c-o-m-a-n-c-i-n-i, is that right?---The spelling sounds pretty close to it. What happened with that is I received a call from the gentleman that you just spoke of.
PN4672
I didn't ask you anything about that. I just wanted to know who?---Well, that was who.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4673
That was who?---Yes.
PN4674
Would you then look at paragraph 19?---Yes.
PN4675
You say in the third line:
PN4676
I later used the floppy disk to develop rosters and personal files.
PN4677
When are you referring to there?---The situation, sir, was that prior to 17 November Skilled had yet to be provided with any IT systems at the Patrick site. We were still activating remotely from transportables outside. So subsequently the data was retained on the floppy disk for my own personal use.
PN4678
What date did you - - -?---I can't recall what date, there was numerous dates, sir.
PN4679
Was in November, was it in December, was it this year?---There was numerous dates, sir.
PN4680
When did you first begin using the floppy disk to develop rosters and personal files?---The first that the disk would be used would be some time late in November and has been used constantly since then.
PN4681
You say, paragraph 20:
PN4682
I later provided the Skilled representative with a working version to the XL matrix as well.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4683
Again, are we talking about Ms Paul?---In reference to the Skilled representative, sir, yes, we are.
PN4684
What do you mean by "later"? When was that provided?---I am just reading the paragraph, sir.
PN4685
Certainly?---The exact date that it was provided I am not aware of. As earlier commented, I was instructed to provide all documentation that I had in relation to Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi in the recruitment process, be it drafts, working copies, notes, everything. Subsequently put all my information together. Emailed all the electronic files, anything that I had to the Skilled representative. I believe it was some time between January and February of this year but I can't confirm the date.
PN4686
If you then turn to paragraph 43. You say, in the first line:
PN4687
I was told the MUA had told us...
PN4688
Now, can you tell me who told you that?---Yes, I can. I was instructed by Owen McKenzie.
PN4689
Did that occur on or about 15 November?---It occurred on or about 14 or 15 November.
PN4690
In paragraph 49 you say:
PN4691
I was informed Tingay and Coyle would be required to undertake the interview process.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4692
Who informed you?---Owen McKenzie.
PN4693
Now, can I then take you to your initial statement. I ask you to look at paragraph 23?---23?
PN4694
Yes. You say there that you spoke to a member of the Patrick staff, who did you speak to?
PN4695
MS PAUL: Sir was that paragraph 23?
PN4696
MR BROMBERG: 223, sorry?---223.
PN4697
Given that I have confused everyone it must have been my fault.
PN4698
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is right. Just reading this, sir. Okay. Paragraph 223, in reference to paragraph 29 and 30 of the statement is in reference to a conversation that I had with the Patrick's store manager after the selection process had been completed.
PN4699
MR BROMBERG: Just asked you who - - -?---His name was Mick Bloy, I believe.
PN4700
He is Patrick store manager?---Store manager or purchasing officer, I am not exactly sure of his title.
PN4701
Mick Boyd?---Bloy, I believe is how you pronounce it sir.
PN4702
B-l-o-y?---I am not aware of how he spells it, sir.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4703
Can I take you to paragraph 247. You see there you make references to conversations with "Lindsay, Bob and Tony". Is the "Lindsay" that you refer to Lindsay Bragg?---That is correct.
PN4704
Who was the manager with Transfield?---That is correct.
PN4705
Who is the "Bob" that you refer to?---Bob Wade.
PN4706
He is also with Transfield?---He was at the time, sir.
PN4707
The "Tony" you refer to is Tony Hocking?---That is correct.
PN4708
Employed by a subsidiary of Patricks called Lang, I think, is that right?---I believe Tony is employed by Patricks.
PN4709
By Patricks?---I believe so.
PN4710
You say you were shown around the site. You refer to "Lindsay" is that Lindsay Bragg?---That is correct.
PN4711
Tony is Tony Hocking?---That is correct.
PN4712
Brian Cole, where is he from?---Brian Cole is the General Manager of Engineering at Patricks.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4713
You see paragraph 262, you seem to indicate the contents of that paragraph, based on your belief - what is the basis of your belief, Mr Krogh? Who told you?---I am just reading the paragraph, sir. Mr Bolton made reference to that in his interview in relation to a question that was asked of him about breakdown maintenance and I believe that the answer went something to the effect that he didn't work through smoko breaks due to some industrial dispute that he was involved with Transfield at the time.
PN4714
So are you saying the contents of that paragraph are based on what Mr Bolton told you and no-one else?---That is correct, sir.
PN4715
Now, can I take you back to your supplementary witness statement and in particular to paragraph 51?---Sorry, paragraph?
PN4716
51?---Right.
PN4717
In paragraph 51 through to 59, you, as I understand you, give an explanation as to why you say the recruitment briefs were provided as part of the process of providing documents to the MUA in these proceedings?---No, I don't say that, sir. I don't say that they were provided to the MUA.
PN4718
In paragraph 51 to 59 seem to given an explanation as to why the recruitment process briefs were provided by you to the representative of Skilled?---Skilled management, sir.
PN4719
Now, what instigated you to deal with this in the further statement?---I don't understand the intent of your question, sir.
PN4720
What caused you to make a further statement as to those matters?---I was asked that question by the Skilled representative to further expand on the recruitment briefs.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4721
Were you told that or did you know that Mr Owen McKenzie had been cross-examined about those matters?---I was not aware of the contents of what Mr McKenzie was cross-examined about, sir.
PN4722
Were you told that he had been cross-examined about those matters?---I was aware that Mr McKenzie had been cross-examined in the recruitment briefs but not - - -
PN4723
On what?---On the recruitment briefs but not the content.
PN4724
Who told you that he had been cross-examined on the recruitment briefs?---I believe it was our Skilled representative.
PN4725
In that context were you told that it was likely that you would be cross-examined about the recruitment briefs and why they were produced?---I as told that I would need to provide a statement to further explain the recruitment briefs.
PN4726
Did you not ask why that was necessary?---No, I did not.
PN4727
You did not ask?---No.
PN4728
Did you not think you had given an adequate explanation of that in your initial statement?---Well, obviously not, sir. The Skilled representative asked me to provide further information. That was her job and I responded accordingly.
PN4729
Now, in relation to the selection process, you were aware that in the selection matrix that you were utilising, there are a number of criteria identified?---Yes.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4730
By that I mean criteria such as experience, work ethic, attitude, productivity, there is a list of them. You know that at the time that the selection process was being undertaken, that there was no document which explained the elements or content or intent of each of the criteria in question?---I am not aware of documents. What I am aware of is the overall definition of the contract and requirements of the Skilled contract in relation to Patricks which identified the requirements that we would need for our employees.
PN4731
Well, the answer to my question is that no, you are not aware of any document?---No, that is not what I said, sir.
PN4732
Well, can you try and answer my question. Are you aware of any document, existing at the time of the selection process, that identifies the content and elements or otherwise gave an explanation for each of the criteria in the matrix?---Well, I believe I just answered that for you, sir. I believe it was clearly outlined in the scope of the contract and the requirements that Skilled would have to undertake in regards to the Patrick contract.
PN4733
So you say - well, let me ask you, was there any document which specifically, in any fashion, identified what was meant by "attitude"?---As I have said to you, sir, the attitude - - -
PN4734
Just try and answer the question?---I am trying to do that, sir. I am trying to answer it.
PN4735
Was there any document that identified what the selection matrix meant when it talked of "attitude" as one of the criteria?---As I have said to you, sir, the documents that we were aware of at the time, clearly identified the types of attitude of the employees required for the Patricks contract. So my answer to you is, yes, the contract identified the types of attitudes, work ethic, productivity, organisational skills that they would require.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4736
Beyond the contract, you do not identify any other document?---I am not aware of any other document, sir.
PN4737
Do you suggest that the contract provided an adequate definition of each of the criteria identified in the matrix?---As I said, sir, I'm not privy to all the full scope of what was in that contract so I can't comment on that, and I don't have a copy of it with me to refer to.
PN4738
So you are not really familiar with the contract?---I'm very familiar with the scope of the contract, sir, but I don't have the contract with me to refer to.
PN4739
Are you suggesting that the contract in any way adequately identified what the skill matrix was talking about when it referred to the various criteria?---I believe there certainly is a tangible link between the two of them.
PN4740
Is there?---I believe so.
PN4741
Was the matrix, to your knowledge, created with reference to the contract in any way?---I can't comment on that, sir. I didn't develop the matrix.
PN4742
You have made two attempts to describe the content of the criteria, haven't you?---I'm unsure as to what the intent of that question is, sir.
PN4743
You have now made two attempts to describe in writing the content of each of the criteria in the skills matrix, and I specifically refer to the recruitment process briefs, and I also refer to your supplementary statement?---Well, what I have provided, sir, is a documented clarity on the understanding that myself and Mr Mackenzie had in regards to those particular criteria, so I wouldn't call it an attempt. I'd say it's a document that details our understanding.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4744
Yes, is that right?---That is correct.
PN4745
Did you do that by reference to the contractual documents?---We did it in reference to the contractual documents, also my knowledge of Patrick contracts. I also did it in reference to HR, standard HR procedures and HR standard questioning.
PN4746
Do you say that the understanding you had in relation to each of the criteria was clear?---In relation to my understanding of the criteria?
PN4747
Yes?---I believe it was.
PN4748
I don't want you to speak for Mr Mackenzie, if you don't mind, but in relation to your understanding, you think it was clear?---I believe it was clear.
PN4749
Do you accept that a label such as "attitude" might mean different things to different people?---I don't - it depends, sir, on whether or not - where you are taking the reference on attitude from. If you're taking the reference from a document source, as we were, then I'd say that, no, that I believe that attitude would mean the same to all those who read that particular document.
PN4750
What about "organisational skills"?---I would say the same, sir.
PN4751
So you think that it would mean the same to two different people as long as they were put into the context of the contents of the contract. Is that right?---What I'm saying, sir, is that if they had reference to the contents of the contract, and they had an understanding of the HR requirements in regards to organisational skills, then I'd say that the overall intent and the overall understanding of the words "organisational skills" should mean pretty much similar. There may be some slight variances but the overall intent would be very similar or should be.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4752
You say it is clear what "organisational skills" means?---Well, I believe it is.
PN4753
Could you have a look at the recruitment process brief? Your Honour will find a copy of that, for instance, behind N10. It is an attachment to Mr Clarke's statement, N10.
PN4754
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That won't be found in - - -
PN4755
MR BROMBERG: It will be in the file, yes, that I handed up to you this morning, your Honour.
PN4756
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN4757
MR BROMBERG: Now, you see, in this attempt by you to define what you understood by organisational skills, you say - under "Purpose":
PN4758
How a potential applicant presents themselves by their resume and attachments is a key indicator of organisational skills and is also considered a reflection of their general skills in organising their work areas.
PN4759
So the emphasis seems to be on the resume there, does it not?---No, it doesn't. It's one of the elements.
PN4760
The emphasis in the "purpose" paragraph is on the resume, is it not?---It's not. It is one of the elements.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4761
What other element is identified by that paragraph, please, Mr Krogh?---Certainly, sir. In that particular paragraph, and this is as to the summary, what some of the elements are there are their presentation, organisational skills of developing the documentation and how they presented that. Also their general skills in demonstrating organising the work areas which would include their work functions, teamwork, so on and so on. Punctuality, in regards to work methods, mental preparation and how they prepare themselves for these activities.
PN4762
Don't you identify the resume as a reflection of those things?---No I don't. It is one of the elements, sir.
PN4763
All right, you mean by the second paragraph to identify separate elements? Is that what you meant there?---No, no, what I have said is the purpose of the front - and I will answer the question for you - there are a number of elements there, right? And I have tried to give you or give the skilled representatives and the skilled management a general overview of what that was about. So there is a whole heap of - there is quite a number of elements in that.
PN4764
All right, you identify don't you in the "purpose" paragraph the applicant's presentation by their resume? You do that, don't you?---We do, yes.
PN4765
And you identify as an element, skills in organising work areas, punctuality and mental preparation?---Other elements.
PN4766
Yes. And then in 5.2.2 you have got the headings: Elements. You say:
PN4767
Well presented resume, trade qualifications and certificates, skilled engineering application and associated forms completed accurately and neatly.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4768
Then you say:
PN4769
Well presented resume, trade qualifications and certificates, skilled engineering application and associated forms completed accurately and neatly.
PN4770
I put to you that the emphasis in the words that you chose here was on the resume, trade qualifications and certificates and application forms being completed accurately and neatly?---Sorry, sir, I would have to disagree with you on that.
PN4771
You don't think that paragraph says that?---It says part of that, sir, and as I have already identified in paragraph 5.2.1 there are a number of other elements that were identified.
PN4772
What other elements do you say are here identified?---As I already indicated, sir, work areas, their general skills in organising the work areas, work areas and all because I mean, their work plans, job plans, a whole range of things, punctuality on tasks, mental preparation.
PN4773
Does it include an ability to work in a team?---Well, I believe it would do.
PN4774
Does it include technical knowledge?---It would depend on - in regards to this particular application, we talk about the work area so that it would - some aspect of the technical competency that they may demonstrate through there certainly could have some reflection. It depends on how they answer the particular questions.
PN4775
Don't worry about the answer. I am looking for the definition of criteria. Does it include technical competence?---Well, I think I have just explained that to you, sir.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4776
You say it does?---What I said to you was, I said it depends on what of the technical question you are asking in regards to - if you are asking about how they may manage their day to day work activity in regards to the technical aspects of their job, of course it does. If you are asking how they fix a particular piece of equipment, of course it doesn't.
PN4777
Does it include a capacity to implement organisational change programs?---Well it can do. Of course it can do.
PN4778
Can do?---Can do.
PN4779
But it doesn't say that here does it, in the definition?---It talks about the mental preparation.
PN4780
Does it?---Yes, well, paragraph 5.2.1 does, mental preparation.
PN4781
Mental preparation. By mental preparation, we should read into that, that what was intended here was to refer to a capacity to implement organisational change programs?---It was an understanding of the - - -
PN4782
No, just tell me whether it is right or wrong, that we should read into the word "mental preparation" - - -?---Mental preparation - - -
PN4783
Let me finish the question. Should we read into the reference to mental preparation an intent to include a candidate's capacity to implement organisational change programs?---What you should - - -
PN4784
Should we?---No, the answer to the question, sir, is that what you should read into that is a person's ability to communicate their mental preparation and their mental aptitude to accept a number of things and organisational change would be one of them.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4785
What about a capacity to provide leadership? Should we also read that into the definition that you here - - -?---Well, if you are talking - - -
PN4786
Wait for my question please. Should we also read that into the definition that you here purported to provide for organisational skills?---If you look at organising the work areas, that may mean organising their particular work-mates. It may mean - may cover that as well.
PN4787
Yes?---So if a gentleman - if the individual under organisational skills was demonstrating some ability in their work areas and that may mean organising work flow, it could cover that.
PN4788
What about providing quality customer service? Should we read that into this as well?---Well, if you have got good organisational skills, sir, then obviously you are providing a quality service.
PN4789
Really what you are saying is, into the element of "organisational skills" we could include almost every characteristic an employee might have?---But what you are saying, sir, is that under organisational skills is that if you have someone that has strong organisational skills and ability, it should certainly cover a wide range of the attributes that one person could demonstrate in regards to their career, yes.
PN4790
So that in relation to organisational skills and in marking a person's organisational skills, you would have taken into account their attitude to leadership, their attitude to change of management?---I would have taken into consideration what they communicate in regards to their ability to achieve that.
PN4791
Do you take into account their attitude?---No, because there is another section on attitude, sir.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4792
I see, well, does that section not cover attitude to change?---In reference to what, sir?
PN4793
Does the criteria "attitude" not cover attitude to change, workplace change?---Part of the attitude criteria will cover often the person's attitude to the change management process.
PN4794
All right. So both organisational skills and the criteria of "attitude" overlap in relation to organisational change?---To answer your question, sir, there is no specific criteria that you can put barriers and fences up that say that they lock in. It depends on a personal example, a person's answer. I can give you an example that would answer your question a little bit better. For instance - and I can't refer to which gentleman it was - we asked him a specific question regards to breakdown maintenance and in that question, through his answer he provided us an example of how he attended a breakdown on a particular straddle and through that process, he then diverted into telling us that he had some conflict in regards to the driver, that the operations people were ringing him and there was some pressure going on. Through that he demonstrated a very, very good understanding of conflict resolution, customer service but the question we were asking about was breakdown maintenance. It was a technical question. So when he came to the question on his conflict resolution skills and that particular area of the criteria, he really didn't provide a very solid answer in that area but what we looked at was, because he had provided such a sound argument prior to that and an example in regards to how he had managed the process in the straddle breakdown situation, we took that into consideration because we felt that if we didn't take that into consideration we would be unfair to him because he actually provided a very good example of conflict resolution, a very good example. So you can't - the whole process, sir, is a global process.
PN4795
How does that help us to understand?---Well, it helps you understand, sir, that there is a cross-pollination between all the criteria. All the criteria feed in.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4796
I see, all right. Well, if there is a cross-pollination between all of the criteria, what you are really saying is that they are impossible of specific definition?---No, I am not saying that at all, sir. What I am saying is that each individual question, right, is that when you ask a specific question, it may cover off on a number of the criteria. The criteria quite clear - - -
PN4797
I am not asking you about the questions, I am asking you about criteria. You scored answers to questions by reference to criteria. I am asking you about the definitions to each of the criteria that you utilised and what you are telling me as I put to you, is that organisational skills may mean a lot of different things, depending on as you say in your evidence, the nature of the answer?---It means the organisational skills definition has been clarified but how an individual answers that and what examples and responses he provides, may target a number of different areas. So he may give us an example in regards to very strong organisational skills in organising work flows.
PN4798
Would you have a look at paragraph 33 of your statement, your supplementary statement please? See, you say in the first part of that paragraph under (i) Organisational Skills - does your Honour have that, paragraph 33:
PN4799
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN4800
MR BROMBERG: This meant we were looking for:
PN4801
A learned power of doing something competently, a developed aptitude or ability.
PN4802
(ii) To set up a structure and modernise resources.
PN4803
(iii) Demonstrate an ability to provide leadership to a team during periods of organisational change.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4804
(iv) Experience in developing and implementing organisational change programs.
PN4805
(v) Effective organisational and administrative ability and a demonstrated ability to work in a team.
PN4806
See that? Do you see that?---I don't see what said in (ii), sir. Mine says: to set up a structure that maximises resources.
PN4807
I'm sorry, it looks like "modernise" but you say it is "maximise", is it?---That's what mine says.
PN4808
All right, my copy is a little bit fudged. All right, apart from that change do you see that that is what your statement seeks there to define organisational skills to mean?---That's correct.
PN4809
Yes. I put it to you that it does not set out any of the elements that you specifically identified in the recruitment brief, for instance: well presented resume, trade qualifications and certificates, Skilled Engineering application and associated forms completed accurately and neatly. It does not refer to any of that, does it?---It does. I'm happy to run through it if you like.
PN4810
You want to tell us that it inferentially refers to those things, do you?---I said, sir, I'm happy to run through and explain it if you like.
PN4811
Is your answer to that, you want to say that it does not specifically refer but it inferentially refers?---Sir, the words that I would use is I believe that both of those definitions compliment each other.
PN4812
What I put to you, Mr Krogh, is that you have defined organisational skills in a very different manner in the two documents in question?---I've already said, sir, that I don't agree with that.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4813
You don't agree with that. Which definition that you have provided was the one utilised? Was it the definition in the recruitment brief or was it the definition in your supplementary statement?---As I've already said, sir, both of them compliment each other, so they both take party to how the process went on.
PN4814
Were they both known to Mr McKenzie?---I can't comment on what Mr McKenzie knew and what he didn't know, sir.
PN4815
Well, certainly so far as you are aware, those were not known to Mr McKenzie?---I can't comment on what Mr McKenzie knew, sir.
PN4816
You didn't tell him that these were the definitions?---No, I didn't tell him what the definitions were.
PN4817
Right. He has not told you that he knew these to be the definitions?---Mr McKenzie communicated these attributes.
PN4818
Just listen to the question. Did he tell you that these definitions set out in the documents that I have taken you, your recruitment brief and paragraph 33 of your supplementary statement, were his understanding of the definition for organisational skills?---If you're asking me did Mr McKenzie - I'm just trying to understand the question.
PN4819
Did he tell you that?---Well, I'm trying to understand your question, sir.
PN4820
Did he tell you that that was his understanding?---If you're asking me, sir, if Mr McKenzie said this verbatim as documented here - - -
PN4821
Yes?--- - - - the answer is no. If you're asking me did Mr McKenzie - - -
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4822
That is all I'm asking you?---He didn't say it verbatim.
PN4823
Right. I put it to you that if we do a similar exercise in relation to almost all of the criteria you have identified in your selection matrix and compare it with the identification and definitions given in your recruitment brief, that will find that you have used very different language and identified different elements?---I'm happy to go through the process. Without going through the process I'd have to disagree with you.
PN4824
All right. Let us take experience as the next one?---What paragraph are you referring to, sir.
PN4825
Would you have a look at 5.4 of the recruitment brief. You see an element you have identified is exposure to new technology?---Can I just have a read, sir? Yes, I see that.
PN4826
I don't see any reference to new technology in (iv) of your paragraph 33 in your supplementary statement, do you?---I'll just have a read of that, sir. Paragraph 1, sir, refers to new technology:
PN4827
In relation to high level -
PN4828
high level means normally increased technology under engineering definitions -
PN4829
problem-solving skills and the ability - - -
PN4830
Sorry, high level problem-solving skills refers, you say, to exposure to new technology, does it?---That's my understanding of it, sir.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4831
Is it?---Yes. I've been in engineering for 22 years and aviation and mainstream engineering, production engineering. You have base line, you have common level. High level normally refers to of a high-base technology.
PN4832
Does not high level refer to a high level or high capacity of problem solving?---No, it can refer to a number of things, sir.
PN4833
It can refer to a number of things, can it?---It can refer to a number of things. In an engineering aspect high level normally refers to equivalent that is of a technical nature.
PN4834
Does it?---Well, that's my training, sir.
PN4835
Is all new technology necessarily high level?---It depends on what you're talking about in regards to technology. If you're talking about a tap washer which is new technology then it wouldn't be high level. If you're talking about a NIFA system that guides aircraft on to remote runways, then that is high technology.
PN4836
You agree with me that there is no express reference to exposure to new technology but you read that into the phrase, "high level problem solving skills"?---No, I don't agree there's no reference. I said that I - - -
PN4837
I said, you agree that there is no express reference to exposure to new technology?---No, I don't agree to it. They are not the words that I would use, sir.
PN4838
Well, can you take me to where you have expressly referred to the phrase, "exposure to new technology" in the paragraph we are looking at?---Are you asking where I wrote verbatim, is that what you are asking me, sir?
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4839
Yes, where you expressly refer to it?---I expressly refer to it in paragraph 1.
PN4840
Where do you use the phrase, "exposure to new technology"?---I use the phrase in recruitment brief and if you are asking me on the other side, I don't use that particular phrase, I use a phrase of a similar nature and these documents are not meant to be verbatim.
PN4841
Trade related courses, do you use that phrase anywhere in paragraph 33(iv) of your supplementary witness statement?---As I've already said, sir, the two documents were not referenced verbatim. There would be no - - -
PN4842
No, no, just answer my question. Do you use that phrase verbatim in the paragraph?---There's no verbatim in that paragraph, sir.
PN4843
Thank you. Do you suggest that there is a reference to the element, trade related courses in that paragraph?---I would, sir, but we would have to disagree on that interpretation but I do believe it is in the supplementary statement.
PN4844
Where? Can you tell me where?---I can guide you to that, sir, yes.
PN4845
Including the ability of obtain and interpret information and make specific recommendations.
PN4846
So we should read the words, "ability to obtain and interpret information and make specific recommendations" as being a reference to whether or not the candidate had engaged in trade related courses. Is that what you are telling us?---What I'm saying to you, sir, is that the document here was for the purpose of the interviewers and that was our understanding of it, yes. What your interpretation of the reading - - -
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4847
No, no, try and answer the question?---I'm trying to - - -
PN4848
The document here referred to was never before the interviewers. You have agreed with me that there was no such document in existence. Now, I'm asking you the question. Are you saying to us that looking at the definition you have given in your supplementary witness statement and specifically the words that appear in the small number 1:
PN4849
Including the ability to obtain and interpret information.
PN4850
Are you saying that that phrase should be read to mean that trade related courses are an element of the definition?---They would be my words. That is exactly how I would put it, as I've got it there.
PN4851
Do you understand that - no, no, I withdraw that question. All right. I'm not going to take you to every attempt you have made to put a definition to each of these categories or criteria, Mr Krogh, but I put to you so that you can, if you want, respond that across each of the criteria and each of the definitions you have identified in your witness statement, there is little or no consistency with the definitions you have provided in the recruitment brief?---As I said, sir, on record I would disagree with your assumptions.
PN4852
Do you continue to disagree with the proposition I put to you before that these criteria labels - attitude, work ethic, organisational skills etcetera - could mean different things to different people?---No, I don't agree seeing that is in the context of the answer that I gave prior to your prior question.
PN4853
All right. Your evidence is that in relation to the scoring process, each question and response was discussed and scored prior to moving to the next question - sorry, I will start again. Each question and response was discussed in relation to criteria then scored prior to moving to the next question and response. I want you to tell me how that occurred?---Would you like me to run through the process? Is that what you are asking?
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4854
Yes, yes?---Yes, certainly. The process was - from the start, sir, would you like that?
PN4855
No, no?---Where would you like me - - -
PN4856
The interviewers had got together, the interview is finished, the panel has got together, you are now scoring?---Okay. So we are at the candidate has walked out the door. Is that where we are at at the moment? That is a point of - - -
PN4857
Yes, yes?---Okay. Whoever has had to particularly train a particular interview, be it myself or Mr McKenzie or whoever else did it, Mr McKenzie, myself were ones that entered the data into the laptop. We would then go through - and I may, if I may use the example to yourself, sir, I might say if you were part of the selection process, I might say: okay, sir, what was your view on his attitude and responses? You may give me your examples and you may be the HR person. So you will give me your responses in regards to attitude from an engineering and technical perspective being the engineer. I would comment and if the skill representative was the HR person, we would go through the process. We would then have a look at what examples they provided and it may, as I've already said to you, the process was a global process, a cross pollination between a number of professions and depending where the candidates had gone and the responses, we would then comment on that. Then we would give them a relevant score based on an overall summation of what we felt at the time. They were done immediately after the new processes had been completed.
PN4858
So what - you did not in any way score the answer to each of the questions in the interview work sheet, is that what you are saying?---I'm not following your question, sorry, sir.
PN4859
You know that there were some 23 or so sections to an interview work sheet that you say you followed in the interview?---Yes.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4860
Are you telling us that you did not score the answer to each of those questions?---No, I didn't score - I didn't score each question, if that is what you're asking?
PN4861
Yes?---Is that what you're asking, sir?
PN4862
Yes, it is?---No, I did not score each individuals question, no.
PN4863
So what you did was you scored each criteria?---Criteria, that is correct, the criteria.
PN4864
So far as at paragraph 169?---Of?
PN4865
Of your witness statement?---Yes, I will just refer to that.
PN4866
You say each question response was discussed in relation to the criteria then scored prior to moving to the next question in response?---I believe there was an amendment to that this morning, sir, where - - -
PN4867
Yes, I've given you the amendment. You amended it by putting the words, "in relation to the criteria". That sentence is wrong, isn't it?---Could you read it back to me again, please?
PN4868
Well, have a look at paragraph 169?---I will just take a moment to read that.
PN4869
It is the sentence that starts:
PN4870
Each question or response was discussed -
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4871
You added the words, "in relation to the criteria" and the sentence goes on to say -
PN4872
then scored prior to moving to the next question and response.
PN4873
?---I will just read the paragraph, sir. Your question on 169, sir, is?
PN4874
What I'm suggesting to you is that the sentence I've read to you is wrong?---If you are referring to, "prior to moving to the next question", that should have been amended as to the other one and that should have been, "criteria", that is correct.
PN4875
Yes. You didn't score questions, you just scored criteria?---That is correct. That is what I've said.
PN4876
Thank you. I've noticed though that many of the work sheets do contain scoring next to the - in the column headed: Score?---You would be referencing what, sir?
PN4877
If you have a look at - I'm referring, your Honour, to N13, and in N13, your Honour, there is an interview work sheet for Mr Mark Szegedi and it is in the tab for Mr Szegedi. Do you have N13 there?---Yes.
PN4878
All right. Would you go - do you see there is about half the way in, there is an interview work sheet?---Yes.
PN4879
Your Honour, in fact there is two.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4880
I take it there is two because two different panel members would have filled one in each, is that right?---All panel members did have these documents in front of them, depending on who was chairing and who was asking the questions at the particular point of when you write, that it was always described at the time when you overrode the process, yes.
PN4881
You said to me that the questions weren't scored?---What I said to you, sir, the questions weren't scored in relation to the criteria. That is what I said to you, sir.
PN4882
I'm sorry, you said what?---The questions were not scored as per the criteria. What I said is the questions were looked together as a global.
PN4883
So what you are saying is that the questions weren't scored by reference to the criteria?---No, what I'm saying to you, sir, is that the scoring on a particular question - you asked me a question about scoring questions.
PN4884
Yes?---And was that score entered into the matrix in regard to the criteria and I said: no, it wasn't, is that the questions were put together as a group and then they are covered over with the criteria. That's what I said.
PN4885
Questions were put together as a group and that is what?---Okay. I will start again. You asked me the question, I believe, whether or not questions were scored and entered into the criteria.
PN4886
No, I asked you the question as to whether or not the evidence in your statement is correct where you say, each question and response was discussed in relation to the criteria, then scored prior to moving to the next question and response?---That's what I said. I said to you that each question was discussed and the score that was applied was, it could have been a number of questions and it was applied to that particular criteria that we were discussing at the time when I agreed with you in paragraph 169, then reference. It should refer to criteria, the criteria was scored. That was the global score that was used. Sorry, sir, I'm not making myself clear.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4887
Yes, and you are saying that that - - -
PN4888
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I wouldn't invite another explanation, thanks, Mr Krogh.
PN4889
MR BROMBERG: You are saying that that process was clear to you and so far as you believe clear to everybody else that participated?---Mm.
PN4890
All right. You see in the interview work sheets - and I will go through both of them - you see there is a column score out of 10?---Yes.
PN4891
In relation to the first question, the second question I should say, there is a typed in number 10. In relation to the next, there is typed in 2235 and you see there are some numbers written in in hand on that page in the score column?---Yes, I see that.
PN4892
Yes, and then in particular if we go across to the next work sheet, again we have got the same - - -?---The new work sheet for the next - are you going to the new one, sir?
PN4893
I'm going to the second work sheet that is there in the exhibit?---Okay. So the first one is the completed one and then we are going to the second one?
PN4894
We are going to the second one. It seems to have been completed by a different person in different handwriting?---Yes, sir.
PN4895
You will see again in this case, there are typed in scores but no written scores on the first page. In relation to the question 7, a score 5 and 5 seems to be circled and then if you go over the page to the third page, you will see the number 6?---8 and 7, yes.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4896
Yes, 6, 8, 7. Over the next page, 18, there seems to be an okay in relation to the first three questions, then a number 10 on the question of team work and leadership, then a number 8 on the question of health and safety. It seems that somebody did score the questions, isn't it?---It would appear that someone has put some numbers in there, yes.
PN4897
Can you explain what possible purpose that would have had, given what you say was the scoring process?---Well, quite simply, sir, as I said, each individual that was - each individual interviewers had these sheets provided to them. So I would draw the assumption that whoever did these particular sheets may have assessed that particular question at that rating as a prompt for the discussion process. So whoever did - say, if you draw on, I believe it is - let us say we draw on - if we go to page 3, the one that you just referred me to.
PN4898
Yes?---You say let us just pick the top one, did not hit it off with someone. Whoever did that particular comment, they may have rated that person sitting around the 6 mark, that would be my assumption and then they would have explained that through the discussion process.
PN4899
I see, so you say that what has been done here is ad hoc, not part of the process at all?---No, I didn't say it was ad hoc, they are not my words.
PN4900
It is not part of the scoring process?---I'm just following your question.
PN4901
Well, was it or was it not part of the scoring process?---If you are asking me, did all three sheets get the scores and they were added up and divided by three, no, that is not correct. That didn't happen.
PN4902
Why did the questionnaire call for a score?---I didn't develop the questionnaires, sir.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4903
All right. Well, let me finish my question. You say the process didn't call for each question to be scored individually, yet it looks as though the questionnaire did call for each question to be scored. Do you see that?---I can see.
PN4904
Can you explain what that is so?---I didn't develop the questionnaires, sir.
PN4905
You can't explain it?---I didn't develop the questionnaires, sir.
PN4906
By the way - - -
PN4907
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not the direct answer to the question. Can you explain it or can you not?---Regards to the scores? No, I don't know the answer, sir.
PN4908
All right.
PN4909
MR BROMBERG: By the way, scores of 6, 7, 8, 10 are out of 10, you regard to be adequate if not good?---Well, you went from 6 to 10. So obviously 10 is a lot better than 6.
PN4910
Yes. Well, 10 is excellent, isn't it?---Well, you don't get much higher than 10. That is as high as we went.
PN4911
And 8, pretty good, isn't it?---I think if you got 8, you did well. I wouldn't disagree with you.
PN4912
And 6 is - - -?---6 is getting down because remembering 4 is your null point.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4913
I'm sorry, 4 is your what?---4 is your null point.
PN4914
What does that mean?---Basically 4 is your - basically null meaning that it is a zero line of really no commitment, no understanding of the type of question, 3 is going into - - -
PN4915
Four is a fail?---No, there is no such thing as a fail, sir. There was a 1 to 10, 3 being the provided negative responses, 2 is sort of um'd and ah'd, basically he got a point for fronting up.
PN4916
Well, 6 is?---Better than 5.
PN4917
Better than 5, good?---It is not as good as 7 and 8.
PN4918
That is not what I asked you. Does it equate to it being good?---Well, it's hard where you are equating it because I don't know what you are comparing it to.
PN4919
All right. The work sheet that we have been looking at, Mr Krogh, reflects, does it not, the scoring of Mr Szegedi's interview?---Yes.
PN4920
What I want to put to you is that whoever it was in the panel who scored Mr Szegedi seems to have had a largely positive impression of Mr Szegedi by reference to the marking that we see on the document?---In relation to that particular question?
PN4921
In relation to each of the questions that are scored?---If I just can take a moment of your time, just go through that, if that is okay with you, sir. It would appear, in relation to the questions that were marked that whoever marked these, felt that Mr Szegedi answered those particular questions in a positive manner.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4922
Yes. In fact, did very well on a question about health and safety, seems to have got an 8 for the health and safety question, did very well on team work and leadership, seems to have got a 10 on that criteria. Do you see that?---I see that.
PN4923
All right.
PN4924
HIS HONOUR: I might take the adjournment at that point.
PN4925
MR BROMBERG: Thank you, your Honour.
PN4926
HIS HONOUR: I adjourn until 2 pm.
LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [1.04pm]
RESUMED [2.05pm]
PN4927
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Bromberg?
PN4928
MR BROMBERG: Thank you, your Honour.
PN4929
Mr Krogh, you say in your evidence that there was a scoring criteria that you and Mr McKenzie had in your head in the selection process to apply to the answers that were given in interviews?---Yes, that is correct.
PN4930
All right. Can you tell me the scoring criteria for a mark of six?---Yes, I can. The criteria overall - sorry, six, yes.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4931
Your Honour, but before you do - it might assist your Honour if, whilst the witness is giving the evidence, your Honour has a look at exhibit N1. I don't want you to look at it for obvious reasons.
PN4932
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: N1?
PN4933
MR BROMBERG: N1, your Honour. It is headed: Scoring Criteria.
PN4934
MS PAUL: Sir, that would actually probably be in the bundle of the folder that - - -
PN4935
MR BROMBERG: Yes, it will be in the folder that - - -
PN4936
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I have N1.
PN4937
MR BROMBERG: I will start the question again.
PN4938
Your evidence is that the scoring criteria was in your head, it wasn't on a document. I want you to tell us, what is the scoring criteria for a mark of six?---Yes, I can. There were four key areas that were assessed. One being self improvement or self ideas, one being examples, one being responses, one being level of commitment. Six in comparison to number seven, the - - -
PN4939
No, just tell me what six is please?---Well, you have to compare to seven because it goes down in stages.
PN4940
Well, I want you to - you have identified a criteria for the mark six, can you tell us what it is?---Yes. Basically six, very few of the desired responses were given. There was no demonstrated level of commitment. In regard, some of the responses that were given actually seemed to ad lib a little bit and lack clarity and there was very little examples or very little communication level of examples given.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4941
Right. Now, tell us the difference between five and six?---Five?
PN4942
Yes?---Basically, is reduction in examples. Basically, very similar to six but really no examples given. So there was a level of understanding there but really wasn't clearly communicated in regards to - there was no level of commitment. Their answers lacked - seemed to lack a lot of clarity. Their responses were a bit iffy. There was no indication of any demonstration that they had provided improvement ideas in regards to the particular criteria. Five was the examples were probably nearly next to nothing.
PN4943
So what is the distinction between five and six? What is the point of difference?---Between five and six?
PN4944
Yes?---There's a commitment.
PN4945
Commitment you say?---Of committing the examples.
PN4946
Okay. What about the point of distinction between six and four?---Four is your null point, sir.
PN4947
Yes. What is the point of distinction between four and six?---Well, the distinction basically is really there was nothing there from them at all. They attempted to answer the question. They didn't provide negative responses as three would indicate. Three is actually negative responses where we may be looking for a particular type of response and they actually said, response of 180 to the type of response. So four sort of - they attempted to answer but they really weren't on the criteria at all but they had a genuine attempt at the particular question.
PN4948
Do you say there is?---Sorry?
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4949
Do you say there is a point of difference between the criteria you applied for a mark of six and a mark of four?---Yes, I do.
PN4950
What is the differential?---Well, six you have got some examples. You have got some responses. Four, you got basically no responses, no examples, no demonstrated commitment to the criteria and really, definitely no self-improvement ideas communicated.
PN4951
You say in your evidence that for some responses given by Mr Szegedi, you thought he deserved a zero and you would have marked him a zero but you didn't because you decided to give him an average mark. What is the criteria for zero?---Where I said - can you refer me to the particular clause in the statement please, sir?
PN4952
Now, paragraph 89, you say:
PN4953
Based on what Mark had said during the interview it was very difficult to rate him well and in fact it was likely he should have scored a zero for some of the answers.
PN4954
What is the criteria for zero?---89, did you say?
PN4955
89?---Thank you. What that was in reference to is some of the questions - - -
PN4956
No, no. I'm asking you what is the criteria for zero?---There was no criteria for zero.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4957
I see. Well, how could you have said that he should have scored a zero if there was not a criteria for zero?---Because what I was saying in that and the intent of that paragraph, sir, was to say that Mark just didn't want to be there. He clearly demonstrated that to us and in reality, you can't score anybody if he does not turn up for an interview and that was the impression that Mark had given us on some of those particular subjects that we questioned him on. He was not even at the interview.
PN4958
Yes, but why did you use zero as the bottom of the scale when there was not a zero?---There is no particular reference to that so there is no particular reason why he is zero. It was used in here as an example that basically, Mark, on some of those particular questions, may not have even been there. That is the impression he gave. There is no reference to zero in the scale.
PN4959
But there is in your evidence, is the point I am making?---Yes, and I understand that.
PN4960
Yes. All right?---But he didn't score a zero in anything.
PN4961
Now, did you score any candidates that you did not interview?---Yes, I did, sir.
PN4962
Which candidates were they?---There will be Mr Lampton and Mr Byrnes.
PN4963
Yes. Now, having not interviewed them, you would not have had any opportunity to gauge first-hand any of the responses they gave to any of the questions asked?---That is correct.
PN4964
Whilst the process that you describe at paragraph 9 and 10 of your witness statement where you say that panels would meet and discuss the candidate's performance and then there would be - then you or Owen would put the score against the question for the candidate. It is clear, isn't it, from your last answer, that that panel process involving either you or Owen, did not occur across the whole of the selection process?---In relation to the two individuals you have mentioned, so that is correct.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4965
Yes. Is there any reason why that wasn't in the recruitment brief? Why that wasn't noted in the recruitment brief?---In relation to what, sir?
PN4966
Is there any reason why, when you set out the process in the recruitment brief as you have, you did not mention that the process that you there set out, including the panel discussion and the scoring, did not apply to Mr Lampton and Mr Byrne?---The recruitment process you refer to, sir, they were - as I said - a generic document for Skilled management and our Skilled representative to provide an overview of the process taking into consideration that Fishermen Islands is one of many sites that Skilled actually has and that was an overview of the process from an internal perspective. It was an internal document.
PN4967
It wasn't intended to be accurate?---It is intended to be a reflection of the process as it was designed and as it was implemented and specifically, we annotated those. If you were asking me if I was to do the same recruitment briefs to Mr Lampton and Mr Byrnes, there would be comments made in the recruitment briefs in relation to that.
PN4968
Please answer my question. If it was intended to be accurate, why didn't it note that in relation to Mr Byrne and Mr Lampton, the ordinary process wasn't followed at all?---Well, it was an accurate assumption - summary, sorry - of the events.
PN4969
How could it be an accurate summary if it left out the fact that two of the candidates were not put through the same process?---Well, the two candidates, as you are referring to, were interviewed by Annette Law. They were not assessed by the total panel. That is correct. But I attended a debriefing - - -
PN4970
Well, please answer my question. How can you say that it was an accurate summary of the process when it does not - when it neglects to tell us that two of the candidates didn't go through the process that you described in the brief?---Well, I say it is an accurate summary of the process.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4971
Why is it that in your statement you didn't tell us that the process that you set out in paragraphs 9 and 10 didn't apply to Mr Byrne and Mr - - -?---Well, at the - - -
PN4972
Just let me finish the question. Mr Byrne and Mr Lamington?---Lampton.
PN4973
Lampton, yes. Why didn't you tell us about that?---I could see no relevance in that particular part.
PN4974
Because you didn't think it important, is that right?---No, I didn't say that. I didn't see that relevant to the case at hand.
PN4975
I see. Well, am I wrong when I say - interpreting your words, that you didn't think it important?---No, I said I didn't see it was relevant.
PN4976
Now, the selection process involved a number of employees competing for six positions of electricians. I can't remember the total number, but eight or nine?---There's a total work-force of 15, sir.
PN4977
Yes, I know, but - - -?---Okay.
PN4978
You were choosing six electricians?---Six electricians, that is correct.
PN4979
Yes. And you were choosing six fitters?---That is correct.
PN4980
Okay. Now, the aim of the process according to what I understand is your evidence, was to choose the six highest scoring candidates who were electricians and put them into the electrical positions and similarly, to choose the six highest scoring fitters and put them into the fitter positions. Is that right?---That is the end result, yes, sir.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4981
So what we had was, a competition between a number of electricians. I can't remember the total number. It might have been eight or nine?---No, I don't know either.
PN4982
For six electrical positions. Do you agree with that?---Yes, sir.
PN4983
A competition between, I think, nine or 10 fitters for six fitter positions?---That would be correct. That is right.
PN4984
Now, would you agree with me that in that process, the fair thing to do would be to compare apples with apples and compare electricians with electricians and fitters with fitters?---Can you just repeat the question. Sorry, I just missed that, sorry.
PN4985
Yes. Do you agree that in the sort of competition we are talking about, it would be fair to limit the comparison if we are talking about the electrical positions as between electricians and to limit the comparison if we are talking about fitter positions as between fitters?---I'm really sorry. I'm sorry. I apologise for that.
PN4986
That is all right. I will put it differently. Do you agree that you were trying to choose the best six electricians?---Yes, that is correct.
PN4987
In that process and in order to effectuate that process fairly, what you should have done is compare electricians with electricians?---Well, that is what we did do.
PN4988
Yes, and similarly with fitters. A fair process would have compared fitters with fitters?---That is correct.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN4989
Not at all - a fair process would not at all have, in any way, compared fitters with electricians?---For the same position that - - -
PN4990
Yes?---Yes, that is correct. Yes, I agree.
PN4991
Now, when you took the raw scores and you started them?---Well, the actual scale of them?
PN4992
Yes. What the computer did was identify an average, didn't it, as part of the scaling process?---As part of the scaling process, it did, that is correct.
PN4993
Yes. So that if say we take experience as a criteria, what it did, was identified an average mark across all candidates in relation to experience?---That is correct.
PN4994
That average would have been an average across electricians?---Yes.
PN4995
Fitters?---Yes. Storemen.
PN4996
Storemen?---Yes.
PN4997
Administrative person?---No, we didn't.
PN4998
You didn't include the - the maintenance supervisor?---Yes, sir.
PN4999
Yes. So the scaling being utilised then took that average and used it as a comparator with the raw score that was given to every individual for every criteria and then identified a scale score. A score referable to an average?---In summary, that is pretty close to it, yes. I would have to go back to the actual make-up of the formula.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5000
Well, the formula is in the - you have conveniently put it in the recruitment briefs, haven't you?---Yes. That is correct, yes.
PN5001
Yes, it is there and that is essentially what it says, isn't it?---I would have to reference - but I think you are right, sir.
PN5002
Now, why, when you were trying to get an average score - I'm sorry, I will start again. Why, when you scaled the scores for an electrician which the process did - - -?---Yes.
PN5003
- - - did you take into account the average score for not only electricians but for fitters, maintenance supervisors and storepersons?---Okay. The actual make-up of the selection matrix and the scale matrix - I think you are aware that obviously I had no role in the development of that, so subsequently I can't answer the logic behind the development of that particular process. What I can say to you though in relation to the parts that I'm aware of - that is that in specific electricians in regards to taking the aptitude and the aptitude speed which is part of that process that you have talked about, they actually undertook their own individual-type specific examinations which were separate to and different to the fitters. So there was a difference in regards to that but those scores - yes, you are correct - were added in the one spreadsheet.
PN5004
You see, when I look at the scale scores and the raw scores, there are a lot of figures that are very different. Sometimes you see an eight in the raw score that translates to a six in the scale score?---Yes, that is right.
PN5005
Sometimes you see a four in the raw score that translates to a negative one in the scale score, just to give some examples?---No, no - and you are right.
PN5006
Yes. Now, the difference between the two is because the raw score has been compared to an average?---That is correct.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5007
Taking your aptitude test as an example?---Yes, please.
PN5008
An electrician who scored an eight as a raw score on the aptitude test, okay, that score would then have been compared by your system to an average, not the average of the scores of the electricians on the electrical test but an average of all employees, the whole range of trades, in relation to a number of different tests?---That is correct.
PN5009
Can you give us any idea as to why that should occur? Can you give us any basis as to explain why, in a system designed to fairly select individuals, one would utilise that system?---Okay. As I said to you before, sir, I can't explain and give you the details about how it was developed. I can only comment in the respect that a fair majority of the criteria that are sitting in that selection matrix are generic to all of the fitters, regardless of whether or not you were a floor sweeper or a cleaner, you could achieve exactly the same results through the interview process. The only disparity would be between - as you quite correctly annotated - is when you actually sat down and actually did their aptitude testing and that would be the only disparity that one could draw the conclusion on. But the reason that that was done, I can't answer that. I can't answer because I didn't develop it.
PN5010
Well, you are not right, are you, in suggesting that aptitude is the only cause for concern because what I'm putting to you is, across every criteria, the average was made referable not to the average electrician, if we are testing electricians, but to the average of all the candidates across all the trades?---Yes and I understand what you are saying.
PN5011
You understand what I'm saying?---I understand what you are saying and what I'm saying in response to that is that all the electricians and all the fitters had the same opportunity to achieve the same raw scores in some of those criteria that you have mentioned.
PN5012
Yes. I understand that but that is not responsive to my question, is it?---Sorry. Well, I am trying to respond to your question the best possible way I can.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5013
Thank you. Now, do you agree that in a fair selection process, it is important to ask all candidates the same questions?---It is important to ask all candidates the questions of the same intent, yes, sir.
PN5014
Well, questions that - no, no, please answer my questions. Do you agree that it is important that you ask them the same questions?---No, I do not.
PN5015
All right. So you say it is okay to ask different questions?---What I say is that it is okay to ask candidates questions phrased or worded in a different manner that have the same intent.
PN5016
So is it your evidence that it is okay that a fair system should ask all candidates substantially the same questions without necessarily using exactly the same words? Is that what you are saying?---Yes, sir.
PN5017
Now, you were instructed, were you not, to follow the format of the interview worksheets?---That is correct.
PN5018
Are you aware, for instance, that the interview worksheet, does not ask any question that specifically refers to workplace reform?---To workplace what?
PN5019
Reform?---I will just reference back if it is okay.
PN5020
Yes?---Thank you.
PN5021
Can I ask you this question? Without looking at the documents, do you have any recollection as to whether the worksheets refer to any questions specifically addressing workplace reform?---I can't recall.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5022
You can't recall. All right?---No, that is why I'm looking.
PN5023
Well, can I tell you, and counsel will no doubt help you if I'm putting the questions incorrectly, I can find no express reference to workplace reform in any questions in the interview sheet. What I'm putting to you is that there is no express reasons in the worksheets to workplace reform, or a change process?---I've actually found the documents, sir, so I will just sort of flick through.
PN5024
Yes?---Do you mind?
PN5025
All right?---Thank you. Your question is - would you mind repeating it, please?
PN5026
I'm putting a statement to you that I'm asking you to agree with. There is no express reference in the questions in the interview sheet to workplace reform, or workplace change?---There's no specific question in that interview sheet in relation to the subject that you have just placed.
PN5027
Did you leave the script and ask questions about workplace reform?---No, we didn't.
PN5028
You didn't?---Didn't leave the script.
PN5029
No. All right. All right, close that, if you don't mind?---Sorry.
PN5030
Well, perhaps, before you do, is there a question in the worksheet requiring electricians to explain what they would do if they were called to a crane which was tripped with a limit fault. Is there a question of that sort anywhere in the worksheet, to your understanding?---It is my understanding that there is a question in there about technical competency. I will just flick back to it, excuse me.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5031
Page 3, Electrical Problem Solving - is that what you had in mind?---Page 3, a number 11 next to it.
PN5032
Yes?---Is one of them - is one area where that question could have been asked, and I can't specifically say where that question was asked, and it also could deal with the break-down maintenance as well.
PN5033
I want to know where in the worksheet it is suggested that a question about attending a crane which is tripped out a limit fault - where do I find that question?---You won't find that probation in the interview questionnaire here.
PN5034
No, well, where will I find a question about a fault in a crane for an electrician to answer?---You will find it, if you attend an interview.
PN5035
I see. So you did ask questions in the interview that are not in the worksheet?---We asked - as I said to you before, we asked questions of intent, and then further to that we expanded on certain topics to gauge a person's individual strengths and weaknesses. So if someone expressed to me some strength in PLC programming with the interfacing side-track, that would be a very relevant question to ask.
PN5036
Why didn't you ask the electricians the question about a fault with a level on a tank that appears to show an incorrect reading?---Some electricians were asked that. We tried to vary the questions because, obviously, we try and get an understanding of their electrical competency. That is what we were achieving.
PN5037
Okay, so you varied questions as between candidates, is that right?---No, we varied the type of questions with the same intent.
PN5038
Well, wouldn't it have been fairer if you were asking someone to solve a problem for you and you were selecting as between different candidates on the basis of their answer, to post it on the same problem?---No, it would not.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5039
I see, all right. Now, you scored people on their competence on straddle carriers, that is right, isn't it?---Yes.
PN5040
Didn't you show me the question in the worksheet that dealt with that?---The question on straddle carriers - it was basically in relation to - - -
PN5041
Don't tell me what it was in relation to. Show me the question?---If you go to question 2 - criteria 2, sorry, page 1.
PN5042
Yes?---Okay, there's information there in regards to their background, so it would give us a level of understanding on what equipment they were using. Okay?
PN5043
Yes, so that asks for details of their trade qualifications?---Yes.
PN5044
Yes?---Also it was part of their resume, as we talked about before. So there's some proof required there. It has got number 3 next to it.
PN5045
Yes?---Okay.
PN5046
That is organisational skills?---Yes, but there's some information there on the resumes, as we talked about before. Number 5.
PN5047
It may or may not have been?---Well, if it is not, then I'm just giving you some of the areas that it could be response, sir. Number 5, can you describe your background and experience.
PN5048
Yes?---So if a gentleman was applying he may in that particular question explain his competency on straddles and what he knows and what he has done and how he has done it and what information he has - what courses he has done. Then we can go across to - if you go down, it is page 2, to the very last question, sir.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5049
Yes?---"If you are required to do them as straddle, then you are required to work at heights." He may have given - even though that is in relation to safety, he may have further expanded on his understanding of straddles. He may have said something to do in regards to spreaders or the interlocks. He may - - -
PN5050
He may have?---He may have.
PN5051
He may have?---There's a number of opportunities for him to prove his competency, that is right.
PN5052
Yes, but you see, you have a specific criteria in the matrix: competency on straddle carriers. You had a specific criteria: competency on portainer crane. You had a specific criteria: competent fork-lift reach stackers, and you had a specific criteria: competent refuelling. The truth of the matter is that your questioning worksheet did not contain a single question which sought to expressly and directly address those criteria. That is right, isn't it?---That's not right.
PN5053
Well you show me a question that says: please, can you explain to me your experience with portainer cranes, and your competence on portainer cranes?---There is no question in the interview sheets in the words that you have used.
PN5054
No. Don't you think that if you are judging people by reference to their competence on particular equipment, and you are not prepared to go and have them take a practical test in relation to their competence, the very least you should have done was address the candidates with a specific question dealing specifically and exclusively with the criteria you were testing them against?---I wouldn't agree with your assumption on that.
PN5055
Okay. It is apparent, is it not, from the matrix - I'm looking at the scale matrix - that in relation to these four competencies that we've been talking about, the scores were widely - wildly, I'm sorry, different from one individual to the next. For instance, I see one person got a minus 2, others got a 10?---That is referencing I don't have.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5056
Just accept what I say on that. The document is before the Commission?---With all due respect, I prefer to just have a look at the document, if you don't mind.
PN5057
All right, well, if you have a look at your supplementary exhibit?---Thank you.
PN5058
Go to document NA - exhibit NA?---NA.
PN5059
The scaled version of the matrix. This is the document that you say is the original?---Yes, I have it in front of me, yes.
PN5060
Right. Let me give you an example. You see Mr Ryan - sorry, I don't need to go to a specific person. You will see every number in the scale is represented under the criteria: competent straddle carriers, competent - etcetera. So what I am saying to you is that the - - -?---I don't see any negatives there, sir, I'm sorry.
PN5061
No, you are right. I was looking at the last column, which is actually a summary of the interviews, isn't it?---Yes, it is basically interview performance.
PN5062
You are right. I apologise for that, but the point I'm making is, that from 1 through to 10, every number in the scale is represented in the four competencies in question?---If you take - it has gone - it is a little bit small for me to read it. If you take - - -
PN5063
It is a simple, yes, or no, isn't it?---Well, I'm just looking at it for you so I can answer your - - -
PN5064
We can see a 1, we can see a 2, we can see a 3, we can see a 4?---They are not in all of the columns though, sir.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5065
No, no, but across the score?---Across the four columns you have got them.
PN5066
Yes?---Yes, that is correct, across all four columns.
PN5067
Yes?---Yes.
PN5068
So that the point of my question is that the results are quite desperate, aren't they, from one individual to the next across these competencies?---No, not across the competencies in regards to what you said down there, the numbers vary between the four columns. If you take fork-lift stackers, for instance, you know, you have got a majority. There are 7s, 6s, and 4s.
PN5069
Fork-lift stackers run from 2 to 7, is that right?---They do.
PN5070
Yes, that is a fairly large spread?---If you - it is a large spread, but if you actually look at the majority of indicators in that area, you will find the majority sit around the 4 to 7 mark, which is how I - how the scaling system would have been set up.
PN5071
All right. Now, you say that Skilled did not require experienced tradesmen in your statement, don't you?---I don't - just check the exact words I used.
PN5072
No, no. Do you recall saying that in your statement?---That we don't require experienced?
PN5073
That in the selection process you didn't require - - -?---Are you referring to my statement, sir?
PN5074
Yes, I am?---If you could direct me to it, then I can comment.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5075
I will in due course, but I want you to tell me?---I believe what I said, or words to the effect, that what Skilled require were competent tradesmen, not a team of stars, but I would have to refer to my statement.
PN5076
You said, I quote:
PN5077
Skilled do not require experienced tradesmen. We require competent, capable of working with our systems and processes and adapt to change.
PN5078
Have a look at that at paragraph 16?---That is correct.
PN5079
Yes. Can you tell me why you advertised for experienced tradesmen?---I didn't place the add, sir.
PN5080
Can you explain why you advertised - I know you didn't place the add, but can you explain why, when you advertise in the newspapers, you advertise for experienced tradesperson?---As you are aware, sir, I wasn't part of the Skilled group at that time, so I'm sorry I can't explain it to you.
PN5081
If you can't explain - thank you.
PN5082
Now, how many panels did you sit on?---I'm unsure of the numbers, sir.
PN5083
15, 20?---No, it wouldn't have been that many.
PN5084
How many?---I would have to go and have a look. I believe, it is somewhere around the 9 to 12.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5085
9 to 12?---Well, I would have to check.
PN5086
That was over a relatively short period of time?---I believe it was over a period of about 10 days.
PN5087
Yes?---10 to 12 days where the interview process went along.
PN5088
You didn't take any notes?---Personally?
PN5089
Yes?---I personally didn't take notes, no.
PN5090
You say in your evidence that each of these interviews would have covered roughly the same territory?---Pretty much so.
PN5091
Have you had any difficulty in terms of your memory distinguishing between one interview and the next?---I don't suffer from Alzheimers.
PN5092
No, no, I didn't suggest you did, but you went through a similar - - -?---No.
PN5093
- - - process 9 to 12 times, and I want to know whether you are prepared to concede that in those circumstances your memory might be somewhat restricted in relation to any particular interview?---I would say my words would be in relation to particular interviews: there are certain interviews that I undertook that I have a reasonable level of recollection about. There are some that it is limited, and there's some that my level of recollection would be low.
PN5094
Would be low, did you say?---Low.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5095
Low?---Low.
PN5096
Yes, why is that? Why would your recollection be good in relation to some, not so good in relation to others?---Because it depends on what happened through then interview. If you do an interview and it is like any - it is like any event that you are subjected to, if you are subjected to an event or an activity that is outside the normal of what you are not expecting to see or hear or do, it placed a bookmark in your memory.
PN5097
Okay. All right. Well, do you have a good memory of Mr Dastoor's interview?---I can remember, like, some of his interview, but an average memory of his.
PN5098
Yes, so that is not a good one?---No, it is not a good one.
PN5099
Can you indicate to me, and I don't want you to deal with Mr Szegedi and Mr Bolton, nor Mr Tingay, or Mr Coyle, but can you tell me of an interview in relation to which you say you have got a good memory?---I - well, even if you look at Sonny's and the gentleman you just referred to, there are a number of aspects in Sonny's that I can recall.
PN5100
No, no. I want - you said that you had a good memory of some?---Right.
PN5101
Right, now, tell me who you have got a good memory of?---I've got a reasonable level of memory of Mr Marcus Misters.
PN5102
Mr Marcus?---Misters.
PN5103
Misters. Yes, he is the only person that applied for a storeman's position?---Are you asking the question?
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5104
Is that right?---That's correct.
PN5105
Yes, so would you agree with me that your memory might be good in relation to him because he was an applicant - a sole applicant, for a unique position?---No, because I actually chaired his interview.
PN5106
Well, you chaired a lot of interviews?---No, I haven't.
PN5107
You chaired every interview, didn't you?---I only chaired three, sir.
PN5108
I thought you chaired every interview?---No, I chaired three, initially. That was Mr Marcus Misters.
PN5109
Yes?---Mr Bolton's and Mr Szegedi's.
PN5110
Yes?---And I chaired Mr Tingay's and Mr Coyle at a later date.
PN5111
Is there any reason why you were chosen to chair Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi's interviews specifically?---I'm not aware of any reasons.
PN5112
Right?---I was just asked by Mr McKenzie to chair those.
PN5113
I see?---He did not express any reason why.
PN5114
No. Did you think it odd that he should specifically identify Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi for you to check?---Not really, in regard, as you are aware, I was working for Jetcare under Patricks at the time.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5115
Yes?---Some of the interviews Owen asked me to chair, so I didn't think it anything unusual at the time, no.
PN5116
Okay. Give me an electrician who you interviewed, who you have got a good recollection of?---I can't recall one that I've got an excellent memory of in regards to, because I didn't chair any other electricians rather then Mr Szegedi.
PN5117
Is your answer the same for fitters?---Unfortunately, sir, it is, because they are the only three people I chaired.
PN5118
So it is the case, is it, that the only interviews you have a good memory of are Mr Bolton's and Mr Szegedi's?---And Mr Misters.
PN5119
And Mr Misters. It is rather a fortunate event, isn't it, given that you are giving evidence about those two interviews in particular?---That is the way it worked out, sir.
PN5120
Yes, that is the way it worked out?---In addition to that as well, on the 17th I was required to recall those interviews, as I've already testified in my statement, so obviously there was some requirement for me to take some recollection of those events. So obviously that is the system in the recollection of those. If I had to do that for some of the other gentlemen - maybe for Sonny, for instance, who I can tell you now came from Melbourne - worked at Patricks in Melbourne at the time. A competent fork-lift guy, very well organised, but if I had to do the same on the 17th with him, I'd probably have a very good recollection of his events as well, but I wasn't asked to do that.
PN5121
For who?---Well, it is Sonny - for Scher.
PN5122
All right. Well, I might ask you some questions about that later. We will see?---Please do.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5123
Now, I take it that it is your evidence, and it is certainly Mr McKenzie's evidence that the applicants were offered positions in order of the higher scores to the lower scores for each trade category?---That's correct.
PN5124
Now, can I just indicate for the purpose of - your Honour, for the purpose of the following questions, your Honour might need to collect the various divisions that we have of the scale of the matrix, and they are contained in N4 and N5, which your Honour has in the folder that we handed up.
PN5125
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN5126
MR BROMBERG: Have you got copies of N4 and 5?
PN5127
MS PAUL: Yes.
PN5128
MR BROMBERG: Also attachment NA to a supplementary statement of a witness.
PN5129
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN5130
MR BROMBERG: In NA, your Honour, there are two documents of relevance to what I want to put. The first is headed: Scale Selection Matrix.
PN5131
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5132
MR BROMBERG: The second is headed: Selection Matrix by Clyde Patrick Incorporation. The second being what is said, as I understand it, to be the raw scores, the first being the scale scores, and N5, similarly, was the raw score and N4, the scale score of the original versions that were tendered. Now, as I understand your evidence now, having put in your supplementary statement, am I right in thinking, Mr Krogh, that N4 is what you want to call a working copy of the scale matrix?---I don't have N4 in my lot. You might have taken it out - the copy.
PN5133
You don't have your exhibits with you?---I do, but they have been removed today for the photocopying.
PN5134
MS PAUL: Sorry, I may have actually - I hadn't realised but I may have actually pulled it out, sir, when I gave it to the witness.
PN5135
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Look, they may be here? No, this is N5. Is N4 a single page or does it consist of two?
PN5136
MS PAUL: It is 2 pages, sir.
PN5137
MR BROMBERG: It is 2 pages, your Honour.
PN5138
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is the second page a half a page?
PN5139
MR BROMBERG: It is, your Honour, yes.
PN5140
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think we have got a spare copy of N4, so if you would re-claim it, Ms Paul.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5141
MS PAUL: Thank you, sir.
PN5142
MR BROMBERG: We need N5. Does your Honour have a spare of N5?
PN5143
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think I do.
PN5144
MR BROMBERG: N5 is a 2 page document.
PN5145
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it two full pages?
PN5146
MR BROMBERG: It is actually three.
PN5147
All right. I just want to make sure that we are all dealing with the same document. You have got a document which you set a selection matrix and you see, then, in small writing on the right-hand side, it says: scale to preserve distribution of raw scores?---Yes.
PN5148
If you go to the end of the document, you see it does not have anything in the: Competency Straddles Crane?---That is correct. Yes.
PN5149
Could you just identify that as N4?---Identified as N4, sir.
PN5150
Then, you have got a document which is headed: Selection Matrix. It does not say scale to preserve distribution of raw scores. It is a 3 page document. You know the one I mean?---Yes, sir.
PN5151
Can you identify that as N5, please?---Yes, sir. Identified.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5152
Do you agree with me that N4 is a scaled version of the matrix, whereas N5 is a raw score version of the matrix?---That is correct.
PN5153
As I understand your evidence, these should be regarded by the Commission as working copies only and not what you would call the originals. Is that right?---That is correct.
PN5154
What you want to refer to as the originals are the documents that you put in your supplementary statement, the corresponding documents, which are both identified by the attachment labelled NA. Both in the same attachment, your Honour, but the first one is headed: Scale Selection Matrix and is a 1 page document. Have you got that? I am holding it up so that you can see?---It has probably been taken out, as well, sir. Here we go. NA. I have got NA.
PN5155
Can we call that, just as a point of distinction, can we call that NA scaled, because it is scaled?---It is scaled, yes.
PN5156
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It says it is.
PN5157
MR BROMBERG: Yes, it does.
PN5158
That is NA scaled and then the other matrix in attachment NA is what you tell us is the original of the raw scores?---That is correct.
PN5159
All right. If we can just call that NA raw?---NA raw. Sounds good.
PN5160
All right. So we all know what we are talking about. Now, as I understand your evidence, N4 and N5 were documents that have come from a floppy disk that you put together, some time around 14 or 15 November of last year?---It is a floppy disk where I down loaded the data from the lap top onto that floppy disk. Yes.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5161
So there was a lap top?---Yes.
PN5162
Which contained the selection matrix, both scale and raw?---It contained the whole spectrum. I think there is about nine files on that one.
PN5163
Yes. I understand there are other files dealing with who has had medicals, who has had aptitude tests, etcetera, but in terms of the scoring part of the process, there was a lap top, it had a page for entering raw scores, then, there was a page which set out the scale scores?---There was a link page, yes.
PN5164
And what you say is that sometime around 14 November you down loaded from the lap top and put on a floppy disk a copy of what then appeared on the lap top?---As of the 14th.
PN5165
As of the 14th. In relation to the scale score and also in relation to the raw score?---I down loaded the entire file.
PN5166
The entire file, which included those two things?---It had all those things on it, that is correct.
PN5167
What you put up in your supplementary statement in attachment NA is a document that you have printed off the lap top on the 22nd of this month?---It has been printed from the main frame from Skilled, where the lap top resides.
PN5168
So it is the lap top information printed as of last week?---This particular one is, yes.
PN5169
That is what you, in your statement, what to call the original?---That is correct.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5170
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, just so that I understand. You want to call them the original. For lesser mortals, would "final" be a better - - -
PN5171
MS PAUL: May I, sir?
PN5172
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, you go ahead, because I want to get this clear. I am not sure which comes first.
PN5173
MS PAUL: Sorry, sir. I think the final is probably a better term than the original.
PN5174
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I don't want to use it. As long as I understand that original means the final document.
PN5175
MS PAUL: Yes, sir. It is only in terms of the original as opposed to working document.
PN5176
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. N4 and N5 are working documents, for want of a better word?
PN5177
MS PAUL: Yes, sir.
PN5178
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The NA scaled and NA raw are final - the originals?---Yes, sir.
PN5179
MS PAUL: Yes, sir.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5180
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. Thank you, Mr Bromberg?
PN5181
MR BROMBERG: Now, if we look at the two scaled documents. So we are looking at NA scaled and N4. What we will see, I suggest to you, is a number of differences in the scores attributed to particular people in relation to some - quite a number of categories. Do you accept that?---I do accept that.
PN5182
Yes. So just to give you an example. If you look at productivity, for instance, in N4, and you look at Mr Woodbine. In N4 he was given a 7. In NA scaled, that same box, shows a 6. Do you see that?---7, and which is the other one you referred to, sir?
PN5183
6. In NA scaled, 6 for productivity for Mr Woodbine. In N4, it is a 7?---Yes.
PN5184
Okay?---That is in the scaled one, yes.
PN5185
We are looking at the scaled?---Yes.
PN5186
Now, I don't want to take a lot of time. I can tell you, I have gone through all of them and there are 20, 30 variations that I have identified?---Probably more, actually.
PN5187
You accept there are a lot of variations?---I would accept that on the scaled, there are a lot of numbers that a jumbled on that. I accept that.
PN5188
Now, you proffer an explanation for that, don't you, in your supplementary statement and your explanation is that on the working document, you have used that document since after the selection process has ended to create other documents?---Correct.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5189
What you say is you used what you call the working documents to create, for instance, a roster?---One of many things we used it for.
PN5190
How did you use a working document to create a roster?---Okay. Very good question. The first time I actually used that particular disk was on the morning of the 17th, when I was asked to produce the scores in relation to an interview process that was going to take place later on that morning with Mr Munday, Mr Szegedi and Mr Bolton. What I attempted to do was to cut and paste those particular scores out of this document so that I didn't show any of the other candidates, because obviously, I didn't have permission to show other candidate's scores. Basically, trying to do that quickly, what happened, was I actually corrupted the files because you will see in a lot of these it has got DIV/0, which means that I have actually corrupted the formulas in them. I have tried to go back and by moving names in and out, basically, that is why you will have a number of errors there. So what I did was I tried to cut them out and then what happened is, I lost all of the numbers because I moved them, because all 7 pages, except for the - I think it is 1 page, are all named: linked, which basically means when you move any of the names around or you put something in, all the other sheets all interlink together. Now, I am not necessarily making the assumption that is the best IT method of carrying the process out, but that was how sheets were developed and set up. So as soon as you made one change to one, and remembering I wasn't making changes, I was just entering the data. What I tried to do is cut and paste names out so I could basically produce to the MUA, a small document that had the top lines and the two gentlemen concerned and I couldn't do that, as per, I believe it is NB, that was sent to you. They actually had to be blanked out.
PN5191
MR BROMBERG: Well, can I show you what you gave the MA? I think you agree you gave this to the MUA. Could the witness be shown exhibit MUA22?
PN5192
MS PAUL: If it is okay with my friend, I've got a version. I've actually got a copy, sir.
PN5193
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5194
MR BROMBERG: What you tried to do was black out the names of the applicants - - -?---No, what I - - -
PN5195
- - - other than Bolton again in there?---No, what I tried to do initially, you will actually see if you look at the table, you will see that Mr Szegedi is indicating on the one that he gave the MUA, on bottom line 3, and then we go up but what I tried to do was to cut the names out the top, cut the names in between so that I only had two lines. That was what I tried to do and made a bit of a mess of it.
PN5196
Yes. I'm just struggling and if you can't help us, you can't help us, but I'm struggling to understand why a cut and paste?---Because - sorry.
PN5197
You have got to listen to the question first, please - why a cut and paste would change the scores held on document in the lap top in relation to many of the candidates. You see, the change is marginal in most of them, isn't it, it is a 1 or a 1/2 or a - - -?---It's not that hard to explain to you, sir.
PN5198
Well, please do?---Not that I'm an IT guru but after spending many many hours with Excel you have what they call cell references, circular cell references, specifically the problem laid the fact that a lot of the cells were circular referenced with other sheets. So they were drawing data from particular cells into particular sheets. When you start chopping and changing by cutting things out, it is still looking for, say, line E. It would be looking for cell E12. If you take that data out, it corrupts everything else. So then you just trying to put it all back in again. I've spent many many hours on Excel sheets trying to rectify exactly what I did here, extremely difficult process.
PN5199
Can you then tell me why, in relation to working sheet which we have marked N5?---N5?
PN5200
N5, yes. That is the raw data?---Yes.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5201
The document NA raw, can you tell me - and I think I've done this correctly but - can you tell me why when you look at the individual scoring for each of the candidates across the various categories, the numbers are exactly the same?---Because you have scaled matrix. You actually look at some of them, you will actually see that the final numbers alter on the scale is because I've corrupted the formulas and the links and I would acknowledge that. When I cut and pasted it, I corrupted the formulas and the links.
PN5202
All right. So you corrupted, you say, the scale version?---Well, I corrupted the whole file.
PN5203
Well, if you did that, why are the raw scores identical?---But they are not subject to the same formulas and links as are scaled.
PN5204
So you didn't corrupt the raw scores?---Well, I'm not sure whether I did or not. I haven't gone through this. If you are putting one data - if you are not using cell references and you are not using formulas, then - - -
PN5205
Well, I've had a reasonable look at it and I can't find a difference and I'm at a loss to understand why, in relation to raw scores, the document that numbers between what you call the working copy and the final copy are the same, but in relation to scales scores, it is different?---You are actually verifying what I'm saying, sir. You are actually verifying my answer to you and that is, is because the scale uses a lot of linking - remembering that the raw is your initial data entry point.
PN5206
Yes?---The scaled matrix sheet is the one that is linked, has cell references. You are really confirming what I've already said to you.
PN5207
All right. Well - - -?---I'm not an IT guru, sir, I'm just trying my best to explain each cell.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5208
No, it seems whatever you say you did, you didn't at least effect a change to the raw scores, at least until we get to the overall score because the next thing I want to ask you about is this. In NA raw, you see the last column has got "overall score"?---Yes.
PN5209
Similarly in N5 which is the raw working sheet, it has got an overall score?---Yes.
PN5210
All the overall scores are different?---Yes, because column 4 - - -
PN5211
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Different from N4 or different within themselves?
PN5212
MR BROMBERG: Different from N4, your Honour. The overall score for each of the candidates, when you compare across from NA raw to - I'm sorry, N5, not 4, the overall score is different and I'm trying to struggle - I'm struggling as to understand why?---I can help you with that.
PN5213
Yes, please?---Please. As you have already indicated, sir, the actual raw numbers appear to be the same but the overall score is different. When you go in the formula on the overall score, it is not a sum of the cells. It is not a sum of the cells. There's actually a formula in the total cell block that changes some of the like, for instance, aptitude tests and speed and accuracy. There's a - - -
PN5214
There is a waiting?---It is not so much a waiting, sir, it is like an overview - like, it brings it back to 50 per cent.
PN5215
No, that is what the scaling does?---No, the scaling provides the waiting but there is actual - in the total, there's a formula down on the total end as well on the raw score. Now, as I said to you, I didn't build these sheets. I can only explain to you what they are.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5216
Right. Well, I put it to you that it is not right. Your explanation of the process in your recruitment process brief explains how we get to a scaled matrix?---That's right.
PN5217
It is only at that point that one goes to the average?---And you are 100 per cent correct, sir. But what - - -
PN5218
So with the raw scores - - -?---The raw scores have in the total, they are not a sum of those cells. There are some formulas in there that equate to that particular sheet. Now, I - - -
PN5219
You have a look at annexure A?---Sorry?
PN5220
Can you have a look at annexure A to a recruitment process brief please?---I can't hear you, I'm sorry.
PN5221
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is an exhibit, is it?
PN5222
MR BROMBERG: Yes, it is. It is in N, there is one in N8, your Honour.
PN5223
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In NA?
PN5224
MR BROMBERG: No, N8.
PN5225
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: N8.
PN5226
MR BROMBERG: In the folder that I gave you earlier, your Honour.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5227
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, recruitment process brief for Shaun Bolton.
PN5228
MR BROMBERG: You see annexure A, have you got that?---No, I'm just getting it now. Annexure A?
PN5229
Annexure A, I think it is on the third last page - fourth last page. You see what it is telling us is that what you do is you take the criteria score and you multiply it by the waiting and then you add to it the next criteria score and you multiply that, multiply it by the waiting. It appears from that, that the raw score total should be the score for each category multiplied by the waiting, all that together?---No. That is not how the formula is developed, unfortunately.
PN5230
Is this an incorrect description of it?---No, no, this one here. This scaled matrix - - -
PN5231
No, this is not scaled, this is raw?---You are saying annexure A, aren't you, sorry?
PN5232
MS PAUL: Sir, I don't want to interrupt but the witness has provided a statement in terms of the raw scores and provided evidence in terms of other witnesses, the overall scores why there is a difference in the overall score is because there is an additional formula. The recruitment brief does not deal with the overall score.
PN5233
MR BROMBERG: It does.
PN5234
MS PAUL: Sorry, in terms of it deals with the scaled matrix as opposed to it. I mean, I'm just saying, can there be some clarity in terms of which matrix and which columns are being discussed.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5235
MR BROMBERG: No, no, I think I can clarify this for my friend's benefit. Annexure A - - -
PN5236
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that is an achievement.
PN5237
MR BROMBERG: Annexure A is the explanation of the overall score which is the raw score. Annexure B is the explanation of the overall score on the scaled matrix. That is where you see the average rating coming in and being applied into a formula. Do you see that, Mr Krogh?---Yes, but then - - -
PN5238
I'm not dealing with annexure A continued, the second page, I'm dealing with the first page of annexure A?---You mean dealing with annexure A?
PN5239
Annexure A?---Yes.
PN5240
Explanation of the overall score?---Right.
PN5241
That is dealing with the raw score, isn't it?---And if you look at what it - that's correct, you are right and then you look at it, it says, "trade skills multiplied by waiting plus". That is in the total column, sir. So if you go to the total column you will see, for instance, let us just say for instance, trade skills was cell B2. What you would have, you would have equals (B2) multiplied by whatever the particular waiting was (plus organisational scores), let us say that was cell C, C2 multiplied by the waiting (plus) and so on and so on. That is how that comes together.
PN5242
Yes, so it is a simple exercise, isn't it? If you look at Mr Dastoor for instance, he got 8 for organisational skills, you multiply that by 4 which is the weight in - - -?---Where are you getting 4 from?
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5243
Well, unfortunately your document has blacked that out has it - the criteria bit, but if you look at N5 the waiting there is given as four?---Right.
PN5244
So you go 8 x 4, 32 and then ignoring aptitude because that is a little different. In relation to experience you would go 9 x 5, add the two together, 8.5 x 8 going along the scale to work ethic. That is annexure A tells you to do, doesn't it?---But that is what I have just said to you before. As I said to you, it is the raw data that is not into these particular cells is sitting there and that hasn't been changed. You have acknowledged that .
PN5245
Yes?---What I have said to you has been cut and pasted, this particular data. I am not an IT expert sir, and I can only refer and give you the limited knowledge that I have, and the truth of the matter and the facts are is as I have alluded to, as I have cut and pasted and I have corrupted the data. I can't say any more than that to you.
PN5246
Yes. So you can't explain to us why the overall scores vary between two documents?---I have given you my best explanation. That is all I can do for you, I am sorry.
PN5247
I understand that. All right.
PN5248
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you get started on that Mr Bromberg, you might inquire as to we might work out - what we are going to do for the remainder of the afternoon. I am prepared to sit at least until 5, if that is of any assistance and it does not inconvenience anybody. But you are here aren't you?
PN5249
MS PAUL: I am here sir, so it is not really an issue for me.
PN5250
MR BROMBERG: I am happy to do that especially if there is any chance of finishing this witness.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5251
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, 5 is a movable feast. I am not going to restrict us all to that.
PN5252
MR BROMBERG: No.
PN5253
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But what I do intend to do, if we are sitting to 5 I intend to take a 10 minute adjournment now.
PN5254
MR BROMBERG: If your Honour pleases.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [3.22pm]
RESUMED [3.33pm]
PN5255
MR BROMBERG: Mr Krogh, would you kindly look at the document that we have been describing as NA scaled, which you say is the final document for the scale results? If you look at the criteria across the top, you see organisational skills?---Yes.
PN5256
You see the next one is aptitude test accuracy?---Yes.
PN5257
Where is aptitude test speed?---It is not included sir.
PN5258
Why not?---I don't know the answer to that sir.
PN5259
If we look at every other document in which a scale of matrix appears, whether we are looking at NA Raw, there is a category aptitude test speed or if we look at N5, there is one for aptitude test speed. If we look at N4 there is a column for aptitude test speed. Can you tell us why in the final document, what you call the final document that category has been left out?---No, I can not.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5260
Well that rather calls into question the entirety of the results, doesn't it?---I can't answer. The question on it in regards to what part of the results.
PN5261
Well you had a selection process in train based on identified criteria and your scoring system has left out one of those element. You need some assistance?---Yes, please.
PN5262
MS PAUL: Sir, whilst there is a break in clearing that up. N2 in your version, sir would have been a photocopy - - -
PN5263
MR BROMBERG: Can you deal with that at another time, not in the middle of cross-examination please?---Thank you, sorry about that sir.
PN5264
MR BROMBERG: It seems apparent Mr Krogh that in the document you say you relied upon for picking who got jobs and who didn't get jobs, and I am looking at NA scale. Aptitude test speed has been left out entirely. I put to you that we can have no confidence in the results here shown in the absence of knowing what candidates are scored and how that score - what can they score for aptitude test speed and without that element being input into the overall score?---A very wide comment sir. I would say that that is probably drawing a very long bow in regards to saying that one particular document - and I can't confirm that the actual data is not there without actually looking at the blind spreadsheet itself, I can't - - -
PN5265
You can confirm can you - - -?---Well no, that is - - -
PN5266
That aptitude test speed is not there?---Excuse me sir, I was answering the question for you.
PN5267
Yes?---I can't confirm that the data is not there. It may be - and I don't know because as I said, this is a document that was sent from Skilled. It may be that that particular is a hidden column and I just can't confirm without actually having a look at the live data.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5268
Mr Krogh, this is your second attempt to try and verify for us why it is you chose particular individuals for particular positions by reference to this matrix, and the best you can tell us as of today is that you can't tell us whether this scoring is correct or not?---Well, it is correct. But you are asking me specific - - -
PN5269
You can't assure us that it is correct, can you?---I can assure you that the numbers here are correct as they were used to rate the applicants at the time of selection.
PN5270
How can you assure us that the numbers are correct when an entire column is missing?---Because I can not provide the information in relevance to whether speed was used as part of the criteria or not. I can't do that for you.
PN5271
Well, if you can't provide that information, how can you assure us that the results are correct?---Because what I can is that if speed is not there - it is not there for everybody.
PN5272
That might be true but some people might have done very well in speed and other people might have done very badly in speed and that would have affected their overall results?---Not to the extent that you are - - -
PN5273
It would have affected their results, would it not?---Not to the extent that you are indicating, no.
PN5274
I didn't put an extent on it. I asked you to tell us how you can verify that these results are correct in the absence of you knowing what has happened to the testing on aptitude test speed, and you can't verify it, can you?---I can't verify what has happened to speed.
PN5275
All right, thank you. Mr Lamberton and Mr Van Greuning were individuals that were interviewed in the selection process?---I believe that is correct.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5276
We you involved in their interviews?---No, I was not.
PN5277
Okay. You were involved in providing a list of successful candidates?---That is correct.
PN5278
Do you have a copy of that list?---No, I do not.
PN5279
Where is the list?---The list was provided to Owen McKenzie.
PN5280
Yes?---Which was subsequently provided. My understanding is, because I didn't do it, but I was advised that the list was provided the MUA.
PN5281
Provided to the MUA on or about 14-15 November?---On about 14-15 November. That is correct.
PN5282
Do you have the list in your possession?---No, I do not.
PN5283
You don't. Did you give the list over to the Skilled representative for the purpose of giving over all documents that you say you thought you had to give in relation to the process?---No, I did not give any document to that effect and I can not confirm nor deny whether or not the list that was given to Mr McKenzie was actually in written script or was done verbally over the phone.
PN5284
Well, what did you give Mr McKenzie?---As I said, I can't confirm exactly how I presented the list to Mr McKenzie.
PN5285
You can't remember whether it was a document?---I was asked to private the 15 names, which I did.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5286
All right, so the list contained 15 names. Can you tell us that?---It contained 15 names.
PN5287
Those were names of six electricians who had got permanent positions?---Six electricians who were going to be offered permanent positions.
PN5288
Six fitters who were going to be offered permanent positions?---It turned out to be seven.
PN5289
Are you including that Mr Clift?---Yes, that is correct sir.
PN5290
Okay. Let us call him the leading hand. So there were six fitters, six electricians Mr Clift as a leading hand, that gets us to 13, the storeman?---Mr Listers.
PN5291
Yes, and one other person who was?---Mr Larry Pokorski.
PN5292
Pokorski who is the trades assistant?---Trades assistant and a number of other functions.
PN5293
Now according to what you say in your supplementary statement one of the six electricians that was on that list, that was provided to Mr McKenzie was Mr Van Greuning, Henry Van Greuning?---He name was provided. I am just making sure - I believe he is an electrician.
PN5294
All right. Well - - -?---His name was provided - his name was one of the candidates provided.
PN5295
Yes, for instance if you look at NA scaled, you can see that Mr Van Greuning is there listed as an electrical fitter?---That is correct.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5296
So one of the electricians, one of six - - -?---Yes.
PN5297
Successful candidates for a permanent position was Mr Van Greuning?---That is correct.
PN5298
And one of the six successful candidates for a fitter position, a permanent fitter position was Mr Greg Lamberton?---I believe that is correct.
PN5299
Just stay with me, if you would? I don't want you looking at your statement, I'm afraid you don't get that advantage unless you asked to. Close that if you would. You say that they were chosen into the permanent positions because they had in Mr Lamberton case, he was one of the top six electrical candidates - fitter candidates and in Mr Van Greuning's case, he was one of the top six electrician candidates?---Mr Van Greuning?
PN5300
Yes, Van Greuning?---Van Greuning, that is correct.
PN5301
All right, and then what you say then happened is that the MUA told Skilled that they had to remove Mr Lamberton and Mr Van Greuning from the list?---That is information that was provided to me.
PN5302
Yes. And on the basis of that information you removed from the successful candidates' list, is that right? And didn't offer them a job?---they were no longer considered for eligible for a position. That is correct.
PN5303
Do you have any idea as to - you say that it was your - you understood that that happened because the MUA had said that they would not Transfield employees?---That was the information that was communicated to me.
PN5304
Did you verify that information?---Sorry?
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5305
Did you verify whether or not they - let us take Mr Lamberton was an ex Transfield employee?---He had done a number of shifts with Transfield.
PN5306
So you knew him to be an ex Transfield employee?---No, no. He had done a number of shifts, he was ex APS employee who had done a number of shifts but not very many. If you were to do a comparison between say him and Mr Byrnes, Mr Byrnes would have had a regular number of hours, somewhere between 30 and 50 is my understanding. Mr Lamberton did a very, very occasional. so he was also a private contractor.
PN5307
But the fact of the matter was that Mr Lamberton was a former employee of Transfield, be it regular or not and I can tell you there is going to some dispute about that but be it regular or not, he was an ex Transfield employee?---Well, as I said to you sir, the advice came to me was to remove him from the list. I was not party to the conversations that took place in relevance as to whether he was or was not a Transfield employee. At the time, when we went through the process it was obviously our belief that he was, but other persons unknown to myself made a determination that he wasn't and I did what I was instructed to do.
PN5308
See the evidence is that Skilled agreed to limit their initial selection to ex Transfield employees?---I have never seen any documents to that affect.
PN5309
But you understood that to be the case, didn't you?---That was what was communicated to me.
PN5310
And initially you asked ex Transfield employees, and only ex Transfield employees to apply?---I didn't ask anybody to apply.
PN5311
I mean that Skilled asked for those persons to apply by putting notices on boards at the workplace?---I believe notices went on the board, yes.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5312
What you say now is that at the whim of the MUA and because of an unfounded allegation taking Mr Lamberton that he was not an ex Transfield employee, Skilled denied him a place?---Well, what I am saying to you sir, is that I can't comment on why he was denied that position. He was offered in the initial front-up, he was identified as a potential employee. I put those names forward, they were provided to the MUA, there were discussions with persons or persons unknown to myself when I was subsequently by Skilled management that I was to remove him from the list. Now I can't comment any further than that because I wasn't party to those conversations.
PN5313
You know - let us take Mr Van Greuning for instance?---Yes.
PN5314
As I interpret the scoring, in relation to the electrical positions, he was ahead of Mr Robertson, Mr Stokes, Mr Van Meulen, Mr Ryan. He got the third top score?---He is a very capable individual.
PN5315
But he doesn't get the job?---Very disappointing on my behalf considering that I was trying to the select the best team possible for a very arduous and tough contract. Very, very disappointing result.
PN5316
Well, there will be evidence given in these proceedings and I just want to put it to you. I am not suggesting you can deal with it if you weren't there, you weren't there, but there will be evidence put that the MUA never mentioned Mr Lamberton or Mr Van Greuning and never suggested to Skilled that those persons should not be employed?---As I said sir, unfortunately I am not party to those conversations so I can't provide any information to you. But rather to advise you that I advised by Skilled management to remove them, and the instruction was in relation to that they had been told to be removed because of the objections of the MUA.
PN5317
Had you prepared rosters for each of the crews?---The initial rosters were prepared in Sydney.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5318
I am not sure that that answers the question. Did you prepare rosters? Were you involved in the preparation of rosters?---At a later date I was involved in preparing the rosters.
PN5319
When did you first become involved in the preparation of rosters?---I can't recall the exact date, I am sorry.
PN5320
Was it before the 14th?---I can't recall the dates, I am sorry.
PN5321
Well, was it before Mr Lamberton and Mr Van Greuning were excluded?---As I said, I can't recall the exact date that we did rosters. I know that we started off - the only information I can give you as I know that we were provided a number of roster templates from Sydney that we were to work towards. They were changed through - I am led to believe some discussions with the MUA and as the process evolved and went on we were constantly trying to update the rosters and actually, we really up until I believe it was somewhere around 14th or 15th, we really didn't know what the agreed roster was going to be on site. But we had identified individuals for crews.
PN5322
Can you tell me why you identified Mr Lamberton for an offer when he had not done the aptitude test?---No, I don't know. I can't go into that, I don't know.
PN5323
Did you not check to see whether all the person who had been made offers had done an aptitude test?---No, I don't know the answer to that sir. I am sorry.
PN5324
All right. I want to show you a document and just tell me whether you have ever seen it before please?---It appears to be a roster - - -
PN5325
Just answer the question. Have you ever seen that document before?---I have seen a document that looks similar to this.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5326
Have you seen this document before? I am not asking whether you have seen a document that sets out rosters, I am asking you whether you have seen this document with the names that appear on the first page before?---No, I can't recall seeing that particular document.
PN5327
Can I tender that for identification at the moment, your Honour, please?
MFI #MUA25I DOCUMENT COMMENCING WITH: APPARENT ROSTER SYSTEM
PN5328
MR BROMBERG: Now, before the end of the selection process, if we can just call that 14 November for the current purposes, did you have - you conducted a number of site visits, did you not, at the Patrick site?---Prior to 14th?
PN5329
Before 14 November?---I was actually rostered on site from 10th.
PN5330
Before the 10th, have you also been involved in a number of site visits?---Yes, I had.
PN5331
How often had you been in site visits?---I think I've been out to Fishermen Islands prior to 10 November between six and - maybe eight or nine times, maybe more.
PN5332
You tell us in your statement that on a number of site visits you were shown around the site by Lindsay Bragg and Tony Hocking and Brian Cole?---That's correct.
PN5333
You also say that you had conversations with Lindsay Bragg and - let me find it - Bob Wade whilst you were on the site, including in relation to any concerns they had experienced about the employees?---Yes and those conversations took place between 18 and 20 November.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5334
I understand that is your evidence. Now, those conversations - that conversation took place in response to your question of Mr Bragg and Mr Wade as follows: Are there any issues or concerns that you experienced? That is your evidence, is not it?---That's correct.
PN5335
So you asked them a general question of that kind and in response they identified concerns about Mr Szegedi and Mr Bolton, that is your evidence, isn't it?---There were a number of concerns, issues, points of relevance that they discussed. There was more than one conversation. You have got to remember these guys, Lindsay and Bob, were on site whilst we were there from the 17th through to about 18th or 19th. They were still doing the handover, which they should have completed the week before but that had not happened.
PN5336
They had been on site throughout the selection process. They were on site at the start of the selection process and throughout, had not they?---They were but there was also very clear instructions, it is in my evidence as well, that we were to minimise the amount of contact we had with Transfield. You will even see that, I believe, there was a work order raised in the Maximo system to book any time we had conversations with them.
PN5337
You had - they accompanied you on site visits so that you had contact with them. You had contact with them prior to finalising the selection process?---The purposes of the contact - yes, had contact with them but it was of an official nature when I was in the company of Mr Brian Cole.
PN5338
What I am suggesting to you is that you walked around the site with them. You spent time with them. You did that prior to the finalisation of the selection process?---I had a look with them, in the company of them, of those two guys and I obviously I have to be escorted as part of the safety induction program.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5339
Did you not think it prudent, before making selection decisions, to ask people who might know something about the candidates - let me withdraw that. You agree, in your evidence, that candidates had given permission to you to contact their supervisor for references or comments, that is what you say, isn't it?---Yes, I agree that that was a question posed to the candidates through the process.
PN5340
So you understood that you had permission from the candidates to go and talk to Mr Bragg or any other supervisor that might be able to give a reference for them?---My understanding was we were only allowed, from the candidates, to seek references from the referees that they provided on their resumes.
PN5341
At paragraph 247?---247.
PN5342
You say, in the third sentence:
PN5343
Both Shaun and Mark had given permission to contact supervisors for references or comments.
PN5344
?---That is what I say.
PN5345
You say that in defence of the fact, as you point out in the earlier sentence, that you spoke to Mr Bragg and Mr Wade?---Not prior to the selection process.
PN5346
Why did you say you had permission from Shaun and Mark if you were no referring to Mr Bragg and Mr Wade?---Because as I have indicated here, if you refer to paragraph 66 of Mr Bolton, he makes some comment about a statement made about Skilled re this matter and in the recruitment brief, if I recall correctly, which were done on 24 November onwards, there was a reference made in the recruitment briefs that there was some conversations that had gone on - - -
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5347
I understand the context - - -?---Okay, well, I am explaining the answer to you. There was never - - -
PN5348
Please explain the answer to me. What I am putting to you is neither Mr Bragg or Mr Wade were given as referees by Mr Bolton or Mr Szegedi. I am putting that to you. That is the evidence. You say you had permission to contact their supervisors for reference or comments. You do not limit it to persons who they had given specifically as referees?---That's correct.
PN5349
Did you understand yourself to have permission to talk to supervisors, irrespective of whether they had been put down as referees?---From the candidates?
PN5350
Yes?---If they had specifically identified a person that we could speak to and then obviously we would have permission.
PN5351
That is not what your sentence says, is it?---That is exactly what I say. It says that both Mark and Shaun had given permission to contact their supervisors.
PN5352
Where have they given that permission?---It would have been done through the interview process.
PN5353
In what way?---Through the process, when we asked them questions about how would your supervisor - I do not think that is a question. In the interview sheet it says: what would your supervisor say in relation to something, I would have to refer back to the interview sheet. There is actually a specific question that talks about supervisors - - -
PN5354
I know the question you are talking about - - -?---So in the context of that it may have come up in that where they may have said: well, yes, you can have a chat to Lindsay or Bob and they would be able to tell you.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5355
So you agree with me then that you regarded yourself - you regarded it as within the bounds of what you were permitted to do to go and talk to Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi's supervisor?---They had given permission to do that in their interview but not all candidates had done that.
PN5356
Well, let us stay with Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi. If they had given that permission, would not it have been prudent, prior to the selection process ending or prior to you making selection decisions, for you to have gone to their supervisors and asked whether they had any concerns about Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi?---I was given clear instructions from Mr McKenzie that we were not to contact Transfield or Patricks management team in reference to any of the employees in regards to asking them specific questions in regards to their performance.
PN5357
You see, that is quite odd, isn't it, because you say you asked others, the supervisors in particular, after you had made the selection process, after you had made the selection decision but not before?---No, I never said that I asked specific questions about specific individuals after the process. I say I asked a generic question about issues, events, occurrences and other activities that I should be made aware of and the information provided was provided, unsolicited, from those individuals.
PN5358
What did Tony Hocking tell you?---Tony Hocking gave me some information in regards to a number of the employees, the facts I can't convey them to you. He indicated to me that one of the guys, by the name of Mr Michael Ryan, I would need to try and manage the process with him. Michael is actually one of our best employees.
PN5359
When did he indicate that to you?---That was some time after 17th, through the week of the 17th through to the 24th.
PN5360
Would not it have been prudent to find out from Mr Hocking before you made selection decisions - - -?---I was instructed by my senior management that I was not allowed to do that and as an employee of Skilled, I do what I was instructed to do.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5361
Why bother asking after the selection decision. It was all too late by then?---As I said to you, I never asked specific questions about specific individuals. I asked questions about issues, events, occurrences or other things that maybe I should be made aware of that would help me in facilitating the new contract.
PN5362
You see, it is interesting, you admit in paragraph 247 that you spoke to Mr Hocking from Patricks but you don't go on to tell us what he told you. Is there any reason why you left that off?---I could write pages if you like on all sorts of things he has told me about crane services - - -
PN5363
About employees and their suitability for selection?---Didn't get into very detailed - we never went into selection on employees.
PN5364
Are you saying - are you seriously telling us, are you, you never had a conversation with Mr Hocking in which he gave you his views about the competencies, capabilities or other possible difficulties with employees?---Prior to?
PN5365
Are you saying you never had any conversation of that sort?---I am saying at a date after 17 November that Mr Hocking provided some information on the technical competency of some of the employees that had been selected.
PN5366
Mr Hocking was keen to see Mr Byrnes selected, wasn't he?---Sorry?
PN5367
Mr Hocking was keen to see Mr Byrnes selected?---I wouldn't say that.
PN5368
Did not he go to the trouble of tracking Mr Byrnes down for you so you could give him an aptitude test?---No. What Mr Hocking did for me was - because I didn't have Mr Byrnes' phone number, Mr Hocking did have Mr Byrnes phone number - - -
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5369
How did he have that?---It was in his mobile because he has used him as a contractor down on berth 7. At that time I didn't have a Skilled mobile, we were very limited with the resources we had, unfortunately.
PN5370
Now, on 18 or 19 November, you knew that two of the persons who had been selected, Mr Byrnes and Mr Van Muellen, had rejected offers of full-time employment because they wanted to see Mr Szegedi and Mr Bolton given full-time jobs. You knew that, didn't you?---It was communicated to me from both of those two gentlemen - I received phone calls on the dates you have indicated - asking me a, whether or not, if they were prepared to relinquish their positions that had been offered to them, would positions then be offered to the two gentlemen that you have just identified and b, would I take them on as casuals in the new format. I informed both of those gentlemen the offers were specific to those two gentlemen and that at that stage there was no offers for casual employment. I could not confirm that they would have any further work on site and both of those - I said to both of those gentlemen: you will need to sign your letters of offer otherwise, basically, all bets are off.
PN5371
You say at paragraph 309 in relation to this conversation that you had with Mr Van Meulen, that you clearly recall Bruce refusing my letter of offer and declining Skilled's employment so there was no doubt in your mind that Mr Van Muellen had declined the offer of permanent employment?---After the telephone conversation.
PN5372
On 18th?---That's correct.
PN5373
Similarly, in respect of Mr Byrnes, you say, paragraph 301:
PN5374
Chris had rejected Skilled's offer of full-time work.
PN5375
?---Yes, he rejected the offer of work. I think Chris was a little bit later. I think he was around Wednesday.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5376
You say on 19th, paragraph 300?---I say on or about. I don't say exactly. I say on or about 19th, which I believe is actually the Wednesday.
PN5377
So getting back to what I have put to you, you knew that both had rejected a permanent offer?---Mm.
PN5378
You knew that you had two vacancies, in essence. Why didn't you seek to reassign the positions to other candidates who had been involved in the selection process?---The reason we didn't assign any of those positions was it was quite the two candidates had been identified had areas that were of a major concern to the Skilled Corporation and we didn't feel that, through their process, they communicated they would be fit for the culture and requirements of the contract going forward. So we had two vacancies. We would had to go back out again and have discussions and readvertise and reapply for suitable candidates. We were not going to keep going down the list until we got to a zero score.
PN5379
You have given evidence and Mr McKenzie has given evidence, time and time again, that your process was to choice the top ranking candidates available. What I want to know is why didn't you go down the rankings and pick the next two?---Because - - -
PN5380
Do you know who were the next two?---Well, there was only 15 candidates left because there was 19 - there was 19. Lampton and Henry were taken out. Van Muellen and Byrnes were taken out. Four from 19 leaves you 15.
PN5381
Do you know who the next highest ranking electrician was?---There was only one electrician left and that would have been Mark Szegedi, because there was only 15 left.
PN5382
What about Mr Michael Ryan?---Michael was already selected.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5383
Who was the next ranked fitter?---That would have been Mr Bolton.
PN5384
Would about Mr Ray Reynolds?---He was a boilermaker.
PN5385
Mr Ray Reynolds?---If you look at his trades certificates, whilst he applied for the fitter position - - -
PN5386
He is a fitter-boilermaker?---He is actually a boilermaker.
PN5387
He is down as a fitter-boilermaker?---If you look at his CV and you look at the data he provided us, he is actually a fitter-boilermaker. He is prominently a boilermaker.
PN5388
Are you changing the evidence given by you and Mr McKenzie that there was an agreement with the MUA that you would chose of all ex Transfield employees, the top ranking six electricians and the top ranking six fitters?---The evidence stands. Mr Reynolds is not a fitter. He is a boilermaker.
PN5389
If you are right in terms of ranking, then the next two persons who were ranked higher than anyone else, were Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi?---I've already said that.
PN5390
What I am putting to you is on the basis of the agreement arrived at between Skilled and MUA when Mr Ryan and Mr Van Meulen pulled out - - -?---Mr Byrnes, you mean.
PN5391
Mr Byrnes and Mr Van Meulen pulled out, Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi should have been selected?---If I have got the question you are asking me, what you are saying is when Mr Lampton and Mr Van Greuning were removed then when the other two were taken out, there was only 15 left on the card, that is correct.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5392
I think it is your evidence that the last two standing were Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi?---They were the last two on the hill.
PN5393
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That has been my understanding for a long time. We have talked about the "next ranked" they are actually the last ranked as well.
PN5394
MR BROMBERG: Yes. At no stage, in any of the evidence you have given in either of the witness statements, do you say anywhere that Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi were excluded from the selection process because of their poor showing in the process?---Those words are not used, that is correct.
PN5395
Well, it is not only that those words were not used, there is no suggestion in your evidence that they had scored results that excluded them from being part of the pool from which you would make your selections?---There is in regard to Mr Szegedi and that is why I agreed with you in your initial statement so there are no words that specifically annotate what you have asked but when you - now you are asking is there an inference or a suggestion - you used the word "suggestion" and I am answering the question - there is a suggestion in my statement that in regards to specifically Mr Szegedi that there is a suggestion he would not be suitable for employment in regards to his conduct through the interview process.
PN5396
Can you take me to that suggestion?---Have you got some time for me to read through it?
PN5397
Yes, please?---This could take some time.
PN5398
Let us be very clear, I am looking for a suggestion that his performance excluded him from further consideration?---You are saying "suggestion".
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5399
That his performance excluded him from further consideration?---I am sorry, I don't understand what - initially you asked me is there any comment that suggests he could be excluded from selection. Are you now asking me is there any comments that specifically state that. I am not understanding what you want now.
PN5400
There was a suggestion made by you a little while ago in the witness-box that Mr Szegedi and Mr Bolton had performed so badly that they were excluded from further consideration?---That is not what I said.
PN5401
Well, if that is not what you said we are at cross-purposes?---My comment to you was that there were certain aspects of their interview that placed them at odds with the culture and the requirements of the contract. If you look at Mr Bolton, he actually did very, very well in experience and work techniques, did extremely well, based on the scores he got.
PN5402
Yes?---So I mean - so there are certainly aspects of Mr Bolton's scores that he did rather well in.
PN5403
Well, you can say that about a lot of people, can't you, including those that got selected?---No, we were talking about Mr Bolton now and I'm saying, you are making an inference that Mr Bolton's scores were low. What I'm saying - no, there are certain criteria that Mr Bolton did extremely well in but there were certain aspects of the contract that were critical to us being a successful company that Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi, for whatever reasons, didn't communicate, didn't want to communicate or unable to communicate their ability to achieve those results.
PN5404
We will get - I will come to that - - -?---I'm sure you will.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5405
- - - in due course, but let us establish one thing and I don't think we are at odds here. Right up to the end of the process, Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi, remained in the pool and at no stage during the process, were they excluded from consideration for selection?---I'm just trying to answer your question for you because what you were asking me was, at no stage were they excluded. They actually were excluded because they were at the bottom of the rung so they were never in the inclusion per se.
PN5406
No, no?---I mean - - -
PN5407
They were excluded from offers but they were not excluded from consideration for offers?---Well, they were excluded from consideration of offers because they weren't being considered for an offer.
PN5408
Mr Krogh?---Yes?
PN5409
Your evidence is that you took the results of all of the candidates, you considered all of those results and you picked those individuals who you felt were most meritorious by reason of their scores. Is that right or not?---We picked - I'm just - because the word you have used, I'm not 100 per cent sure of the meaning of that of the word you used in prior to scores.
PN5410
Sorry?---You used the word prior to scores that I'm not aware of the meaning of that particular word.
PN5411
I don't recall using that word?---You used retorious (sic) or?
PN5412
Let me put it to you again. In the process of selection?---Yes.
PN5413
You compared the results of all of the candidates?---Yes.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5414
You gave consideration to the results of all the candidates?---Yes.
PN5415
And for that purpose, right up until you determined who it was you were going to select, Mr Bolton and Szegedi remained in the pool under consideration for offers?---I would agree with the last part of your sentence. They are not the words that I would use. I would say they remained in the list of applicants that had applied for positions but at no stage had rejection letters or anything going out. Not unlike recruitment places who we go through today. Many people apply. Many people are placed in a pool of candidates, go through selection. Until the last person is actually offered the person everyone is still in that pool but they may not be being considered for that particular position. We didn't say, those two guys, you are not, that never happened.
PN5416
No?---But at the same time, sir, if I may add, they were positions - if you want to go from like 19 being the top - they were positions one and two. So there were four gentlemen in front of them. We were not aware at that stage - and I know this is an issue in dispute with yourself - that the MUA were going to veto the top two - or two of the candidates. We were not aware that the MUA were going to apply pressure to Mr Byrnes and Mr Van Meulen to step aside. I mean these were events that we were not aware of at the time.
PN5417
Who told you the MUA applied pressure?---Mr Byrnes and Van Meulen told me that.
PN5418
Your evidence is that because Mr Szegedi hadn't done the aptitude test, you actually, in your consideration of who ought to be selected - you gave him your trials against his score, a high aptitude result, a middling aptitude result and a low aptitude result?---Yes, that is correct.
PN5419
Yes. You did that - - -?---I did that - - -
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5420
- - - because he remained under active consideration in the selection process?---What we did - the reason we did that was because we weren't able to get Mr Szegedi across the line on his aptitude exam which obviously you are going to question me on later. But what I wanted to be seen to be doing is was providing a consistent approach across the line. So if - - -
PN5421
Can you answer my question? You did that because he remained under active consideration. If he was not under active consideration you would not have had any reason to do that, would you?---I had plenty of reason to do that and the reason I had to do that is, as I was just trying to explain to you.
PN5422
All right?---Because you would have joined - - -
PN5423
Despite whatever reservations you had about Mr Bolton's or Mr Szegedi's capacity to gel with the Skilled culture and the Skilled's expectations, you nevertheless offered them employment, didn't you?---I never offered them anything.
PN5424
Skilled offered them employment?---I'm not aware of what Skilled offered them, sir. I wasn't involved with that process. I had nothing to do with it. It was handled from head office and I believe it was handled by - in consultation with Mr Ray Fitzgerald. So I can't provide you with information on that. All I know is they were not offered positions on the Fishermen Island site.
PN5425
So you didn't communicate to head office that these people were unsuitable employees to be employed anywhere?---I don't communicate with the head office in regards to that matter.
PN5426
Do you agree that an aim or maybe the aim of the selection process is to give each candidate the best opportunity to communicate their best attributes?---I think that we can both agree on that.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5427
Would you accept that a common attribute of tiredness is lack of enthusiasm?---If you're tired? Well, it really depends on the individual. I've worked many, many shifts. I've worked night shift in the alum industry as you are aware.
PN5428
Yes?---Actually, an example in question is when I undertook my interview for Ansett Airlines. I just jumped off a 10-hour flight overnight from Bangkok and I attended an interview.
PN5429
Try and answer the question, please?---Look, I'm trying.
PN5430
Do you agree, as a matter of common observation?---Yes.
PN5431
That people who are tired can seem to be lacking in enthusiasm, disinterested?---People that are wide awake and also lack enthusiasm and interest. So the fact that they are tired really isn't a tangible link between them.
PN5432
Have you ever seen a person who is tired, put their hands on their backs like that?---I've seen people that are wide awake do that.
PN5433
Okay. So it didn't occur to you that some of the criticisms that you make of Mr Szegedi were due to - or could have been due to him being tired?---I'm glad you asked me that question, sir, because - - -
PN5434
I would like you to answer it?---I'm sure you would. As I chaired Mr Szegedi's interview and I was very much aware that he had just completed an 8-hour night shift.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5435
Yes?---Mr Szegedi made me aware of that. The very first thing I said to Mr Szegedi was: are you up to doing this interview today? Do you feel okay to do it? Mark said to me, he said: no, I'm fine, it was only an 8-hour shift. There is no problems with me carrying forward with this interview. So we started conducting that interview and through the process - through that process, some of the traits that you're now asking me about, Mark was displaying those sorts of things.
PN5436
Yes?---So once again I asked Mark: do you feel like carrying - would you like to postpone it? Not a problem for us. We can schedule another time when you feel more suitable to it, when you feel up to it. He said: no, I'm to it, I'm fine, there is no issue here.
PN5437
So can you answer my question? Did you take the view that Mark's - that the criticism that you make of Mark, lack of enthusiasm, disinterest, hands on face, carelessness - did you take a view that that had nothing whatsoever to do with Mark being tired?---From Mark's response, yes, I took it as it had nothing to do with him being tired.
PN5438
Okay. So you made no allowance whatsoever for tiredness as a factor in Mark's responses?---I made many, many allowances in regards to Mark's responses, many, many allowances.
PN5439
You made no allowance for tiredness as the reasons for your criticism of Mark in terms of lack of enthusiasm, carelessness and disinterest and you have told us that and you have told us the reason for that and you have told us that the reason for that is because Mark said he was feeling okay?---That is correct. The candidate told me that he was fully fit to carry out the interview.
PN5440
Now, a refusal to do an aptitude test you would regard as a serious and important matter in the process?---It is - the fact that someone actually declines to do part of the process is certainly an eyebrow raiser.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5441
Yes. Something you'd expect, with two or three people taking notes of the interview, something you'd expect to be recorded at least in one of those notes?---It actually - it is. It is in one of the interview notes.
PN5442
Can you show me the note?---Sure. I think it is and what it actually says, it says, he doesn't believe he needs to.
PN5443
It does not mention aptitude specifically does it?---It's in the aptitude section, sir.
PN5444
Yes?---It's in the aptitude question.
PN5445
Yes?---and that was the response and I believe that's my statement. When he was asked to mark, he said: I don't believe I need to do that. You've already got my resume, you know what my skills are.
PN5446
Yes, and that note - - -?---It's in - - -
PN5447
I've seen it and the Commission has seen it?---Would you - do you want me to get it for you sir or not?
PN5448
No, no, I think we are familiar with it?---So we both agree?
PN5449
That, that note is consistent with Mr Szegedi's evidence that he thought he was being asked, not about an aptitude test, but about a psychological test and consistent with evidence that he had been through a psychological test with previous applications and didn't believe that they assisted?---Even my grammar is not quite that bad, sir. I mean, aptitude and psychological really don't sound very similar.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5450
Mr McKenzie, does not say that Mark refused to take an aptitude test?---I'm not aware.
PN5451
You say he did?---I'm not aware of what Mr McKenzie said.
PN5452
Well, I can tell you that his evidence was that Mark reluctantly agreed. Now, are you right - - -?---I am right.
PN5453
- - - or is Mr McKenzie right?---I am right.
PN5454
You are right, and Mr McKenzie is wrong?---Well I don't know because I didn't see Mr McKenzie's evidence, sir, so I can only take your word for it, but what Mark did say through a number of discussions with - because Mr McKenzie had spoken and Annette Laws spoke to him. He said he would have to seek union clarification whether or not he had to do the aptitude exam so Mr McKenzie may be referring to the fact that Mark initially said no, but then he agreed to seeking advice from the MUA regards to whether or not he had to do it and Mark did say that. He said: I will have to seek advice from MUA.
PN5455
No, no?---Well, that's what he said.
PN5456
I can tell you that Mr McKenzie's evidence was that Mark, during the interview, reluctantly agreed to take the test?---Well, I can't comment on that, but the facts of the matter are - - -
PN5457
Well, I'm asking you to comment. Is that evidence wrong?---That evidence is incorrect.
PN5458
Just excuse me for a moment, your Honour. A comment by a candidate in relation to health and safety questions to the effect that he didn't need to use JSAs would be a matter of some concern, wouldn't it?---That he didn't need to use them?
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5459
Yes?---It would be of an issue in line if that is what the question was about, yes.
PN5460
Yes, it would be wouldn't it?---It would be an issue.
PN5461
Yes, and it would have been something that would likely to have been recorded?---One would assume so. That would be correct sir.
PN5462
And particularly, something that you would have recorded?---Personally, myself?
PN5463
If you were asked to comment about Mark's performance in relation to safety - - -?---Not necessarily. As I said it depends on who was asking a particular question.
PN5464
Why?---Well, because if it was a safety gentleman asking the question, he may have recorded then or the scribe would have recorded it down and I would have made it - because I didn't do very much for safety, as has already been alluded in my statement. I would have made a mental note of that particular comment, but more, it is of, I guess more of a relevance to the safety side of things.
PN5465
You would have recorded it - if that had happened, you have recorded it in the - - -?---One of the - - -
PN5466
Let me answer the question - ask the question, please, before you answer it. You would have recorded it, would you not, in your recruitment brief, summarising the process?---Not necessarily, because in regards to what you are asking, those recruitment briefs were an overview - they were internal documents. They were - as to them, they were never meant for the purpose of a dispute procedure, so they were not a transcript of the events.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5467
You have given evidence that - - -?---I gave you evidence that they were an internal document just for Skilled management and Skilled representative eyes only.
PN5468
As a summary of what occurred?---Summary.
PN5469
Yes, and when we look at your recruitment briefs - I don't ask you to look at it now?---I thought you did, sorry.
PN5470
No, no. When we look at your recruitment briefs, you don't hold back. You criticise Mr Bolton and Mr Szegedi when you felt it appropriate?---I commented on certain aspects of relevance.
PN5471
If Mr Szegedi had said in his interview in relation to JSAs: I don't really need to use JSAs, would that have been a matter of relevance?---It may have been. It may not have been as well, depending - Mr Szegedi was not doing a hell of a lot about safety at that particular point in time.
PN5472
See, I'm having trouble understanding what it is you really say, Mr Krogh, because in the recruitment briefs you say: there was no mention of JSAs. In your evidence in your first statement you say:
PN5473
Mark said, "don't really need to use JSAs."
PN5474
?---I refer to my recruitment brief.
PN5475
Do you not recollect saying either of those things in the documents?---For the purpose of accuracy - - -
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5476
Do you recollect saying those things in the documents?---For the purpose of accuracy, I'd like to refer to my documents, please?
PN5477
So is the answer, you don't recollect?---I said, for the purpose of accuracy - - -
PN5478
No, please answer the questions - - -
PN5479
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, please answer the question?---I can't recall verbatim exactly what I said.
PN5480
MR BROMBERG: So you now can't recall whether or not Mark said in his interview: I don't really need to use JSAs?---He may have said words to that effect.
PN5481
He may have?---He may have said words to that effect. It may have been in the light of talking about the application of JSAs, how it developed - that is, that he said: I don't use them, and that's why there was no reference to JSAs in the recruitment brief.
PN5482
Yes, when you from time to time in your statement put words in quotation marks you meant by that, didn't you that those words were used?---I also prick.
PN5483
Is that right or wrong?---If there is no - if there is nothing in front of it that says words tot he effect, or the intent of this, that is correct.
PN5484
At paragraph 77 of your witness statement you say:
PN5485
But Brad Norris asked a number of questions from - and Annette from HR asked some questions. I can recall Brad asking Mark questions about JSAs. I can also recall Mark responding to this question by answering the following: I have done it all before and I don't really need to use JSAs.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5486
Now, when you saw to the truthfulness of that statement, had you at that time been able to remember whether or not those specific words were used?---When I developed his statement, I had the opportunity to refer back to notes, which I've developed this statement off. So that would be a correct statement.
PN5487
So you understand you are under oath, don't you?---I do understand I'm on oath.
PN5488
What you are telling the Commission under oath, is that when you made this statement you were able to recall - when you made this statement, you were able to recall that comment. In the witness-box just now, you gave evidence that you weren't able to specifically recall that comment. It may or may not have been said. That is right, isn't it?---That's what I said.
PN5489
Okay. Now, you are suggesting that when you made this statement you got this comment from a note?---No, what I said was: this comment, right, refreshed my memory, which allowed me to recall it.
PN5490
What comment refreshed your memory?---The note. There are a number of notes written by Mr Norris and others.
PN5491
Well, I want you to find me the note that refreshed your memory that these words had been used?---Right.
PN5492
N13 is a folder that contains a tab for Mr Szegedi?---I've got it.
PN5493
Yes, good. The document in question is headed: WH&S?---Yes. It says:
PN5494
Low expression of safety interest issues. All of it is safety and no mention of a JSAs.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5495
That's the document that jogged my memory on Mark not expressing and using words to that effect.
PN5496
Can I take you to your recruitment brief, please?---For?
PN5497
For Mr Szegedi. Your Honour will see that at N10.
PN5498
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: N10, right.
PN5499
MR BROMBERG: I will take you specifically to 5.8.2, and the note that the witness was looking at. I don't know whether your Honour has got it. Has your Honour identified it?
PN5500
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The note that was being looked at?
PN5501
MR BROMBERG: Yes.
PN5502
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I believe, I was.
PN5503
MR BROMBERG: It is headed - - -
PN5504
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: WH&S?
PN5505
MR BROMBERG: Yes, that is the one.
PN5506
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I believe, I was. WH&S.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5507
MR BROMBERG: Yes, that is the one.
PN5508
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Two items in it.
PN5509
MR BROMBERG: Yes. Have you got 5.8.2 of Mr Szegedi's?---Indeed I have.
PN5510
You have?---Yes.
PN5511
You see you say there:
PN5512
Mark Szegedi presented a low expression of safety issues on site.
PN5513
All of it is safety. No mention of JSA use or risk assessment methods. Do you see that?---No mention of JSA use, or risk assessment methods.
PN5514
Yes?---He understood the basics of tag-out and explained the procedure.
PN5515
All right. Now, the first part, ignoring tag-outs, seems to have been taken almost word for word from the note that you just referred to. That is right, isn't it?---That's correct.
PN5516
Yes, and at that time, when you wrote your recruitment brief, you looked at the very note that you have now just pointed to, didn't you?---I did refer to the notes. I've already said that.
PN5517
Yes, and at that time, looking at that note, did not have you recall that Mark had also said, "I don't really need to use JSAs"?---Yes, I've said to you that's what jogged my memory, and that's what I've written in my statement, and there's 10 by that.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5518
No, no. My question to you is that: looking at this note, as you did, at the time that you prepared your brief - - -?---Yes.
PN5519
- - - did not jog your memory in relation to a comment, "I don't really need to use JSA"s?---I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
PN5520
You looked at this note - Brad's notes, at the time you prepared 5.8.2?---Yes.
PN5521
That is right, isn't it?---That's right.
PN5522
Okay. Now, 5.8.2 makes no mention of a comment with the following words in it, "I have done it all before, and I don't really need to use JSAs'?---That's right.
PN5523
You agree with me about that?---It does not say that, that's correct.
PN5524
Okay. Can you explain to us why, when you looked at Brad's notes to prepare 5.8.2 that didn't, at that time, jog your memory that Mark had also said, "I've done it all before, and I don't need to use JSAs"?---I didn't say it didn't jog my memory at that time, and I haven't written every - as I said to you before, this here is - you look at safety, it is 3 lines out of a statement. When you talk about safety it's probably got about 20 pages, so this is a very quick snapshot. It is not a signed statement on affidavit. It is a quick snapshot to give a Skilled representative and the Skilled management a quick snap. If we had to go into details, then obviously, we would. This is not a sworn statement.
PN5525
Pardon - well, that is a snapshot that didn't contain what you have agreed with me would be a fairly serious comment?---There are a lot of serious comments that Mark made.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5526
No. Well, how do you say that on the one hand Mark made no mention of JSAs, and on the other hand he said, "I don't really need to use JSAs?---JSA use. It says, "made no mention of JSA use" - using the JSAs. The application - - -
PN5527
I put to you that the two comments are inconsistent. On the one hand you say that he made no mention of JSA - to take your word "use"?---That is not my word, it is in the document here.
PN5528
All right. On the other hand - well, in fact, the note does not say use, does it? It says, "no mention of JSAs"?---Or Ras - risk assessments.
PN5529
Yes, so on the one hand you were relying on a note that said there was no mention of JSAs, and that note which said that there was no mention of JSAs, you now tell the Commission jogged your memory that what Mark actually said was, "That I don't really need to use JSAs?---That's exactly what I'm saying.
PN5530
Why would a note saying that there was no mention of JSAs have jogged your memory that there was mention of JSAs?---There was - well, I've already answered your question on it.
PN5531
I don't think you have?---Well, okay, I will attempt to answer it again for you. What I said is that that note and one of the key issues in regards to Mark Szegedi was an apparent lack of understanding of safety procedures - formulised safety procedures, the application of those and the use of those in the workplace. As you eluded to before, these sorts of things stick out, and it was - it is a very key point that stuck out in my mind. Now, how I recall that, that was the trigger that recalled it.
PN5532
You obviously went to notes, not your own notes I might add, of what happened in the interview in relation to safety. Did you go to the next note after the page which deals with Brad's notes?---If that had have been provided at the time from Skilled office, I would have looked at it, because - - -
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5533
Well, do you have any memory of seeing this note before?---What was provided to me from Skilled was the document and the summary of these particular events. I can't honestly recall whether I specifically saw this piece of paper or not.
PN5534
On the issue of safety, unlike Mr Brad Norris' note, this note is a fair bit more expansive, isn't it?---It's got a reasonable amount of text on it, that's right.
PN5535
Yes, and you can't tell us why he didn't - - -?---Why Brad didn't write?
PN5536
No, no. You can't tell us whether or not you had reference to that note in assisting your recollections?---No, I can't, I'm sorry.
PN5537
The best you can tell us is that in order to arrive at your statement you needed to go and look at notes, and the only note that you can specifically state on sworn evidence that he looked at, in relation to safety was Brad's note of 2 lines?---That's correct. That's what was provided to me.
PN5538
All right?---I may have had a look at that, I don't know.
PN5539
Is there any reason that you wouldn't have confidence in Ms Annette Law's note-taking ability?---There's no reason that I would be aware of.
PN5540
No. Now, would you agree with me that in the selection process a candidate who was perceived to be resistant to workplace change and/or frequently in conflict with management would likely be scored down on a number of criteria, and can I go through each of the criteria that I have in mind? Work ethic?---Not necessarily.
PN5541
Attitude?---Attitude, possibly.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5542
Just possibly?---Well, it depends on what his responses were.
PN5543
I see. So someone who was resistant to workplace change would not necessarily be regarded as having a bad attitude, is that what you are saying?---No, what I said to you was that a person may have an extreme positive attitude towards the work he does, but he may have a very negative attitude towards change - he may have a zero attitude towards change. So it depends on what part of the attitude process we were looking at.
PN5544
My question to you was: in relation to the category attitude, a person who was perceived to be resistant to workplace change would be scored down. That is, scored lower than what they might otherwise have been?---If they were resistant to workplace change, and that was the context of what we were assessing, that is correct.
PN5545
Yes, and such a person would also have been scored down by reference to the criteria adaptability?---If he wasn't adapting to change, I wouldn't - - -
PN5546
If he showed resistance to workplace change, and was in conflict with management - had a history of conflict with management?---If he - the conflict with management wouldn't necessarily mark him down on his ability to adapt to workplace change, it would mark him down on maybe employer/employee relations.
PN5547
I see, well, the resistance to workplace change would mark him down on adaptability?---Resistance to change would mark him down, that's correct.
PN5548
Okay, and he had also been marked down in relation to productively?---Not necessarily.
PN5549
Right?---No. He may be. It depends on what workplace change you are talking about.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5550
No? You are the one that understands what productivity means. Does productivity include, or not include, attitude to workplace change?---Productivity is, in summary, a person's ability to demonstrate their - merely into work - that they can carry out per effort, and their ability to increase that output with the same amount of effort. That's in summary.
PN5551
I'm still waiting for my answer. Would somebody who was resistant to workplace change be likely to be marked down in relation to productivity?---He may be marked down, he may not. It depends on his response.
PN5552
Employer/employee relations?---Yes, he would be marked down.
PN5553
Organisational skills?---If he was resistant to change, as already discussed, that would influence part of his scoring regime, and it could affect his final score.
PN5554
So the answer is: yes, he would likely be marked down?---It could be.
PN5555
It is a consideration?---It's a consideration.
PN5556
A negative answer to, will tend to mark the person down?---Well, what degree it's hard to say, sir.
PN5557
Some of the criteria I've mentioned had very high ratings, didn't they? Attitude had an eight, employer/employee relations had an eight, adaptability had a six?---I believe so.
PN5558
So if someone was marked down in relation to those criteria in particular, the knock-on effect would be quite significant, wouldn't it, because of the ratings?---Well, that's - that would be the end result.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5559
Now, there was discussion at the interview of Mr Bolton in relation to Mr Bolton's role as a delegate of the MUA, wasn't there?---No, there's - there was no discussion. Mr Bolton informed the panel of his position as a union delegate.
PN5560
The question was very simple. There was discussion at the interview with Mr Bolton about Mr Bolton's role and activities as a union delegate?---No, there was - there was no discussion. The question - the reference was asked to Mr Bolton how he saw his role as a delegate on the floor in relation to the workshop. That was the only question that was asked in the - - -
PN5561
And he answered it?---He did answer it.
PN5562
That is discussion, isn't it?---Yes, but it's not in the context that you asked the question then.
PN5563
You have trouble with accepting that an answer and - that a question and a response involves discussion, do you?---No, I have an issue.
PN5564
There were questions about Mr Bolton's role as a union delegate. The question is put by you?---There were no questions put by me. Questions are plural, there was one question asked only.
PN5565
The question was - as you've just told us: tell us about your role as a union delegate?---"How do you view your role as a union delegate on the floor?" That was in relation to him personally. How does he personally view himself, not - - -
PN5566
In relation to that he gave you some answers. That is right, isn't it?---He gave some - he gave an answer.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5567
As a result you came to the view that Mr Bolton, as a delegate, had a focus, a main focus of maintaining the status quo and not readily accepting workplace change?---No, that's incorrect.
PN5568
You didn't arrive at that conclusion?---Not as his role as a delegate, no, I did not.
PN5569
You say at paragraph 106 that as Shaun had opened the door on his union activities you then proceeded to ask Shaun to expand upon his beliefs?---Personal beliefs, personal.
PN5570
You added the word "personal" this morning, didn't you?---Personal as in my statement, that's what I've sworn to.
PN5571
Yes, you added that this morning, didn't you?---That's correct.
PN5572
You were then given an answer - the content of which you don't explain at length here and then you say:
PN5573
It seemed to me, from Shaun's response, that indeed his main focus was to ensure that the status quo of the site remain the same. Shaun also made it very clear that any change in workplace reform would need to be done with his involvement.
PN5574
Did you understand him to mean his involvement as a delegate?---I understood from the question that I'd ask Shaun to explain his personal beliefs and what he personally believed about certain aspects because Shaun had provided a number of examples in relation to his position as a union delegate rather than his personal beliefs and attributes and we were trying to get Shaun - - -
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5575
You never asked him about his personal beliefs, did you, Mr. Krogh?---Well, we did, we did.
PN5576
You asked him to tell us about your role as a union delegate?---That's - that's your opinion and I'm saying - - -
PN5577
That is what you asked, isn't it?---No, that's incorrect.
PN5578
Would you have a look at Mr Bolton's folder - Mr Bolton's tab in N13? Have you got N13?---N12.
PN5579
There's a tab: Shaun Bolton. I'll show you the document in question?---No, I think - - -
PN5580
Have you got it?---
PN5581
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are we looking for another note, Mr Bromberg?
PN5582
MR BROMBERG: Yes, it is about seven or eight pages in. It is headed: Addition Notes Shaun Bolton, 10.45. He has given us a time. It is after a document that is headed: Skilled Fitters. I have got a copy of it, your Honour.
PN5583
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It should be in this, should it not?
PN5584
MR BROMBERG: Yes, it should be. Can I hold it up so that your Honour can see what it looks like?
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5585
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Add one note, Shaun Bolton, 10.45. Yes, it is here.
PN5586
MR BROMBERG: Can you find that document, Mr Krogh? Do you know whose handwriting this is?---No, I don't.
PN5587
It seems to be a note of the interview. Do you see in the middle of the page a reference to "Nev" - I assume that that is a reference to you?---I assume it would be.
PN5588
You are known as "Nev" are you?---Known as a lot of things.
PN5589
Right. Do you see the question there proposed: role as delegate?---And it's exactly as it says in my statement to you earlier on. So it is as I say: can you please provide - I'll just go to my statement so I get it right for you. I'll have to read from the start, I'm sorry, sir. I haven't got reference to the particular paragraph, I'll have to start from the - - -
PN5590
Well, I thought we were at - - -?---Well, we start at 93.
PN5591
- - - I thought we were at 106?---No, but I'm referring to my statement and - - -
PN5592
I'm referring to your statement too?---I know and you asked me a question in relation to: at what stage did I ask Shaun, or mention to Shaun about his role as a union delegate, and I'm saying to you that some time later on in the interview process - and I'd have to got through this too, that I asked Shaun: can you tell me in regards to how he saw his role as a union delegate on the shop - on the shop floor.
PN5593
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You did that in 106?---Did I? Thank you, sir.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5594
With 105 being a permissible context set up.
PN5595
MR BROMBERG: What you did at this point that is referred to in 106?---Mm.
PN5596
Was pose the question which is in the note: tell us about your role as a union delegate?---Your personal - personal beliefs.
PN5597
It does not say "personal beliefs"?---Well, it - it - the amendment to my statement this morning does.
PN5598
The note does not say "personal beliefs"?---Well, this isn't - my sworn statement says it - it - - -
PN5599
Why would you want to know about his personal beliefs, about his role as a union delegate?---Because we're trying - we were trying to put those sorts of roles - and as a union delegate he can be a very positive influence to the workplace to a change process and that would be a very valuable asset for us to have.
PN5600
So you were interested whether or not, as a union delegate - - -?---No, I was interested in his personal beliefs on how he would response to a workplace, what he would respond to.
PN5601
You said you wanted to know about his personal beliefs, about his role as a union delegate. The transcript will so say, Mr Krogh. Now, I want to know why you wanted to know about his personal beliefs about his role as a union delegate?---No, I wanted to know about his personal beliefs in - as a role in the workshop and I've just said that to you.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5602
What role?---He would - Shaun had told us through numerous examples that he was a union delegate.
PN5603
Yes?---Shaun had used his role as a union delegate, provided many, many examples. What we wanted to know is, as a person, how did he see that role in the workplace. How did he see that role, what was his view points on it.
PN5604
Yes, because he wanted to know how he would, in the future, go about being a union delegate?---No, I wanted to know what his personal views were.
PN5605
For what purpose?---Well, I've just explained it. We wanted to get an understanding what Shaun's psyche was, what was his view points.
PN5606
About his role as a union delegate?---Shaun had said on many, many examples he used his role, as a union delegate, as examples. We were trying to get Shaun to explain to us - he'd used the words to the effect: I am the voice of - I am the voice of the boys on the floor. I'm their leader.
PN5607
Yes?---Right. We're saying: okay, Shaun, tell us in regards - you're using that as your example, you're a union delegate, fine, but tell us how do you view that role in relation to how you do your business in the workshop? How do you go about your day-to-day activities?
PN5608
As a union delegate?---No, his view points.
PN5609
Mr Krogh - - -
PN5610
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have made your point, Mr Bromberg.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5611
MR BROMBERG: Yes. Mr Krogh, let us assume for a moment that Mr Bolton didn't understand you to be asking him for his personal view because he has had no opportunity in these proceedings to address your very significant change to paragraph 106. Let us assume for the moment that what he was telling you was the way in which he perceived things as a union delegate. In other words, he perceived that as a union delegate, he ought to be consulted about change, that he perceived, as a union delegate that there ought to be some basis for change in the status quo if that is what Skilled wanted. Is it possible that you misunderstood the answers he gave about what he thought he was being asked, that is about his role as a union delegate, is it possible you misunderstood it as responses about his personal views as an employee to his work?---Anything is possible, but there are a number of other comments that are made through it. I think in my statement I refer to when I asked Shuan: don't you think a manager has a right to manage the processes through? So whatever Shuan perceived I can't comment on but it seemed very clear to me that his responses seemed to be a reflection of what Shaun's personal views were in regards to work place change.
PN5612
Well that is not right is it? Look at what you have said at paragraph 108?---One hundred and eight.
PN5613
You said: Shuan also made it very clear that any changes in work place reform would need to be done with his involvement?---That's right.
PN5614
Did you understand that to mean that he was requiring you to consult him as an employee rather than as a delegate?---What I understood from Shuan from that was that I would have to consult with him on both of the answers that you have just given.
PN5615
Did you understand that you would have to consult with him in any other capacity than in his role as a delegate?---I wouldn't - yes, I did because he was also an OHS representative, environmental representative, from my understanding, so there were a number of roles that Shuan had in the work place.
**** NEVILLE KROGH XXN MR BROMBERG
PN5616
And by reason of answers like the one that I pointed to, and I think there are probably 15 paragraphs in your statement that deal with work place change, resistance to change, consultation requirements, by reason of those responses Mr Bolton was marked down, wasn't he?---Mr Bolton was marked down through the responses that he gave. He was not marked down through his involvement or his membership as a union delegate. That had no reference and no bearing on the end result. To the contrary, he actually - he could have been marked up on it.
PN5617
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for 5 minutes.
OFF THE RECORD
PN5618
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Having discussed the state of the matter with the parties I adjourn these proceedings until 9.30 am tomorrow morning.
ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 29 APRIL 2004 [5.18pm]
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
EXHIBIT #MUA23 STATEMENT OF BERNADETTE O'NEILL PN4507
EXHIBIT #MUA24 STATEMENT OF GEORGE FLASK PN4513
EXHIBIT #AIG4 STATEMENT OF CLAUDE CECCOMANCINI PN4539
EXHIBIT #AIG5 STATEMENT OF VASUKI PAUL DATED 06/04/2004 PN4549
NEVILLE KROGH, AFFIRMED PN4585
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS PAUL PN4585
EXHIBIT #AIG6 STATEMENT OF NEVILLE JOHN KROGH DATED 07/04/2004 PN4624
EXHIBIT #AIG7 SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF NEVILLE JOHN KROGH DATED 22/04/2004 PN4629
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BROMBERG PN4632
MFI #MUA25I DOCUMENT COMMENCING WITH: APPARENT ROSTER SYSTEM PN5328
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2004/1725.html