|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220
ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED
Level 6, 114-120 Castlereagh St SYDNEY NSW 2000
PO Box A2405 SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235
Tel:(02) 9238-6500 Fax:(02) 9238-6533
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
O/N 11340
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER RAFFAELLI
C2003/1904
AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL, ADMINISTRATIVE,
CLERICAL AND SERVICES UNION - NEW SOUTH
WALES AND ACT (SERVICES) BRANCH
and
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Application under section 170LW of the Act
for settlement of dispute re restructuring
in Qantas Flight Catering Limited
SYDNEY
9.43 AM, WEDNESDAY, 19 MAY 2004
Continued from 17.5.04
PN5425
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Ms McKenzie?
PN5426
MS McKENZIE: Yes, Commissioner, our next witness is Mr Tyler Weedon but before I call Mr Weedon, can I perhaps just raise one matter of housekeeping in relation to the transcript? Ms Maiden and I have just spoken briefly and given that the submissions on next Wednesday, it would certainly assist Ms Maiden and myself if the transcript could be requested urgently, for today and for Monday, if possible?
PN5427
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN5428
PN5429
MS McKENZIE: Is your name Tyler Weedon?---Correct.
PN5430
Are you currently employed as a Business Improvement Manager for Qantas Flight Catering Limited?---Yes, I am.
PN5431
At the time of the middle management review, were you employed as the Production Manager with Qantas Flight Catering Limited?---Yes, I was.
PN5432
Have you prepared a statement of the evidence that you wish to give in these proceedings?---Yes, I have.
PN5433
Do you have a copy of that statement with you, together with the attachments?---Yes, I do.
PN5434
Do you say that the contents of that statement are, to the best of your knowledge and belief, true and correct?---Yes.
PN5435
I tender Mr Weedon's statement.
PN5436
PN5437
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5438
MS MAIDEN: Thank you, if I can take you, Mr Weedon, to paragraph 3 of your witness statement?---All right.
PN5439
You talk there about the impact of the MMR, in particular, on duty chefs in the latter part of that paragraph, I think, is that correct?---Yes.
PN5440
You talk about focusing on the support provided to those management positions, those duty chefs, do you see that reference?---Yes.
PN5441
So would you agree with me that, before the middle management review, there was very little support provided to those positions of duty chef?---There was very little competent support provided to them.
PN5442
Right. Is it not true that there were very few intervening managerial supervisory positions between the duty chefs and the positions below them.?---You are right, the team leaders reported directly to them.
PN5443
Right and what level were the team leaders?---The team leaders were CSA level 3.
PN5444
Under the new structure that has changed and there are now these new positions of section leaders, is that correct?---I believe that there has been a translation of TW rates of pay into the kitchen since then, yes.
PN5445
In terms of these section leader positions though that have been introduced - - -?---The section leader?
PN5446
Section leader, yes?---Section leader are ASU level 7.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5447
Yes and these are new positions that have been introduced as a result of the middle management review, are they not?---That is correct.
PN5448
The introduction of those positions, is it not correct, came from the analysis of the lack of support provided to the duty chefs, is that not correct?---It is partly as a result of that but also looking forward to what our needs would be going forward and the new requirements of the more senior people in the departments.
PN5449
You are familiar in your former role as production manager, are you not, with the work of the duty chefs?---Yes.
PN5450
You are familiar, in particular, with the work of Mr Ring and Mr Manu, who are the subject of this application?---Yes, I am.
PN5451
Do you agree with me that they were good workers?---Yes.
PN5452
Good at their jobs?---Can you be more specific about that?
PN5453
Well I am asking whether they are good at their jobs, it is for you to answer the question?---No.
PN5454
No, so are you aware that Qantas has a policy in relation to performance counselling?---Yes.
PN5455
Is it not true that, that policy should be used if there are ongoing performance issues in relation to employees?---That is correct.
PN5456
With the exception of a warning to Mr Manu in relation to language and a warning to Mr Ring in relation to the wearing of the coat in the food production area, do you agree with me that you never used that performance counselling policy in relation to Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---Not in a formal sense, no.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5457
No and I put it to you that there were no performance issues that warranted formal counselling in relation to Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---Not correct.
PN5458
So is it your evidence that you did not comply with Qantas policy in relation to Mr Ring and Mr Manu's performance?---In that respect, no, not fully.
PN5459
You did not comply, you agree with me that you did not comply?---There were no formal - correct, correct.
PN5460
So you are asking this Commission to believe that there was a proper policy in place in relation to performance counselling and that it just did not happen to be applied properly in the cases of Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---It was not applied consistently across the board, it was not only a case of Mr Manu and - - -
PN5461
We are talking here about Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---That is correct.
PN5462
Right, well you said that they were not good at their jobs so can you tell us a little bit more about why you say that?---I would say that they did not fully - let me just think a moment about this - there were aspects of their skills that were not able to - there were aspects of their skills base that were not adequate.
PN5463
Well is it not correct that Mr Manu was actually confirmed in the position of duty chef only a few months before the middle management review?---That is correct.
PN5464
So is that not an indication that he was actually seen to be performing adequately in that role?---Yes, the technical side of the role, yes.
PN5465
Well is it not the case that is an indication that he was performing properly in relation to the entire part of the role?---No.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5466
There were no qualifications put on his appointment, were there Mr Weedon?---No.
PN5467
It was never told to Mr Manu, was it, that his performance was lacking in relation to these aspects of his skills base that you are saying are inadequate, you never told that to Mr Manu, did you?---Yes, I did.
PN5468
So when are you saying you did that?---I do not recall the date but we did have some discussions in regard to communication skills.
PN5469
So that is communication skills, anything else?---Ability, financial ability to understand budgeting and financial analysis.
PN5470
We only have your word on this, do we not Mr Weedon?---That is correct.
PN5471
You did not use the formal performance counselling?---No, I did not.
PN5472
That was appropriate to use in those circumstances?---I did not use it.
PN5473
No and you did not use the performance review or performance appraisal system that existed at QFCL to give feedback to Mr Manu or Mr Ring either, did you?---Not the formal one, no.
PN5474
No and is it your evidence that you gave them informal feedback, is it?---Yes.
PN5475
Is not that feedback meant to work within a system of formal performance appraisal and review?---Yes, it is part of it.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5476
So you did not comply with that aspect of Qantas policy either, did you, about performance review?---There was no formal reviews taken, informally there was discussions about performance on a regular basis.
PN5477
Well is there not a requirement for people operating in those levels of duty chef, that they have regular performance reviews, is that not actually an award requirement?---Yes, we spoke - yes.
PN5478
That was not complied with?---You are right.
PN5479
Because there was no formal performance review and no formal performance counselling of Mr Manu and Mr Ring you didn't give them the opportunity did you to recognise these shortcomings that you believed were there in terms of their performance, did you?---I did on a regular basis, I spoke to them on one to one verbally.
PN5480
We only have your word on that?---Correct.
PN5481
Given these regular conversations that you say are taking place you never felt the need to recourse to the formal counselling procedures?---The formal review and counselling, no.
PN5482
So your failure to abide by those two policies in relation to performance counselling and performance review, that's something that is one of your performance requirements is it not, as a senior manager?---That's correct.
PN5483
Did your failure to comply with those policies, did that effect your performance pay?---Yes it did.
PN5484
So you were held accountable for that?---That's correct.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5485
But that didn't cause you to change your actions and begin to comply with Qantas policy?---It made me aware of them and I continued to give them regular verbal feedback.
PN5486
But you didn't use the formal Qantas policies that you agree you should have?---Correct.
PN5487
Now taking you to paragraph four of your witness statement, you say that you are familiar with the targeted selection interview process at QFCL, is that correct?---Yes.
PN5488
Is it your evidence that you followed that process in relation to the relevant interviews that are the subject of this application?---Correct.
PN5489
You agree with me that that interview process requires criteria to be rated in relation to an interviewee's performance?---That was what we used, yes.
PN5490
That each interviewer is required to individually rate each criteria for every applicant before comparing ratings, do you agree that that is part of the procedure?---Each person comes up with their own rating before a consensus rating is taken, yes.
PN5491
Before comparing ratings?---Yes, before we compare and come up with a consensus rating.
PN5492
Part of the procedure is also to ensure that in answer to questions during the interview specific situations, not generalised responses, are part of the answers, isn't that part of the procedure as well?---Could you repeat that?
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5493
Certainly. In terms of eliciting answers to the questions during the interview, the interviewer is meant to get specific situations, not generalised responses, isn't that part of the procedure as well?---If they can describe it with a specific situation, make reference to a style of management and use a specific example of how they may have employed it, yes.
PN5494
But isn't it the responsibility of the interviewer to actually follow up questions to get, to draw, detail out of the candidate?---To try to elicit a response, open ended questions that were to elicit a response, yes.
PN5495
But ask follow up questions to get further detail, isn't that what's required?---If it is not clear, if the question is not clear to rephrase the question, yes.
PN5496
I'm asking you in a situation where somebody gives a very generalised response to the question and doesn't give a specific example, isn't the responsibility of the interviewer to follow up and ask for more detail?---You may probe for more detail of their understanding of it, yes.
PN5497
Well it's not may isn't it, it's you should, isn't that correct Mr Weedon?---Well you are seeking to understand their understanding of it so yes that would be appropriate that you would want an example to illustrate a general statement they might make.
PN5498
Is it your evidence that that's what you did during the interviews?---Yes, on every occasion we tried to ask open ended questions, restate the question and see if the person understood what we were after.
PN5499
When you say "we" you are talking about yourself and Ms Hair?---Right.
PN5500
Isn't is also part of the interview process that the interviewers are meant to take turns in asking questions, isn't that correct?---I don't know that that's a requirement but certainly when it seems appropriate we would do that. Ms Hair was documenting most of the statements, so I asked the bulk of the questions.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5501
Right, so it is your evidence that you didn't take it in turns asking questions?---No, I didn't say that. Rhonda asked some questions and I asked some questions, but I asked more.
PN5502
Right and is it your evidence that as part of the interview process you weren't required to take many notes, is that consistent with the Qantas policy?---We took notes.
PN5503
If I could just ask you about your own, you were on an interview panel, asking you about what you did. Ms Hair has already given evidence about what she did?---Yes, I didn't take a lot of notes, I was engaging the applicant and putting him or her at ease through a discussion style format of interviewing.
PN5504
You see that as being consistent with Qantas policy do you?---Yes.
PN5505
Do you recall that criteria were to be rated on a scale of one to five?---Yes.
PN5506
There wasn't the ability, was there, to record a blank rating, to record no rating whatsoever, was there?---I don't recall.
PN5507
Your don't recall. Perhaps if I show you one of the interview guides, it doesn't particularly matter which one. I think it is attached to Ms Hair's witness statement, perhaps it should be one of the ones that Mr Ring or Mr Manu - do you see there that's the interview record for Mr Ring?---Right.
PN5508
Do you see in the bottom right hand corner there, there is the ratings scales one through five?---Okay under weighting?
PN5509
Rating scales, sorry, at the bottom right hand corner?---Yes, okay rating scale, yes.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5510
One being far below minimum requirement, five being far above minimum requirement?---Right.
PN5511
Does that refresh your memory in terms of whether or not there would be any meaning in assigning a blank rating?---No I'm not sure about a blank rating, I'm not sure why there would be a blank rating.
PN5512
Did you intend to ever - if there is a blank rating for any of the interviews that you did, it isn't your evidence that is meant to mean that the candidate did not demonstrate in relation to that criteria - - -
PN5513
MS McKENZIE: I object to that question, that's all a bit hypothetical and it's two questions, I think it needs to be broken down or Mr Weedon can be shown one where there is a blank rating if there is so he knows what the question is directed to.
PN5514
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN5515
MS MAIDEN: Well for example here with Mr Ring, you see there's a blank in relation to criteria seven?---Again, I do not know why, I cannot explain that necessarily.
PN5516
Right, well is it your evidence that, that is meant to indicate that Mr Ring did not demonstrate any of the requirements in relation to that criteria?---I do not recall.
PN5517
You do not recall. Now just turn the page down to your witness statement and looking at paragraph 5, we might come back to Mr Ring later, you say at the last sentence at paragraph 5 "At that stage" I think you were talking about prior to the interviews, is that correct?---I will just read it through - that is correct.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5518
So, is it your evidence that you did not have the Assessment Centre result for Mr Ring and Mr Manu prior to their interviews?---That is correct.
PN5519
When did you get access to their Assessment Centre results?---I never actually had them myself, I had them during a later meeting when we met as a group to put the interview results and the Assessment Centres together and decided collaboratively, from a short list, those people that were going to go forward.
PN5520
Right, so are you talking there about the selection committee that made the final decision in relation to who would be appointed?---Correct.
PN5521
Is it your evidence that at that meeting that was the first time you had seen the Assessment Centre results reports?---Yes.
PN5522
That you viewed a copy at that meeting but did not take one with you, is that correct?---I did not view one, I did not take one with me, it was in relation to - Barbara Searle was there, who was the organisational manager, she had them, we went through each of them, she went through the detail of each of the candidates.
PN5523
So she read it out loud, did she, you did not actually view it?---No, I did not view it.
PN5524
She read it?---She was reading them, she was reading them to us.
PN5525
All right, so you actually never saw a copy of the Assessment Centre results, you just had them conveyed to you verbally?---I had them - I saw her reading them, I was next to her at the table.
PN5526
But you were not given your own copy to examine at the same time?---I was not given my own copy to take away, no.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5527
Or to even look at during the meeting?---I do not recall whether I actually was handed a copy or not, they were certainly on the table.
PN5528
How long did that meeting go for?---I do not recall.
PN5529
Well do you recall whether it was a whole day or half an hour?---It would be - no, I do not remember, it would not have been a whole day, may be an hour, two.
PN5530
This is a meeting dealing with just the assistant production manager positions or more positions than that?---I was only - it was just the assistant production manager role.
PN5531
Who was on this selection committee?---Barbara Searle was there, Phil Hardy, Eric Skinner, myself and Rob Harden, I believe that was it.
PN5532
So you five were the joint decision makers in relation to the assistant production manager position, is that your evidence?---We discussed the results, yes.
PN5533
Well did you collectively make that final decision?---Collectively, we presented all of the material and had a discussion and ultimately a group were put up and there was a decision taken by - Eric would have made the final decision.
PN5534
So you are saying that Eric was the actual decision maker in that forum?---The final decision maker, yes, having heard all of the opinions and the - not opinions rather all of the material that was gathered from both the interview process and the Assessment Centre and a discussion of the skills and the skills gap.
PN5535
Right, so Mr Skinner was the final decision maker, that is correct?---Yes.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5536
Did you make a recommendation to that body, that selection committee?---Yes, I presented a list of candidates out of the interview process that I thought would be suitable going forward.
PN5537
Right and I presume that is based from that interview summary sheet, for example, of whether or that recommendation on the bottom - - -?---Suitable or not to go forward, yes.
PN5538
So that was what you would base your recommendation on, that is an indication, I am sorry, of your recommendation, is that correct?---That is whether they were suitable to go forward, yes, it came out of the interview process.
PN5539
So there was no consensus reached about a decision, it was definitely a sole decision maker?---No, there were consensus in some cases but if there was a difference of opinion, the case would be put before Eric, the pluses, the positives and negatives of the particular candidates and ultimately if a decision needed to be made, Eric could make it.
PN5540
I put it to you this way then, that all of you were decision makers in the sense that if a consensus decision could be reached but Mr Skinner had the ultimate right to decide if there was disagreement, is that correct?---Yes.
PN5541
Now what documentation did you take with you to that selection committee meeting about the interview process?---I do not recall.
PN5542
Did you take the interview summary form for each of the candidates for assistant production manager?---I do not recall whether it was the forms or whether there was a list of names with some detail on it that was brought in. It is more likely that we took the interview forms that would give some detail if we needed to explain our decisions.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5543
So you say we again, you mean yourself?---Rhonda and I, Rhonda here and I.
PN5544
Rhonda did not attend though, did she?---No.
PN5545
No, so you think it more likely than not you took the interview summary form but you are not sure?---You are right.
PN5546
In relation to the interview guide, do you think it is more likely, the actual interview guide, which has the more detailed answers to each of the questions, do you recall whether you took that with you?---No, I do not recall.
PN5547
Is it more likely than not that you took it, or you think it is unlikely?---I do not know.
PN5548
Did you provide any of that information, either the interview summary form or the interview guide to any of the members of the selection committee?---I do not recall.
PN5549
You do not recall. Do you recall taking any other relevant information with you, for example, their applications, resumes etcetera?---No.
PN5550
You do not recall?---I do not recall that.
PN5551
You do not recall that either?---See what I brought into the meeting I do not recall, I came in with the short list of names of people that were suitable going forward, what supporting documentation I brought in I am not certain about.
PN5552
You are not sure. Did you attend a management feedback session with David Trahaire, who ran the Assessment Centres?---No.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5553
No, so other than the discussion that Ms Searle had about the Assessment Centre reports during the selection committee, you had no other source of knowledge about the Assessment Centre reports, is that correct?---Correct.
PN5554
Now, do you recall whether or not there was a discussion during the selection committee about the assistant production - the people who were applying for the assistant production manager's position about their applications. Was there any discussion about that?---No, not that I recall.
PN5555
You don't think that there was?---The initial application form?
PN5556
Yes?---No, I believe that that as well as the interview formed the basis for the short list that would have been brought in so it would have been considered but I don't believe it was discussed specifically.
PN5557
It went into your decision as the interview panel but wasn't specifically addressed in the meeting?---Not that I recall.
PN5558
What about the resume of the applicants, dids that fall into the same category as the application?---They weren't individually reviewed at that meeting, the individual resumes.
PN5559
They weren't discussed, that you recall?---No, I don't recall that they were discussed.
PN5560
Were there any performance appraisals discussed in that selection committee meeting?---Performance appraisals?
PN5561
Yes?---Specifics no, perhaps only in relation to individual managers, interactions with the candidates, work history.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5562
Right, so there was some discussion of those persons present, their knowledge of a candidate's work performance in the past?---Yes, if they had interaction with them, yes.
PN5563
But not in any formal sense that might be recorded on a performance appraisal?---No. Other than something that might have been recorded in terms of a letter of warning or something that may have been issued.
PN5564
So those matters were discussed, were they, formal warnings?---No.
PN5565
I thought you just said that that would have- - -?---I said it could have, it could be part of how the other managers in the room developed an understanding of the individuals. Barbara Searle, for example, wouldn't have had direct contact with some of these gentlemen but she may have formed a different relationship as a result of different interactions with them.
PN5566
So do you recall whether those warnings that were on the files of Mr Ring and Mr Manu were discussed in the selection committee?---No, I don't believe they were.
PN5567
Were the employees, Mr Ring and Mr Manu's employee files at that meeting?---No, not to my knowledge.
PN5568
So in terms of any documentation of the work experience of the candidates, is it your evidence that there was not actual documentation, that it was only based on recollections of work experience?---No, work experience would have come from myself who had a detailed knowledge and I put together the recommendation as a result of work history and the performance in the interviews.
PN5569
so you had a detailed discussion did you with Rhonda here about your experience of the work performances of the candidates, did you?---Well, when we reviewed the resume we looked not only at their current work performance but any skills that they may be bringing in.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5570
Did you bring into consideration matters though that they didn't raise themselves in the interview or on their resume, things that you knew about their work performance? Did you bring those into consideration in making the decision of the interview panel?---That they didn't cite within, yes, work history would have played a part.
PN5571
Your own knowledge of their work history?---Anything that was documented.
PN5572
What about these issues that you've raised about aspects of their skill base that weren't adequate, communication skills, financial issues?---For example, if one of the candidates was recently given a letter and it was in regard to the communication style within the workplace that might have a bearing.
PN5573
There are no such letters are there in relation to Mr Ring and Mr Manu, are there?---You mean communication style in the workplace?
PN5574
Yes?---Yes, there are.
PN5575
There are letters, are there on their files that relate to those matters?---Yes.
PN5576
You don't make mention of those in your witness statement, do you?---They were - I'm not sure if I did or not. I mean, there are things that are part of their file. In relation to Mr Manu I think I say in there, in the response to Mr Manu's - - -
PN5577
It might be paragraph No.26 but you should satisfy yourself?---Okay. Yes, balanced, including constructive feedback and opportunity for training that would assist him. He received a formal written warning about his conduct.
PN5578
But that refers, does it not, to the issue about inappropriate use of language?---Right, communication skills. That's what I am referring to in terms of manner in which someone communicates with their staff.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5579
Right, so your criticism of Mr Manu's communication skills relates to an incident about inappropriate use of language in June 2002, is that correct?---In part.
PN5580
That's the only written documentation you have is it not that relates to that issue, isn't that correct?---Written warning, yes.
PN5581
So in terms of what was - are there any other written documents of any kind, warnings or otherwise, that relate to the performance of Mr Manu?---I don't recall.
PN5582
You don't recall?---No, these are the only ones - I may have put them in my witness statements, the ones that I recall.
PN5583
Your witness statement refers to all written records in relation to the performance of Mr Manu and Mr Ring?---I am not - say that again.
PN5584
Does your witness statement refer to all the written records that exist in relation to the performance of Mr Manu?---I believe it does.
PN5585
And Mr Ring?---I believe it does.
PN5586
So in the discussion that you had with Ms Hair about the work history of Mr Ring and Mr Manu you took into account those documents that you've referred to in your statement about their performance? You discussed those with her?---Work history would have an impact.
PN5587
I am asking you what you discussed with Ms Hair? Did you discuss your experience of their work history?---I don't recall.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5588
You don't recall whether you did?---Whether I spoke specifically of these incidents.
PN5589
But did you have any other discussion about other matters with Ms Hair that related to their work performance?---Yes, I would suggest that I would have.
PN5590
Would you have indicated to her what you've indicated to me that aspects of their skills base in your opinion was not adequate, is that what you would have indicated to her?---Yes, that there may well be some development needs in their current role, sorry.
PN5591
You saw that as an impediment to their employment in the position of assistant production manager, is that correct?---Yes.
PN5592
And the matters that you discussed with Ms Hair went beyond, did they not, what the applicants themselves proffered in their application, resume or interview about their performance, isn't that correct?---They didn't offer work history, no, other than position descriptions and where they had worked before.
PN5593
But in their interview they answered questions about their performance, didn't they?---They answered open ended questions, yes.
PN5594
So the things that you talked about with Ms Hair weren't just the things that the- - -?---Not necessarily about their own performance, no. They talked about safety, they talked about financial, they talked about performance management of staff but they didn't talk specifically about their own performance, no.
PN5595
Right and you and Ms Hair did have a discussion about their performance and how you saw it in the workplace?---As part of the overall assessment work history came into it, yes.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5596
So therefore you and Ms Hair had a discussion about matters that the candidates themselves did not raise in relation to their performance, isn't that correct?---Yes, they didn't raise them, they didn't raise them in their interview.
PN5597
Or in their application or resume, isn't that correct?---I don't believe that they would have raised issues of their own counselling within their resume, it would seem inappropriate.
PN5598
Now, after the selection committee, the selection committee here we're talking, not the interview committee?---Okay.
PN5599
After that decision was made, actually, maybe we should go first to - was Mr Skinner required to make a final decision in relation to the assistant production manager positions or was it one of these consensus decisions?---I believe the decisions were consensus.
PN5600
Did you have any subsequent meeting or briefing with Mr Harden about your role in the selection decisions to help him in the appeal process?---Sorry, say that again.
PN5601
The appeal process that Mr Harden conducted, are you familiar with that?---Yes.
PN5602
Did you have any briefing or discussion with Mr Harden about your role in the selection process in order to assist him?---No, no I would have - I mean he knew what the process was prior to that. I wasn't party to the appeal.
PN5603
You didn't have any role at all in terms of provision of documentation, provision of information?---No, the documents were there in human resources if you needed them to access then he would have perhaps got that through the human resources manager.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5604
Now, back to where we were?---Okay.
PN5605
Now, paragraph 7, you talk there about you did most of the talking and I think you've already agreed that you asked most but not all of the questions?---Mm.
PN5606
Perhaps if the witness could be shown Mr Manu's interview of record as well and perhaps at the same time, well, I also would like you to show him soon the assessments, the results for those two individuals as well. If you just turn to Mr Manu's interview results first?---Okay.
PN5607
You will see under the interview summary form, there's a typed page there that says "interview guide", do you see that?---Yes.
PN5608
Do you see there where it says "explain the process", that heading and then the second last paragraph says "We will take turns asking questions and we will be making some notes as we go along as a record of the points you raised", do you see that?---Right, okay, you're reading from it?
PN5609
I am?---"We will take turns asking questions and we will be making some notes as we go along", yes.
PN5610
So you agree with me that that isn't what happened in relation to Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---Well, it wasn't one, one, one, one, one, one, I can't recall the timing of the questions. Certainly I asked more of them.
PN5611
So you didn't take turns?---Well, we took turns, but I don't know, what does taking turns mean? Describe that to me a little bit more and I'll tell you if we did or not.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5612
Well, what you said, one, one, one, one, one, one?---Is that taking turns or does one go first and then later, another one asks, is that taking turns? I thought taking turns was sharing, so we both shared. So maybe we did it then. It's up to interpretation, I guess. We're sharing this discussion, but you're asking most of the questions.
PN5613
I get to ask all of the questions, I think?---That's right.
PN5614
Now, I also asked for you to be handed up a copy of the Assessment Centre reports there for Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---Yes, got them.
PN5615
Do you have any knowledge, whatsoever, if you look at the last page summary of assessment results?---Yes.
PN5616
Do you have any knowledge about how those ratings are average, low, minimal competence, competent, how they are arrived at?---No.
PN5617
Do you know what the column "likely competence based on ability and personality data" means?---No. I mean these were things that were explained by Barbara Searle at the time that she was presenting this information to us, but I can't tell you one year later exactly what that is.
PN5618
So it was Ms Searle who explained what that column meant, did she?---Ms Searle went through the evaluations, yes.
PN5619
Did she explain, in any detail, how those ratings average, low etcetera were arrived at?---I don't recall.
PN5620
So was there a discussion of Mr Ring's performance or Mr Ring being distracted during the course of the Assessment Centre because of his father's death, do you recall whether that was a topic of discussion?---I don't believe so, no.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5621
You don't believe it was. Did Ms Searle talk mainly about this final cable summary of assessment results or did she go through the entire document for each individual candidate?---I don't recall, I don't remember.
PN5622
Did she talk mainly about the overall rating for each criteria or did she discuss any of the key highlights of their performance?---She would have mentioned what the development needs work, the bridgeable gaps, that's what this document is designed to help us with.
PN5623
Right, whether or not the person can be trained to perform the role within a reasonable amount of time, is that what you mean?---No, whether they have the base competency.
PN5624
What do you mean by bridgeable gaps then?---Well, whether or not the amount of - whether their level of competence is enough to assume the demands of the role.
PN5625
Whether they met the requirements of the position based on the Assessment Centre results?---Well, it would be based on a level of competence that was assessed in the Assessment Centre and I don't have detail of exactly what that is, but each of these were designed independently to assess the skills of the particular job.
PN5626
The skills or the competence?---Skills, competence, I guess, both. I mean I'm not familiar with this form and how it was put together.
PN5627
So Ms Searle didn't discuss whether or not somebody didn't actually have the minimal competence levels but whether or not they could be trained within a reasonable of time?---I don't recall.
PN5628
You don't recall any discussion about that?---Well, she told us what the results were and she went through the results and that was used to - we looked at the short lists and this was used to help validate those choices and also look at the development needs that might be necessary for any individual.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5629
Right, so was there any discussion about whether Mr Ring or Mr Manu could be trained over a reasonable amount of time to fulfil the requirements of the 8.00 pm position?---Well, we weren't discussing Mr Manu or Mr Ring at this point because they weren't on the short list that was put forward because they weren't the ones deemed as being suitable.
PN5630
So there was no discussion of Mr Ring or Mr Manu at all at the selection committee meeting?---Not at that point, because we had put forward a short list of people that were suitable going forward.
PN5631
So when you say the selection committee made the final decisions about who to appoint, are you saying that they didn't make the final decisions about who not to appoint?---They made a decision based on the recommendations that were brought forward as a result of the interviews.
PN5632
Didn't you also recommend that Mr Manu was not suitable for further consideration?---Yes.
PN5633
Didn't that go to the committee as well?---No, we put the short list of those people that were suitable to go forward.
PN5634
So there was absolutely no discussion whatsoever of those persons that the interview committee thought were not suitable for further consideration?---No. I suspect that if Barbara Searle - Barbara Searle had reviewed all of the candidates and if there was something very inconsistent that would have been brought up but we were there to discuss - in my opinion we were there to discuss the short list of candidates that I put forward.
PN5635
So you agree with me then that Mr Ring and Mr Manu as unsuccessful candidates recommended by the interview panel were not discussed at all at the final selection committee?---They didn't go forward to the next step, no.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5636
They weren't discussed there at all?---Not to my recollection, no.
PN5637
Really the final decision makers in relation to Mr Ring and Mr Manu was the interview panel, isn't that right?---We put forward a short list of people and if there - yes, I guess you're right in that respect because we were - well, not the final decision because there was a list of people that were put forward, so there was still a selection that needed to be made from the short list. So we didn't need - - -
PN5638
But Mr Ring and Mr Manu's names weren't on that short list at all, were they?---That's correct.
PN5639
In that sense then Mr Ring and Mr Manu's assessments and results never really came into their decision as to who would be selected, isn't that correct?---Not during that meeting, no.
PN5640
It didn't come into account - you agreed with me that in effect the interview panel made the final decision in relation to Mr Ring and Mr Manu in effect?---We made the decision on those that were suitable for further consideration and at the meeting we discussed the ones that were suitable. If there were other meetings or other discussions in regards to the Assessment Centre I don't know.
PN5641
Okay. But you agreed with me, didn't you, that the interview panel in effect had made the decision in relation to Mr Manu and Mr Ring because they deemed them not suitable for further consideration?---Correct.
PN5642
You agree with me that the interview panel had no consideration whatsoever of the Assessment Centre results of Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---We didn't discuss them at that time.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5643
So you agree with me that the final decision in relation to Mr Ring and Mr Manu didn't take into account the Assessment Centre results?---I believe that it would have but not in that meeting because if there was something that came out of the Assessment Centre that was markedly different than what had come out of the interview process that would have put up a flag and Barbara Searle would have raised that. If there was across the board a very high level of competence demonstrated in one part of the process that wasn't demonstrated in the other that would have been an odd juxtaposition.
PN5644
You're assuming then that Barbara Searle did an analysis of the Assessment Centre results and compared them to the interview results?---I'm quite sure she would have, yes.
PN5645
Did she say that to you?---I don't recall.
PN5646
That's just your understanding of the process?---I know she is very thorough in regards to the Assessment Centre and had looked at all of them in great detail and she was there as part of the group making the decision, so she was there to help validate some of the decisions that came out of the interview process.
PN5647
So is Ms Searle then in effect the final decision maker in relation to Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---No, she's one of a group of people that help decide.
PN5648
But you've said that the final decision making group, the selection committee did not discuss Mr Ring or Mr Manu at all?---That's right.
PN5649
And they didn't make a decision - - -?---I don't know what Barbara did outside of this area. In that particular meeting we discussed the short list. So we put forward the short list. We discussed it. It seemed consistent with the Assessment Centre, so there was a final decision taken from that group.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5650
There was no recommendations formed at all about Mr Ring and Mr Manu that they weren't suitable?---They weren't discussed at that meeting.
PN5651
I want to make sure you're not splitting hairs about what was discussed and what was just a straight recommendation about any discussion. There wasn't even a straight recommendation without any discussion about Mr Ring or Mr Manu?---Sorry?
PN5652
There was no - is it your evidence that there was also no recommendation or decision by that selection committee without any discussion about Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---We didn't discuss Mr Manu and Mr Ring at that meeting.
PN5653
And you made no decisions about Mr Ring and Mr Manu at that meeting?---They weren't discussed.
PN5654
But you made no decisions about Mr Ring or Mr Manu at that meeting?---No, I mean without discussion, no, I didn't make any.
PN5655
I'm talking about the selection committee; no decisions were made?---We didn't decide on Mr Manu and Mr Ring. We were deciding on a short list.
PN5656
Now Ms Hair was a temporary HR employee at the time that those interviews were conducted, wasn't she?---If that was here - yes, I don't believe she was made permanent at that point, no.
PN5657
You were a senior manager at that time?---I was the department manager, yes.
PN5658
Sorry, is that an incorrect - isn't the senior manager position or is that not a phrase that you're - - -?---There is a more senior group. I was reporting into a more senior group at that point, so I'd have to say no to that.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5659
Right. You've said you didn't take detailed notes. Would you agree with me that - this is during the interviews - in some places in your copy of the interview guide there are no notes, is that correct?---I would - yes, I'm sure.
PN5660
So what did you base your individual rating of a candidate's performance on if you had few or no notes?---I was listening to them.
PN5661
So it was based on your recollection of their answer to the question?---Well, it was moments ago. I mean I was - I had a very interactive discussion with them and - - -
PN5662
But it was based on your recollection, not any notes that you took?---Yes, it was based on my recollection.
PN5663
You're not suggesting that you looked at Ms Hair's notes to refresh your memory or anything like that, are you?---No, I would have had my own opinions of how the interview process went.
PN5664
In paragraph 8 you talk about the length of the interview, the last sentence, being largely determined by how much information was provided by the candidate in response to open questions?---Right.
PN5665
Would you agree then that if the candidate didn't say much that the interview would be shorter?---If they didn't speak it would be markedly shorter, yes.
PN5666
Isn't it true that if someone is interviewed by someone highly familiar with the work that they're doing that they're less likely to go into as much detail in relation to the work that they perform?---I mean if we can just turn to the reference again. Here's the question; "Describe a situation where you've been required to intervene to recover customer service failure. What were the issues, what did you do and what was the outcome". So it gave a lot of different opportunities for someone to comment on it and interviewing for such a senior role there certainly was the understanding that they would be able to draw from the current experience and come up with examples and, typically, that would was the case.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5667
It was your evidence before that you prompted them if they didn't come up with examples?---Well, if they didn't know - if they weren't - if they didn't know what I was saying or if I used a word or a phrase that they weren't familiar with I could try to explain it in a different manner.
PN5668
Did you prompt them if they didn't come up with examples off their own bat or did you see that as their own kind of failing?---Well, up to the point where I was actually answering the question for them, yes.
PN5669
So you didn't go that far I presume is your evidence?---Well, I didn't answer for them. They were interviewing.
PN5670
So you only prompted them up to a certain point; is that your evidence?---Well, to the point that seemed logical. I mean if I was giving them the answer to the question then that made the interview a bit of a farce.
PN5671
Right. You've got those interview guides there for Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---Right.
PN5672
Do you agree with me that there are no ratings recorded on your interview guides for Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---No, quite clearly there are none on - there are none on the sheets themselves, no.
PN5673
They are recorded on the summary form?---That's correct.
PN5674
By Ms Hair?---Yes.
PN5675
So is it your evidence that - - -
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5676
THE COMMISSIONER: I am sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand that.
PN5677
MS MAIDEN: I am sorry.
PN5678
THE COMMISSIONER: In Ms Hair's document of Mr Manu she does have numbers doesn't she?
PN5679
MS MAIDEN: I am talking about Mr Weedon's interview guide.
PN5680
THE COMMISSIONER: I am sorry, I thought you said both.
PN5681
MS MAIDEN: No, I am sorry, I certainly didn't.
PN5682
But in the interview summary form your individual ratings are recorded on the cover page, the interview summary form?---Yes.
PN5683
Yes, you agree with me. That's recorded there in Ms Hair's handwriting not in your own?---In this case, yes. In this case, yes.
PN5684
In relation to both?---Yes, that's her handwriting.
PN5685
So is it your evidence that you and Ms Hair discussed the answers in relation to each of the selection criteria and then you said, well, I think that's a three, for example, and then she gave her rating. Is that how it worked?---Yes, we had a discussion about where we thought the candidate performed on each of the questions and then came up with a consensus rating on it.
PN5686
I was talking about how you came up with your individual ratings?---I listened to them, I came up with my own personal assessment of where I thought they performed in relation to the question and then that was discussed with Rhonda. Rhonda would have had her own.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5687
So I just want to make sure we get this kind of sequence of events right; so after the interview you and Rhonda sat down together and was the first thing that you did say, right, let's record our ratings?---After the interview we each separately came up with our own ratings then we got together and we discussed them and they were to be put on the joint form.
PN5688
So you had a scrap piece of paper or something like that did you that recorded your ratings?---Yes.
PN5689
That isn't what you say in your witness statement is it in paragraph 9?---What does it say?
PN5690
You say:
PN5691
Once each interview was complete Ms Hair and I discussed the applicant's particular responses and we each assigned a rating to the responses.
PN5692
That's your evidence in your witness statement isn't it?---Sorry, read it again for me?
PN5693
You can read it yourself as well. It's at paragraph 9:
PN5694
Once each interview was complete Ms Hair and I discussed the applicant's particular responses and we each assigned a rating to the responses.
PN5695
?---Okay.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5696
Doesn't that clearly indicate that you and Ms Hair had a discussion about the responses before you each assigned an individual rating to those responses?---Well, if that's the way that it comes across I need to clarify it in that we each brought forward our own personal opinion of how the candidate performed and as a result of that we discussed it and then we would mark that on the summary form.
PN5697
So you're saying you came into that discussion with your own fixed view about what your individual rating was?---Correct. We wouldn't - we each took our own opinion. We were looking at it from different perspectives quite often. I had a very strong operational view of it. Rhonda was looking perhaps more from a behavioural point of view because she wasn't so familiar with the operation so.
PN5698
But you agree with me that that first sentence of paragraph 9 isn't completely consistent with your evidence now?---Well, I think it's maybe how it's read. I mean it's how it's reading. Let me just look at it. We did both those things. It doesn't speak in what order; once the interview was complete we discussed the applicant's particular response and we assigned a rating to the response. It doesn't say we discussed the particular response and then we assigned a rating, so I read it that way.
PN5699
Was that discussion immediately after each interview?---Yes.
PN5700
It wasn't at the end of the day's interviewing?---No.
PN5701
You say also in this paragraph that Ms Hair included comments on the interview summary form. Do you see those comments on the interview summary form?---Yes.
PN5702
Would you agree with me that those comments are generally negative in all respects?---Yes, the first two certainly point to deficiencies.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5703
Are we talking about Mr Ring?---I only have Mr Manu's here.
PN5704
You have actually got Mr Ring's there near your water jug?---Yes, all right. In that case, yes.
PN5705
In Mr Ring's case you will agree that those comments are all negative?---Yes, they point to deficiencies.
PN5706
In relation to Mr Manu, they also point to deficiencies, do they not?---With communication skills and financial, and a question with regard to the third question, yes.
PN5707
Leadership?---Yes, the question there.
PN5708
Now, isn't it correct that Mr Ring actually scored the minimum requirement in four of the six selection criteria?---We are looking at David's?
PN5709
We are?---He rated a three.
PN5710
I am talking about all the selection criteria there. He got a three, which means meets minimum requirement, three or more, in relation to four of the six selection criteria?---One, two - show me the four, I don't see four.
PN5711
I'm sorry, you are right, three of the six selection criteria?---Yes, in half of them, yes.
PN5712
Yes, and then in relation to leadership change he was somewhere in between a two and a three?---He had two and a half, right in the middle.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5713
Is that your interpretation of the two and a half, somewhere between a two and a three rating, not quite as bad as marginally below a minimum requirement but not quite meeting the minimum requirement?---Somewhere between marginally below minimum and meets minimum requirement, yes.
PN5714
You will note there from Mr Ring's summary form that a weighting has been put there in relation to criteria 7, additional skills and knowledge, do you see that?---Yes, three, yes.
PN5715
And that there's no consensus rating for that?---Mm.
PN5716
Do you agree with me that appears to be an error?---That it doesn't have the supporting panel members. It's either that or it was a three, and the three that is the error, that it either should have been a three for both panel members or something of that nature or it shouldn't be there at all. There's something in the transcription obviously that didn't - they either put a three there or - it either is in one place or it's omitted in the other, I'm not sure.
PN5717
Well, isn't it correct that Mr Ring and Mr Manu were both assessed against the same selection criteria?---Yes, they both had the same questions, yes.
PN5718
Yes, and if you look at Mr Manu's interview summary form, you will see that criteria 7 has not formed part of his interview record, is that correct?---That's correct.
PN5719
So wouldn't it appear on the basis of that that criteria 7 should not have also been considered in relation to Mr Ring?---Or possibly there was no response from Mr Manu on the question of additional questions. So you couldn't give a rating on it. I can't recall.
PN5720
Let's have a look at that. Do you agree with me that we should perhaps look at Ms Hair's, seeing as she did most of the writing in relation to Mr Manu?---Okay.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5721
His interview guide, have a look at that, you will see that she has a number of notes there in relation to that question?---Okay, in that case then quite possibly it is an error.
PN5722
What seems to have happened in relation to Mr Ring is that a weighting has been assigned in relation to criteria 7 but no rating and that therefore his score would be eschewed, isn't that correct?---A weighting but no rating?
PN5723
Yes, I have a calculator if you'd like to do the maths?---No, that's fine, I'm sure you've done it. Would it have put him higher or lower? Is it an advantage or disadvantage to him?
PN5724
Well, according to my maths, it would have made his percentage score 55 percent?---Okay.
PN5725
So do you agree with me that that does appear to have disadvantaged Mr Ring?---Well, if was 48 rather than 55, then I suspect that it would have.
PN5726
That is an important benchmark, isn't it, the 50 percent mark?---This isn't a pass or fail system. There's no 50 percent pass or fail. This is just a weighting and you come up with a number.
PN5727
But there is a percentage there, is there not, a percentage which, by definition is a mark out of a 100, isn't that correct?---Is it? I don't view it that way. It's a percentage of what you could possibly get but it doesn't speak to whether you pass or fail or what the threshold is for success.
PN5728
So in your view what was the threshold for success in relation to these positions?---Well, it would be in relation to the other candidates. You take the best of the candidates.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5729
Well, isn't it possible that you might take no candidates?---It's possible you may take no candidates.
PN5730
So then you don't take the best of the candidates, do you, if they're all poor?---Well, if they were all very poor - - -
PN5731
So how do you decide whether or not they're poor?---You look at the results, but it's not the numbers that you're going on strictly, looking at their responses.
PN5732
You're looking at the detail?---Yes, you're looking at the detail, you're looking at the number, but the weighting allows you to understand one in relation to the other.
PN5733
So are you saying that, well, it was relevant, wasn't it, whether or not somebody got a 3 or a 2 in relation to a particular selection criteria?---Yes.
PN5734
Yes?---But whether they got 50 percent or 40 percent, I mean it only speaks to their - but there's no pass or fail, I guess that's all I'm trying to say. There's no pass or fail in it, it's one in relation to another.
PN5735
What was the use of that percentage mark then? Why was it recorded if it wasn't?---Well, it showed what they got out of a total possible.
PN5736
If you were quickly glancing at this interview summary form, isn't it the most apparent quick indication of how someone went in their interview?---For someone not used to looking at it, I guess that could be the case. I'd look at the detail. I'd look at the consensus rating.
PN5737
You would look, for example in the case of Mr Ring, you'd look at the fact that he got a 3.5 for customer service?---You look at the criteria in the consensus rating.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5738
Well, let's just look at those criteria then. So for Mr Ring, for the criteria of customer service, he got a 3.5?---Right.
PN5739
That's a pretty good score, would you agree?---He's just above meeting the minimum requirement.
PN5740
Yes, and that's a good score, is it not?---He's just above meeting the absolute minimum requirement, yes. It doesn't say "good", it says he's meeting the minimum requirement. Good isn't one of the descriptors here.
PN5741
So are you saying that a score of 3.5, Mr Ring had got scores of 3 in every single of those criteria, that that may not have been enough to ensure his appointment?---It may not have been enough. He's meeting the minimum requirement at that point.
PN5742
Are you saying the minimum requirement is a negative?---No, but when you interview someone, you're not looking to meet only the minimum amount that you could possibly accept.
PN5743
Well, isn't the minimum requirement what is needed to perform the work?---At a very base level, yes, the minimum.
PN5744
No, I put it to you that that's completely false. The minimum requirement is the requirements to meet that job, not only the job at half rate, the job at full rate?---I put it to you that that's your interpretation.
PN5745
Well, if you could answer the question. Isn't a rating of 3, "meets minimum requirement" an indication that that person can do the job that you're advertising for?---No, it means that they have met that criterion. This is the interview portion, so several other factors go into deciding whether they can do the job or not. This is just one criteria. So this is evaluating them in the interview.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5746
What other factors are they?---Pardon?
PN5747
What are these other factors?---Well, work history and the Assessment Centre primarily.
PN5748
Well, you didn't take the Assessment Centre into account in making decisions about Mr Ring and Mr Manu, did you?---No, not at this point, but ultimately it was taken into account.
PN5749
Well, you don't know that, do you? You don't know that for certain, do you?---Well, no, we put through - we put these up if they were suitable or not, but I don't know that for certain, no.
PN5750
You only put up to the selection committee those persons you thought were suitable?---Correct.
PN5751
So you've covered that?---Yes. I need some more water if that's possible.
PN5752
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, we might break for ten minutes anyway.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.03am]
RESUMED [11.15am]
PN5753
MS MAIDEN: Mr Weedon, we were looking at the interview summary form for Mr Ring, could you just tell me how those criteria were arrived at because for some of those criteria there were more than one question so was it just an overall impression or did you individually rate the responses to the questions?---Are you speaking of the number rating?
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5754
Yes, for you as a panel member?---Yes, you would ask all of the questions and they would give you one response that would encompass the individual questions within it and then you would rate that answer.
PN5755
So where, for example, in leadership change, criteria two, there are two questions there, you would not rate each of those answers separately and then average those ratings or anything like that?---Well sure you would, why would you not.
PN5756
Is that what you did?---Well you would look at their response to each of them and then come up with an overall rating against leadership and change.
PN5757
Right, so you did no individually rate each of the questions, you just came up with an overall rating for that criteria, leadership change?---You would individually look at their response to the questions, come up with a rating and then that would form the basis of the overall rating. If there was two questions - sometimes there was two questions within a single question so you did the same thing, you saw how well they responded to each part of the question and you assigned a single number. So, whether or not there was one question or two questions, you looked at all parts, you saw how well they performed to each of those questions and came up with a single figure.
PN5758
You are saying that you did, in your mind, individually rate their answer to each of the questions that formed one selection criteria?---Yes.
PN5759
Yes, and that then you used those two ratings to reach an overall rating for that selection criteria, in your mind?---Overall, yes, you looked at it all.
PN5760
We do not know, do we, though what your individual ratings were for those questions that make up one selection criteria, do we? It is not noted here on your interview guide, is it?---No, if it is not noted on there then no, they were not recorded.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5761
No, and in terms of reaching the consensus rating, did you and Ms Hair just average you scores or did you have a - did you reach a consensus - - -?---If you could not decide on them, we would decide on them ultimately. We would debate and discuss it and come up with a consensus rating.
PN5762
Right, for example, for customer service for David Ring, you gave it three and Ms Hair gave it four, the consensus rating is a three and a half, you just kind of decided on somewhere between the two?---Well - - -
PN5763
MS McKENZIE: Can I just object to this whole line of questioning. I cannot see how it can possibly be relevant to the issues that the Commission has to determine. I just do not see the relevance of going into the minds of the interviewers at the time, this is not a revisiting of the selection process.
PN5764
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it has been going for some time, has it not Ms McKenzie.
PN5765
MS McKENZIE: I know Commissioner and I have only been moved to raise that because it just seems to me that if we go down this path, we could go down this path for another hour or two and it is of marginally, if any, relevance to the issues that are before the Commission.
PN5766
MS MAIDEN: It is important how the decision was arrived at and what was taken into account in arriving at that decision. Now, Ms Hair went to this yesterday and there were no objections about it. Mr Weedon, it is important that we know how he came to that rating.
PN5767
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, I think just proceed.
PN5768
MS MAIDEN: Yes?---So a discussion on between three and four, we would discuss the difference between the minimum requirement and marginally above the minimum requirement and somewhere in between minimum requirement and marginally above is the point that we chose.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5769
Right, so it is not your evidence that you just simply averaged the scores?---If Rhonda was doing a four and I was quite adamant about a three and those were the ratings that we had then it would be somewhere in between, we would have to discuss - - -
PN5770
You had a discussion, you tried to reach a consensus, you did not just apply a simple mathematical averaging?---No, we had to discuss it in each case because we each had our own opinions that came from different perspective.
PN5771
So you did not just apply a mathematical averaging, did you?---No, I do not believe we did.
PN5772
No, and in relation to the decision about Mr Ring, you will agree with me that he meets the minimum requirements in relation to customer service people and operational issues, do you see that?---Yes, he was meeting the minimum requirement in the response to the questions, yes.
PN5773
Those selection criteria are based, are they not, on the requirements for the position?---Yes.
PN5774
Yes, and in fact, in relation to customer service he is done a little bit better than just meeting the minimum criteria, has he not?---Yes.
PN5775
Yes, and that he has been judged in relation to financial and safety as marginally below minimum requirement, that is right?---Right.
PN5776
In relation to leadership change he is somewhere between a rating of two and three?---Right.
PN5777
Yet the selection committee judged him to be not suitable for further consideration?---That is correct.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5778
On what basis was that conclusion made?---There was the individual response to the questions, which would come out within the numbers and then their overall comments are taken into consideration as well, which is an overall appreciation and opinion of how well they had performed within the area.
PN5779
Well overall comments are not a summary, are they, of their performance?---They are comments on their performance within the area, yes.
PN5780
They are not meant to indicate, in any kind of comprehensive way, how Mr Ring performed in the interview, are they?---They do give some indication of how well they performed in the interview as well, yes.
PN5781
Well there is not one positive thing said there about Mr Ring in the overall comments, is there?---That is correct.
PN5782
Yet Mr Ring met the minimum requirements in relation to three of the selection criteria, that is not mentioned in the overall comments, is it?---No, it is not, so possibly the comments had a bearing on why he was not suitable.
PN5783
So, your evidence is that the decision was made, taking into account the ratings?---Yes.
PN5784
Therefore the answers to the questions through the ratings?---How he answered the questions.
PN5785
As well as the ratings, is that your evidence?---That was one part of it, yes.
PN5786
The overall comments were part of it?---Overall comments were part of it, that is correct.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5787
Is it also your evidence that your views about his work performance were also taken into account?---Yes, work history, yes.
PN5788
On that basis, he is judged not suitable for further consideration?---Correct.
PN5789
Were the same things taken into account in making the decision in relation to Mr Manu?---They were consistent for all applicants, successful or not.
PN5790
So is it your evidence that the successful applicants had much higher consensus ratings than Mr Ring and Mr Manu?---The combination of the consensus ratings plus the overall comments would have been more positive and deemed suitable for the upcoming challenges for the position.
PN5791
It is not your evidence that some of those people would not have had ratings of two, is it?---Sorry?
PN5792
Would not some of those people have had ratings of two in relation to some of the selection criteria?---The successful candidates?
PN5793
Yes?---Possibly.
PN5794
Right, but it's the overall impression that we were after rather than just a specific answer to a question.
PN5795
You considered, did you, at the time of making this decision that Mr Ring and Mr Manu were not suitable for further consideration, you considered their resumes?---The resume was viewed by Rhonda and I before we started the interview.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5796
So when you were making the final decision, you didn't have any specific discussions about their resumes?---We were already privy to that information so it already came into our decision-making process, yes.
PN5797
Not specifically mentioned?---Well, I don't recall.
PN5798
What about any kind of referee reports, did you call any referees that Mr Ring or Mr Manu might have put forward on their resumes?---We would take - I don't recall whether that was part of the HR practice or not. We took everything that was on the document that we valued as being a hundred per cent correct.
PN5799
So you didn't have any discussions with other persons who would have worked with Mr Ring and Mr Manu about their work performance and their impression of their work performance?---Well, largely my opinion was based on the three years that I spent with them.
PN5800
Your own experience?---My own experience.
PN5801
You didn't have any discussions with other persons that had their own work experience, not knowledge of their work performance?---Not that I recall.
PN5802
In paragraph number 11 you say you needed strong candidates to fill the positions. What do you mean by that?---Strong candidates, people that would have the requisite skills that would meet the demands of the new job.
PN5803
You also say you needed people who had vision, drive and commitment?---Correct.
PN5804
I take it your view was that the current duty chef didn't have vision, drive and commitment, was that your view?---Not to the degree necessary.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5805
Paragraph number 12, you talk about how you took into account the candidate's work history?---Yes.
PN5806
Is it fair to say that their work history in relation to Mr Ring and Mr Manu counted against them in this process?---No, not necessarily.
PN5807
So it was a positive, was it, in relation to your decision?---I think it was probably aspects of their resumes and their work history that were very positive and there were likely some aspects that would be a detriment.
PN5808
Paragraph 13, you talk about the selection interview, you talk about bridgeable development needs here. Is it your evidence that when you say you took into account bridgeable development needs, that was only in relation to those persons that were judged to be suitable for further consideration?---At the meeting, yes.
PN5809
In fact, did it go to the particular issues that should be included in that person's learning contract?---Learning contracts would necessarily reflect their development needs, yes.
PN5810
But there was no discussion about Ring and Manu not having bridgeable development needs, that is your evidence?---Sorry?
PN5811
There was no discussion about Manu and Ring not having bridgeable development needs?---There was no discussion of them during that meeting.
PN5812
Are you familiar with the learning contracts for the persons that were successfully appointed to their roles?---Yes.
PN5813
Do you agree with me that the improvement period in relation to those individuals extend in some cases up to 12 months?---Yes. I haven't seen them for some time so you would have to give me some detail, I could try to confirm it.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5814
But is that your recollection?---There were some longer periods of time for development, yes, if necessary.
PN5815
Yes. Is it your evidence that Mr Ring and Mr Manu could not have acquired the necessary competence to perform the position of assistant production manager within a period of 12 months?---I'm not sure about the time frame specifically, but it was part of the Assessment Centre, that was my opinion, yes.
PN5816
When did you consider the Assessment Centre results in relation to Mr Ring?---Only at the time of the meeting.
PN5817
You told me there was no discussion with Mr Ring and Mr Manu at that meeting?---You're right, that's the only time the Assessment Centres were brought up.
PN5818
Were Mr Ring's and Mr Manu's Assessment Centres brought up?---No, we didn't talk about them at the meeting.
PN5819
So you never saw the Assessment Centre results?---We were talking about the learning contract. The learning contracts were written for an ASU 7 position which they subsequently took and at that point that type of detail became part of what we put in for bridgeable needs for them at that point, so that was much after this.
PN5820
You considered Mr Manu's and Mr Ring's Assessment Centre results and what that meant in terms of what development needs they had at the time they were appointed to level 7 positions, is that correct?---Yes, those were written and those were the bridgeable gaps that were considered at that point.
PN5821
When they were offered those level 7 positions?---Yes, part of the process of accepting.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5822
In fact the Assessment Centre reports were instrumental in writing their learning contracts at that stage, were they not?---I didn't write them, I don't know.
PN5823
Is that your understanding, though, that they fed into the writing of the learning contracts?---It would make sense, yes.
PN5824
So is it your evidence that Mr Manu and Mr Ring didn't have the necessary skills and competence to perform those level 7 roles?---No, they were pointed to those roles but - - -
PN5825
They were pointed to them as learning contracts, weren't they?---Yes.
PN5826
Didn't those learning contracts stipulate that if they didn't make the improvements noted in the learning contracts they could be subject to disciplinary action and possibly termination?---If that's what they are saying, yes.
PN5827
Well, perhaps we should go to them?---I am happy to accept your - - -
PN5828
No, I would like to check that. I think they are attached to Ms Hole's statement. SH28 and SH33, so SH28, Mr Manu's learning contract on the last page?---Okay, the very last page, 123?
PN5829
Yes, that's right, stipulates the learning contract is a condition of appointment to the section leader position?---Okay.
PN5830
Do you see that?---This one with my new signature on it?
PN5831
Yes?---Yes.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5832
On page sequential numbering 114, you'll see there that it says that Mr Manu's employment is subject to a three month probation, do you see that, 114, under the heading learning contract and probation?---Yes, learning contract and probation, right.
PN5833
Yes, and it says that he will be employed under a learning contract and it identifies job specific skills, knowledge or capabilities that he is required to develop within the defined time frame?---Okay, all right, I read that.
PN5834
That clearly places an onus, doesn't it, on Mr Manu to meet the obligations set out in his learning contract, does it not?---Yes.
PN5835
I think the same applies to - it's a similar wording in Mr Ring's learning contract, do you see that?---Yes, I see the three month probation, I don't actually have the learning contract attached.
PN5836
Actually, no, neither do I, but certainly in relation to the confirmation of redeployment you confirm that that wording is quite similar to that for Mr Manu?---Under the learning contract and probation, yes?
PN5837
Section, yes?---Yes.
PN5838
On that basis it's reasonable to conclude, is it not, that Mr Manu and Mr Ring were required to improve their skills and knowledge in order to retain their level 7 positions, isn't that correct?---They were required to meet these development tasks and activities.
PN5839
Outlined in their learning contract?---Right, which is outlined, I'm quite certain, taken out of a position description for the new role.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5840
In order to retain those positions?---Well, if they fail to perform in the role, then it would only seem logical that there would be counselling. It would come as a result.
PN5841
Counselling in the same way - the kind of counselling that you never offered them as duty chefs?---One would hope that it might be improved, maybe under the new manager it would be better.
PN5842
Now, Mr Manu was, at paragraph number 17 - - -?---Okay.
PN5843
Now, you say there that Mr Manu was subsequently offered and accepted a level 7 position, do you see that?---Yes, I'm reading it with you.
PN5844
Isn't it actually true that Mr Manu was interviewed for the level 7 position?---I don't recall whether he was interviewed again for that position or not.
PN5845
Well, I put it to you that yourself and Ms Hair actually did interview him for that position?---Okay, all right.
PN5846
Now, why was he re-interviewed for that level 7 position at substantially lower than his substantive grade?---Well, the interview process was an opportunity for him to understand what was required in the role.
PN5847
Mr Ring wasn't re-interviewed, was he?---I'm not sure. Was he?
PN5848
I put it to you that Mr Ring was not re-interviewed for that position?---Okay.
PN5849
In fact, he was redeployed into that position without further interview?---Okay.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5850
Why was there a different procedure applied in relation to Mr Manu as to Mr Ring?---I don't recall, perhaps one applied for it and the other didn't, I'm not sure.
PN5851
That is true, Mr Manu did apply for it and Mr Ring only saw it as a redeployment option, is that a possible reason?---It's possible if someone had applied for it then we would give them an interview as opposed to a strict redeployment option.
PN5852
You say in 18 that the two remaining assistant production managerial positions were later filled by external applicants, so who were they?---They were Simon Flawn and Matt Morris.
PN5853
Morris, sorry?---Matthew Morris.
PN5854
Matthew Morris and you'll agree with me that the external applicants didn't go through the Assessment Centre, did they?---Not the same Assessment Centre, no.
PN5855
And you hadn't worked with those individuals, had you?---No, they were externals.
PN5856
And you had no knowledge of their work history, is that correct, first hand knowledge of their work history?---First hand knowledge?
PN5857
Yes?---No, I hadn't worked with them before.
PN5858
Isn't it possible that those successful external applicants were not as good as the rejected internal applicants?---That's always the risk.
PN5859
There was no analysis done, was there, of the external applicants viz a viz the unsuccessful internal applicants, was there?---The decision was made on the internal applicants and then subsequent to that the vacancies were filled with the externals.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5860
You didn't conduct any analysis of comparison, for example, comparison of the external applicants to the internal applicants?---No, the decision was taken on the internals first.
PN5861
In paragraph 19, you talk about some transitional personnel?---Correct.
PN5862
Mr Burwood and Mr Fairbrass were transitional personnel who completed the assistant production manager role for a short period of time, is that correct?---Correct.
PN5863
And they didn't subsequently become permanent?---Correct.
PN5864
Were any of the successful external applicants transitional personnel?---No.
PN5865
Now, returning to paragraph 21, you have outlined some flow diagrams there about the pre MMR and post MMR structure, do you agree with me that in the post MMR structure there's a new layer of supervisory management in relation to section leaders and production inventory supervisors, that's correct, isn't it?---Correct.
PN5866
And that there seems to be a new position there as well of material handlers, is that correct?---It's a new function that was added to the overall responsibility of the assistant production manager; that's material handling.
PN5867
Right. Is it your evidence that that function existed before but just not under their area of responsibility?---It existed in what was formerly the stores department.
PN5868
Right. You say in paragraph 22 that you've made a comparison of the key result areas for the duty chef role and the new role?---Yes.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5869
You've used the position description to do that I see?---Correct.
PN5870
Position descriptions, yes. And do you agree with me that the position descriptions are a valid based comparison between those two positions?---They are a comparison. It's the best written interpretation of what the role requires in those specific areas, yes.
PN5871
Isn't it true that the old position descriptions were formatted to be one page long but that there's no such restriction on the new position descriptions, isn't that correct?---I'm not familiar with any restrictions, I'm not sure.
PN5872
Okay. Now just taking you briefly to TW2 which is the assistant production manager position description attached to your witness statement?---Yes okay.
PN5873
Do you see that the status of this position description is submit for authorisation?---I see that, yes.
PN5874
So you agree with me that this is not the final copy of that position description, is it?---I don't know.
PN5875
Isn't it the case that when a position description has been approved it says in that section of the form "approved" not "submit for authorisation"?---No, I don't know that but that sounds logical.
PN5876
Right. So it may be that this position is not the final copy of the position description for assistant production manager?---If it wasn't authorised for some reason, yes, I guess.
PN5877
There might have been further amendments, for example?---I don't know.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5878
You don't know, okay. Are you aware that position descriptions are now attached to all new contracts of employment at QFCL?---I think that was always the case.
PN5879
These position descriptions you'll agree are detailed documents, that's correct, isn't it?---Yes.
PN5880
You've not been able to compare every single sentence in those two position descriptions, you've picked out some bits and not others to do your comparison, that's right, isn't it?---Yes, I haven't cited every single line. There's probably not too much value in doing that.
PN5881
Certainly, so you have picked out some bits and not others. But you say here in your evidence that you've compared the key result areas, is that correct?---The ones that I think best demonstrate the differences.
PN5882
That's a section in the position description, isn't it, key result areas?---Yes, it is, key accountabilities, key challenges.
PN5883
Your evidence says you've compared the key result areas which is a defined section in each of the position descriptions, that's right, isn't it?---The key result areas that I felt pertinent, yes, for demonstrating the change.
PN5884
So you agree that you haven't compared all the key result areas of the old position description?---Line by line one to another well that - if I haven't then I'm sure that the differences are made abundantly clear with the ones that I've chosen.
PN5885
It wouldn't surprise you then that you've missed out key result areas 3, 5, 6 and 7 from the old position description?---If that's the case.
PN5886
You will agree with me that there is actually only seven key result areas in that position description, TW1?---TW1?
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5887
Is the old position description?---I just have TW2 in front of me but that's fine, if there's only - - -
PN5888
Sorry, perhaps you should grab TW1. Have you got that now?---I don't have it with me. I have TW2 only.
PN5889
Perhaps the witness could be shown TW1. Was it not attached before?---Yes, it must have been but it must have come off in my attachment. I'm not sure where it is.
PN5890
You see there there are seven key result areas for TW1?---Yes.
PN5891
I put it to you that you have missed out key result areas 3, 5, 6 and 7?---Okay, if the others are indicated and those aren't.
PN5892
Right, and that that's more than half of those key result areas, isn't it?---Three out of seven which - how many have I missed?
PN5893
Four, 3, 5, 6 and 7?---Okay, that's more than half.
PN5894
With the new PD if we just look at the first comparison that you've done there?---Okay, let's do that.
PN5895
The first description you've provided from the new PD says "provide leadership, coordination and support". Do you see that quote?---Right.
PN5896
That's not a key result area, is it, for the new position description, is it? It's actually from the position summary for that position, isn't that correct?---Okay.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5897
So you're not actually comparing, are you, here a key result area from the old PD and a key result area from the new PD?---I'm looking at a key results area and contrasting it with a - - -
PN5898
Summary of the entire position, isn't that right?---Okay, if that's true I still don't understand why it's not valid. This is based on my detailed understanding of the job and what the requirements are and that I wrote and I was party to putting this together. I feel quite comfortable with being able to contrast one with the other rather than specifically what heading they're under; we're talking about a skill set that we're contrasting rather than a grouping within a PD.
PN5899
You've said, haven't you, in paragraph 22 that you've made a direct comparison of the key result areas for the old role and the new role? So that is clearly not the case, you're comparing some key result areas with some position summaries and other things. So it's clearly not correct that statement in paragraph 22?---If that's not correct it doesn't have any impact on what's stated in terms of the comparison, no.
PN5900
You're not comparing apples with apples are you though, you're comparing key result areas with a summary for the entire - for the position as a whole?---I disagree.
PN5901
You said you were a part of forming of this table. Did someone assist you with that did they?---Someone would have in human resources. I described in great detail what I needed out of the role and this is the best representation of the skills that are required to meet the challenges of the role.
PN5902
You're talking about the position description, about how it came to be written, are you?---That's correct.
PN5903
The new one; you're not talking about this table that appears in your witness statement?---No.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5904
You solely wrote this table?---This is mine. This was written in collaboration with myself.
PN5905
So, you agree that the final comment, the final column, with the comments and changes is your opinion in relation to comparison between these jobs, is that correct?---That's my expert opinion on what is required for the job that will be reporting to me, yes.
PN5906
The first comment/change that you make there is about increased emphasis on leadership, co-ordination and support?---Right.
PN5907
Now isn't it true that the reason why there is that increased emphasis is because you are comparing a narrow key result area with a summary of the entire position?---No that's not correct. It is because there is an increased emphasis on leadership, co-ordination and support in the role itself.
PN5908
So that conclusion that you written there isn't actually based on a comparison of the key result areas, it is based on something else?---It is looking at all the information in one PD and all the information that is presented in the other PD, and that the headings on top of it may be different, doesn't negate the comment or the change that I thought was important. If something is listed under key challenges, key accountabilities doesn't - I disagree with your statement, that it is a summary and that in some way it is not valid.
PN5909
Well of course it is valid, but is it a proper basis of comparison with one key result area?---I believe so, yes.
PN5910
Now you say, you talk about this increased emphasis in your first dot point and then in your second dot point you say how that is achieved. Do you see that?---It is achieved through increased shift co-ordination, yes.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5911
So the introduction of this new position, section and crew leader, is instrumental in terms of achieving that change in emphasis?---Correct.
PN5912
Isn't it the case that the duty chefs had been asking for many years for the introduction of a person such as a section and crew leader so that they could be freed up to spend more time on higher level functions?---They may well have been in agreement with the new structure, yes.
PN5913
Well that wasn't what I asked. Isn't it the case that the duty chefs had actually been asking for the introduction of that kind of change for some time to free them up to focus on higher level functions?---They had been asking for support but they had not detailed specifically what that level of support should be and where it should be placed.
PN5914
Didn't they say that the introduction of that support would free them up to be able to focus on higher level activities, less day to day stuff?---That would seem logical but it begs the point of whether or not they were the candidates that were able to move up to the next level and that's what this is about.
PN5915
Do you recall them saying, the duty chefs, some or all of them, saying we need some assistance for some of the work that you are asking us to do?---Whether or not that was as a result of too much work or an inability to perform the task is what is in question.
PN5916
Wasn't the request for assistance about those more mundane day to day tasks, wasn't that what the request for assistance related to?---No I don't believe so, I think it was more the writing of ....., the managing of safety and some of the more strategic items that they weren't able to get to that I was doing in my role. So we were looking to put someone in that who could take on the strategic focus of the business rather than the day to day.
PN5917
So that was your interpretation that they wanted someone above them, is that correct?---Those were the items that they weren't doing in their current role that I needed someone to be doing.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5918
The introduction of a position section and crew leader enabled those functions to begin to be carried out?---If people had the competent skills at the APM level, yes then they could do those and take those off of my list of duties.
PN5919
Right, so those functions were part of your role, is that right?---No, they were part of my role because there wasn't anyone else capable of doing them in the business.
PN5920
Well didn't you say that those were things that the duty chefs were finding they weren't doing?---They weren't doing them.
PN5921
But it was still part of their role, is that correct?---Still part of their role, yes, hence my first comment in the questioning in regards to whether or not they were doing the role completely and competently.
PN5922
Now this next section here on page six of your - it says:
PN5923
APM position is fully accountable for both the resource optimisation.
PN5924
Now isn't it the case that that was something the duty chefs also did?---No, they were not involved in putting budgets together for the department. I was doing that solely.
PN5925
Well, wasn't one of their key result areas to:
PN5926
Establish and maintain systems to monitor financial performance.
PN5927
?---It may well have been in their position description but there weren't doing it.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5928
Okay, and you make a point of material management being a separate accountability?---Yes.
PN5929
Now that's just a change in wording isn't it, I mean it is covered by utilisation of resources in the old PD isn't it?---No there's a whole new section that was brought in to the department that was formerly part of stores that added a greater deal of complexity in terms of material management that wasn't there before.
PN5930
Well isn't it the case that the duty chefs had a great deal of responsibility in relation to stores, particularly on the evening shifts?---They were responsible for procuring the product but they weren't actually responsible for the stores function for staffing it and for the management of it.
PN5931
They didn't have a role supervising that area in the evenings?---No they weren't directly responsible for the stores function prior to this, no. That was part of stores and that became part of this department which is one of the added responsibilities added to the job.
PN5932
I should just ask as well, just to make it clear, these tables, these pre MMR and post MMR tables, have there been any changes in those subsequent to you making this witness statement, because I know there have been some changes in QFCL?---Not to my knowledge, I haven't been in the role since November so I can't comment.
PN5933
Okay. Well I put it to you that the duty chefs did have a certain element of responsibility in relation to the stores area prior to the middle management review?--- Well they were responsible for having labour and materials so that they could run their shift, but in terms of things like the budget for the department, inventory turns, management of leave, management of sick time and safety in the area, those were things that rested within the stores department and they reported up to the stores manager. So the basis of the bigger parts of the job other than just the delivery of the product, they were the customer of the stores department but they were not running the stores department.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5934
Right, and didn't they have responsibilities in relation to wastage previously?---Yes, but that's part of what you would have in a kitchen in terms of yields and wastage but that's not the stores department, that's a function that rests within the kitchen and typically reports through one of the senior chefs in the area.
PN5935
Right you concede in the next dot point that co-ordination of labour resource and material is similar, then you go on to qualify that. Basically you make a distinction between macro management and micro management?---Correct.
PN5936
So you agree with me that the old PD for the duty chef position included a role at that macro level, didn't it?---It would have described a situation where they would be looking at the overall health of the department at a macro level, yes.
PN5937
Is it your evidence that, that was not done?---That is correct.
PN5938
Now, you have referred here to, in the next section, "strong behavioural and process change management function"?---Right.
PN5939
Do you agree with me that the position description for the old position required:
PN5940
Leadership skills, organisational skills, dynamic, highly motivated persons with improvement, demonstrated commitment to OHS customer service, continuous improvement, ability to initiate change, prioritise and manage complex projects.
PN5941
You will agree all those kinds of things are in the old position description?---You are reading them off the position description?
PN5942
I was, yes?---Well then they are in there.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5943
Is it not true that duty chefs have used the people safe systems in their old role?---Only to a very limited extent it started but really that is not what this is speaking to, this is speaking of someone that can drive a culture of change that we are seeing now in programs like LEAN that are coming in where people understand that it is behaviour and cultural change that is adopted and in relation, specifically to the safe program and the use of the Dupont system of safety observations, that is certainly something that had to be chased upon on a regular basis in terms of whether or not they were doing it or not. So I would give that a very poor rating in terms of performance in that regard as well.
PN5944
A lot of why the APM can now do these things is because they have section and crew leaders, is that not correct?---That is part of the reason but we also have a different type of person in the role that can manage and understand the importance of it and not relegate it to a secondary level behind task functions of the day.
PN5945
Well is it not possible the reason why the duty chefs were allocating it behind the task functions of the day was because of time constraints?---I think it was poor time management rather than time constraints.
PN5946
You did not counsel them in relation to that, did you?---Not specifically on time management, no.
PN5947
Now this final point that you make in the table about cross-training to relieve the duty service managers?---Right.
PN5948
You will agree that this is a new function, is it not, for the APM's?---Yes, that is something new.
PN5949
That in fact, in order for those APMs to perform that role they have to be trained?---Yes, they would have to spend some time in a new area and understand some of the particular requirements of that area, yes.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5950
So, in a similar way, the old duty chefs could have also been trained to perform that role, could they not?---No, I do not believe so because the duty services manager role is a very senior role that has the same kind of requirement for competencies that you find in the APM role so if they were not able to meet the APM role they would not be able to make the grade on the duty service manager role either.
PN5951
Well, is it not the case that the duty chef role and the APM role are exactly the same award classification, is that the case?---Senior professional?
PN5952
SP1?---Right.
PN5953
Is it not the case that the award actually sets out what the knowledge, problem solving and accountability requirements are for an SP1?---Okay, all right, an SP1 across the board, whether that person is working in accounting or working in operations or working in marketing it would be a very generic sort of overall view of what is required.
PN5954
You understand, do you not, that the award provides a scale in relation to these issues of knowledge, problem solving and accountability?---The award is a guide that we need to go by, certainly.
PN5955
Yes, and you are not suggesting that duty chefs are improperly classified as SP1's, are you?---If that is what they were classified as, as part of the Qantas structure, then it would seem appropriate.
PN5956
Right, so in terms of the seniority of the position, duty chef and assistant production manager, they are the same seniority, are they not?---They are the same award classification.
PN5957
Are they not the same seniority?---Well there is all different - I mean I am an executive and there is all different levels of executive, from Jeff Dickson to myself, so you cannot really say that they are all the same.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5958
Is it not the case that the duty chef has the same seniority relationship - - -?---Same award, same award classification but you need to look into the detail of the position description to understand the differences, so that is what the table is about.
PN5959
Let me just finish the question. Is it not the case that the duty chef is in the same seniority position in relation to the duty services manager as the assistant production manager is?---Can you say that one more time?
PN5960
That the duty chef and the assistant production manager have the same relationship vis a vis seniority with the duty services manager?---In, I think overall, the duty service manager would be the most senior person on shift.
PN5961
Yes, I understand that the duty services manager is more senior than the assistant production manager and the duty chef, what I am suggesting to you is that the assistant production manager and the duty chef are at the same level below the duty services manager?---Well they would be the same award classification, yes.
PN5962
So are you familiar with the award classification structure?---No, I would have to read it.
PN5963
Are you aware what grade Mr Ring was prior to the middle management review?---I believe he was a level 9.
PN5964
Right, well is it not the case that when he was originally appointed to the level 9 position that was only meant to be for a period of six months and that he was then to automatically be graded as a level 10?---I am not sure, that was before my time.
PN5965
Is that, in your experience, something that commonly happens at QFCL, that somebody has a period in a lower grade and is then automatically regraded after a certain period of time?---No, there is no automatic regrading typically, they are based on merit.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5966
Are you aware of errors in the QFCL HR system about people's grading, they happen from time to time, do they not?---I am not aware of any, if I am made aware of them they correct them but certainly there could be transcription errors that are in the HRI system.
PN5967
Now is it your evidence that when you compare the position descriptions for the old duty chef and the new duty chef that, strictly speaking, they have the same level of function but that, in practice, that is not what occurred, is that correct?---No, I think they are different, I think they function differently.
PN5968
I am talking about the level of function here?---I think they function at a different level.
PN5969
Doesn't the award actually stipulate that by being the same classification that they are functioning at the same level?---I think there is probably within the generic award all the different - there was a bit of variability and I will point again to levels. You may manage managers, you may not manage managers but it could all still be encompassed within the same pay band that is senior professional.
PN5970
So is it your evidence that the duty chefs are at the lower end of SP1 in terms of skills and responsibilities and that the APMs are at the higher level of SPI in terms of skills and responsibilities?---The skills and responsibilities are certainly different, yes.
PN5971
You think that's possible to reconcile within the award classification?---Absolutely because there is some level of variability in what you do, depending on if you are an SP1 and you are working within a marketing environment you may not have a lot of people reporting to you. In an operations environment you may have a lot of people who are reporting to you. You could have quite different jobs and still be under a senior professional because it applies to the entire organisation.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5972
I understand that there will be differences in jobs but the award levels are actually meant to ensure, are they not, that persons at the same classification level have similar levels of knowledge, problem solving and accountability in a generic sense?---In a generic sense?
PN5973
Yes, is that right?---Yes.
PN5974
Now, can I take you to paragraph No.26. Here you are talking about Mr Manu's performance. Do you see that?---Yes.
PN5975
You say he received a formal written warning in June 2002. Can you provide us with some more detail about that?---I would have to have it in front of me.
PN5976
Isn't it the case that that related to inappropriate language in the workplace?---Okay, all right.
PN5977
Do you agree?---There was a case where Manu, I believe, he was stood down as a result of that inappropriate language in the workplace, yes.
PN5978
Is that the formal written warning you are referring to there in your statement?---Yes.
PN5979
The language was some kind of swearing, I believe?---Correct. I don't recall what were the swear words though.
PN5980
No, to go to that. Wasn't it the case that that formal written warning was to be removed from Mr Manu's file after 12 months?---If that's in fact what was written on it, yes.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5981
You don't recall?---I don't recall, I haven't read the document so I am not sure if it's to be removed after 12 months. If that is the normal practice then, yes, it should be removed.
PN5982
Is that the normal practice?---If that is the normal practice within the human resource function I would have to ask human resources. I'm involved in looking at it, looking at the behaviours and initiating them. The management of the files is something you'd have to ask HR for classification.
PN5983
But you are not suggesting that this formal written warning was any kind of significant factor, are you, in Mr Manu's failure to achieve a position of assistant production manager, are you?---No, it's only in response to his statement where he said he never received any feedback so I just wanted to point out that there were in fact cases there, in case he didn't remember that particular one.
PN5984
Did you look at that formal written warning in order to write your witness statement? Did you look it up in his personnel file?---There would have been - I would have had to go and see if there was any on there.
PN5985
Right. It is the case, is it not, that Mr Manu was actually confirmed in his position in the months leading up to the middle management review?---Yes, it was an overall agreement with the TWU.
PN5986
Mr Manu is not a member of the TWU is he?---No, but this applied to them as well. The agreement was with the TWU but it extended to the LHMU as well.
PN5987
We are not them either?---No, but you asked the question.
PN5988
Is it your evidence that despite being confirmed in that role that Mr Manu didn't deserve that position on merit?---There wasn't a process of evaluation at that point.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5989
So you don't know?---I don't know. They weren't evaluated when these positions were changed. It was done because it was a blanket agreement that was part of an agreement with the TWU and the local management.
PN5990
Are you aware of any problems with the union in relation to carrying out performance appraisals in your area or anywhere?---No. Well, anywhere.
PN5991
At QFCL?---No.
PN5992
In paragraph 28 you say all relevant information was considered as a whole at the end of the process in determining which internal applicants would be appointed to positions. So you don't make that point in relation to all information being considered for those who were not going to be appointed to positions, do you?---All relevant information was considered as a whole at the end of the process. It's for the people that were put - I mean the final process in the selection meeting was the people that were on the short list in the Assessment Centres.
PN5993
Paragraph 29. You are not suggesting that Ms Hair was an actual independent on that interview panel are you?---Yes I am or else I would falsify - - -
PN5994
I don't think you used those words, that's all?---She was independent.
PN5995
You say she was objective. Isn't it possible for someone to be objective but not an independent?---She was both.
PN5996
You are saying that she was completely independent of QFCL?---She was working as a temp at QFCL so she wasn't a third party like the Assessment Centre was. She was working for QFCL but she was objective and not under my influence.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN5997
So by contrast your weren't objective, is that your evidence?---No, I was objective but I wasn't separate because I was actually working for the company.
PN5998
She was working for the company too, wasn't she?---Absolutely. She had a job in HR and I had a job in operations.
PN5999
But she wasn't an independent in the way that Davidson Trahaire would have been?---No, she was part of the human resource areas within the facility,.
PN6000
Right. Now, there was no third person was there in any of the interviews you conducted for assistant production manager positions?---No.
PN6001
Isn't it possible that if a third person had been present at those interviews that they could have had a different view about the performance of the candidates?---Yes, it could have been better or worse.
PN6002
And wouldn't it have ensured that the decision of an interview panel was spread among more people?---If there was three there would be more people but it wouldn't have changed the objectivity of it.
PN6003
You don't know that do you?---No, I don't.
PN6004
So paragraph No.34, you talk about the technical parts of the duty chef role were carved off and pushed down to the section leaders freeing up the assistant production manager to work on strategic projects. Is it your evidence, if this piece of paper represents the old duty chef, that you carved off some of their duties and gave those to the section leaders and that what remains is the assistant production manager?---No, you mean that piece of paper is part of the accountabilities that the big piece of paper was overseeing, because both pieces is assistant production manager and the little piece of paper becomes the day-to-day tasks that the little piece of paper is looking after, but both pieces of paper are the responsibility of the APM, I don't know if that's clear.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6005
We are talking about what the duty chef is doing, but you don't resile from the statement you have made there in paragraph 34?---Sorry?
PN6006
You don't resile from that statement you have made there in paragraph 34?---No, that's correct.
PN6007
Paragraph 42, I think we have covered that. Are you aware that Mr Ring and Mr Manu were asked about their availability over the Christmas period to be acting as the assistant production manager during their absence on leave?---Over the Christmas period?
PN6008
Yes?---No, I wasn't in the role at that time.
PN6009
In paragraph 49 you say that Mr Ring received a formal written warning in June 2001. This warning didn't relate to reporting standards, did it?---It related to his compliance with HAFS, the food safety side of our business.
PN6010
Wasn't it the case that you gave Mr Ring a warning because he wasn't wearing the mandatory white coat in the workplace?---I gave him a written warning because I had discussed it with him verbally on several occasions and he chose to disregard my request and that in turn set a bad example on the floor and it could possibly have compromised our food safety in the building.
PN6011
Didn't Mr Ring explain to you when you raised it with him previously and on the occasion you issued him with the written warning that the coats just simply were not available, there was none in the locker room, there were no standby coats?---Yes, and I would have mentioned to him at that time that there was always an adequate supply of either white smocks or disposable coats that are used for our casual employees to come in. Those were available to him. To be in street attire in the workplace is absolutely contrary to good hygiene practice.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6012
Mr Ring wasn't on the floor, was he, when you found him, he was in his office?---He was in the office but he must have got to the office somehow, unless there's a back door I am not familiar with.
PN6013
It is not your evidence that the issue had any major role in the decision to not appoint Mr Ring?---It played no major role, similar to Mr Manu I just wanted to point out that there was valid feedback and there was a discussion from time to time on performance, good and bad.
PN6014
You say in paragraph 50 that you had detailed knowledge of Mr Ring's work performance and that that was one factor and I think it was your evidence before that that knowledge was both negative and positive, is that right?---Right.
PN6015
Wouldn't a performance appraisal have given him an opportunity to improve those negative aspects of his performance?---There's certainly a lot of value in a formal performance review, I won't deny that.
PN6016
He wasn't given that opportunity?---He wasn't given a formal review, no.
PN6017
I am just looking at paragraph 52. You talk there about comparing Assessment Centre results and you say, "The area of competence and potential is particularly relevant, more so than a purely numerical tallying of writing." What do you understand to be the area of competence and potential that you think is so relevant?---Well, those are cited within the common portion of point 22 which are the leadership, co-ordination, ability to fully be accountable for budget and resources, co-ordination of strong behavioural process change management, initiating and driving process change - - -
PN6018
Aren't we talking here about Assessment Centre results, not position descriptions?---I don't have any knowledge of Chris's or Peter's Assessment Centre or their interviews, I could not comment on that particularly. It is just saying that they applied for different roles so you could not compare one to the other.
**** TYLER WEEDON XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6019
But you actually make a general comment there about how you should compare Assessment Centre results, don't you?---Furthermore, in comparing Assessment Centre results the areas of competence and potential are particularly relevant, yes.
PN6020
Your previous evidence was that you didn't have any understanding of the Assessment Centre results in terms of their areas of competence and potential?---Right.
PN6021
So how do you know that that is particularly relevant more so than purely an opinion, an opinion based on no particular knowledge about the Assessment Centre results whatsoever?---Okay.
PN6022
That's Mr Ring's statement, I haven't given you the attachments?---All right, okay.
PN6023
If you just refer to the last page, paragraph 38, you will see the word "not" have been inserted there. You say in your witness statement, "I reject Mr Ring's assertion that decisions were made about who would be put into particular roles long before the process started." Mr Ring has amended that to read, "Decisions were made about who would not be put into particular roles long before the process started." Do you still reject that assertion?---I still reject that.
PN6024
I have no further questions, Commissioner.
PN6025
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms McKenzie.
PN6026
PN6027
THE COMMISSIONER: You've then got Ms Hole to go?
PN6028
MS McKENZIE: We've got Ms Hole, Commissioner. We can either call her now or adjourn for lunch a bit early.
PN6029
THE COMMISSIONER: It will be longer than half an hour.
PN6030
MS McKENZIE: Definitely, Commissioner.
PN6031
THE COMMISSIONER: We will resume at 2.00 pm.
LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.36pm]
RESUMED [2.03pm]
PN6032
PN6033
MS McKENZIE: Is your name Sally Hole?---Yes it is.
PN6034
Are you employed as manager human resources catering with Qantas Airways Limited?---Yes, that's correct.
PN6035
Have you prepared a statement which you wish to give in these proceedings?---Yes.
PN6036
Do you have a copy of that statement together with the attachments?---Yes I do.
PN6037
Is there a correction you wish to make to paragraph 39 of your statement at the fourth dot point?---Yes. Under the fourth dot point the annexure was incorrectly marked SH30 and it should be SH334.
PN6038
Might that be amended. Do you say subject to that amendment that the contents of the statement and attachments are to the best of your knowledge and belief true and correct?---Yes.
PN6039
I tender Ms Hole's statement.
PN6040
MS MAIDEN: I know we haven't been doing this Commissioner but I did want to note a couple of objections I had in relation to Ms Hole's statement. If I could perhaps do that before it's marked. These are of a different nature to the other objections.
PN6041
THE COMMISSIONER: My only comment is, did his Honour have an SH33?
PN6042
MS McKENZIE: I think it might have been marked SH30. I think there might be two SH30s.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XN MS McKENZIE
PN6043
THE COMMISSIONER: I don't think so. They're actually numbered pages.
PN6044
MS McKENZIE: It should be page 166 Commissioner. You don't have that?
PN6045
THE COMMISSIONER: No, and I think Mr Weedon, the copy he was looking at didn't have it either, remember.
PN6046
MS McKENZIE: He didn't have TW1.
PN6047
THE COMMISSIONER: I've got TW1 but I don't have numbers 1656 to 173.
PN6048
MS McKENZIE: I apologise for that Commissioner, we can make a copy available.
PN6049
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Ms Maiden.
PN6050
MS MAIDEN: Commissioner, in paragraphs 31 and 44 of Ms Hole's statement our objection relates to the issue of hearsay and specifically Ms Hole in 31 has attached various emails from Davidson Trahaire that purport to go to issues in relation to Ms Spezzano, Mr Ring and Mr Bayeh and it is our submission that they are hearsay and that if QFCL wants to rely on any kind of evidence about what was said to Ms Spezzano, Mr Ring and Mr Bayeh and Davidson Trahaire they should call those witnesses not attach emails from them and, similarly, in relation to paragraph No.44 - it's hearsay although it is not of the same character.
PN6051
THE COMMISSIONER: Which one is that, 34?
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XN MS McKENZIE
PN6052
MS MAIDEN: 44 I am sorry. Ms Hole relates something that was advised to her by the workers compensation co-ordinator and again we object to that on the basis that it is hearsay. I know the practice that we have adopted so far was to - Ms McKenzie and I actually stopped making any notations of such matters but these two I want to make particular note of because I was concerned about the nature of that evidence and I think it goes to different issues than just objections about opinion evidence and the like.
PN6053
MS McKENZIE: I think Ms Hole can be cross examined about both of those matters. Paragraph 44 in particular as I understand the objection, it's a reference to Ms Hole's evidence that she was advised by the co-ordinator about Mr Parthenis. That is presumably - she can be cross examined about her source, whether that was a direct conversation or knowledge and she can be asked questions about that. If I am understanding correctly the basis of the objection. If I understand that it's the reference to the advice from the co-ordinator then it's not hearsay in the sense that Ms Hole is giving evidence about it, about a conversation or communication she had directly and she can be cross examined about that.
PN6054
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but she is giving evidence with a view to suggesting that that Mr Parthenis was unlikely to have ongoing restrictions.
PN6055
MS McKENZIE: We would accept, Commissioner, it can only be evidence that that's what she was advised. It doesn't amount to evidence of the truth of the fact of Mr Parthenis' condition but we would say she could certainly give evidence about the advice she received from the Workers Compensation Co-ordinator and in relation to the objections in paragraph 31, again, Ms Hole can be cross examined about the emails that she sent and received. The documents are copies of communications from Ms Hole to other persons.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XN MS McKENZIE
PN6056
Again, they are evidence of email communication. They should go in as such. It's a bit extraordinary that an objection is made to hearsay evidence given the wide sweeping hearsay evidence that's in the applicant's statements. Comments like, I spoke to so and so and he told me his assessment results were much better than that and he told me he got this, this and that. What's good for - if we're going to trawl through and eliminate hearsay from the statements let's do it but we rather thought that the ruling the Commission made at the outset of the evidence was to allow those in and form a view as to weight. We would be content with that approach being taken in relation to this.
PN6057
Ms Hole can give evidence about the emails and the copies of the correspondence she sent. We accept that Davidson Trahaire is not giving evidence so the Commission is free to give whatever weight it considers appropriate to that correspondence but we say there is no basis for the communication being excluded from the evidence.
PN6058
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN6059
MS MAIDEN: I do remain having concerns in relation to actual wording from a person from Davidson Trahaire in an email being admitted into the evidence that goes to the nature of discussion. I don't think that that should be admitted because on the one hand it is almost like admitting their exact wording from their mouths without giving me the opportunity to cross examine them on it and that does concern me and that's why I raise that issue in particular.
PN6060
MS McKENZIE: I am content to concede that in relation, for example, CSH19 an email from Ms Wallworth to Sally that says under those circumstances would she - and this is a reference I think to Ms Spezzano - has been told that she was knowledgeable and experienced does not amount to evidence that Ms Spezzano was not told that. It's simply evidence that that is what Davidson Trahaire has said communicated to Ms Hole in an email.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XN MS McKENZIE
PN6061
We don't rely on that and we're not intending to rely on that as evidence that Ms Spezzano was not told that but it's certainly not without some weight that QFCL made a direct inquiry to Davidson Trahaire in relation to what was in Ms Spezzano's statement and this is the reply that they received. Now, it doesn't take it any further than that but we say it's not irrelevant.
PN6062
MS MAIDEN: With all respect, it wasn't in relation to her statement, it was in relation to the appeal process.
PN6063
MS McKENZIE: I'm sorry, that's correct. Because this was an issue that was raised by Ms Spezzano as one of the grounds of her appeal that inquiries were made of Davidson Trahaire and this is the answer that was given. We don't rely on it to any greater extent than that but we say that the email, the evidence of the communication from QFCL to Davidson Trahaire and the reply should properly be admitted and the Commission is free to give whatever weight considers appropriate to it.
PN6064
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. I do propose to allow the material in Ms Maiden but I note your concerns and while it is true of other areas that they are hearsay, certainly you've identified particular areas that I will have to take note of and no doubt you will have something to say about them, particularly I think those replies or those emails referred to in paragraph 31. For consistency and fairness to all concerned I do maintain the statement in full or allow it to remain.
PN6065
MS McKENZIE: Commissioner, I want to raise one further matter by way of evidence in chief from her or conveniently evidence in reply which Ms Maiden can then be aware of in her cross examination.
PN6066
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN6067
MS McKENZIE: Ms Hole, I show you a document.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XN MS McKENZIE
PN6068
PN6069
MS McKENZIE: Can you identify that document for me?---The document is one that I prepared after - I suppose, to assist in preparation for the statements in consideration of the matter, just outlining the positions and the status of those positions and the redeployment and redundancies that occurred under MMR.
PN6070
Yes, and you prepared this information yourself, did you?---Yes.
PN6071
Was the information based on the documents and material available to you in our role at QFCL?---Yes.
PN6072
I tender that document, your Honour.
PN6073
PN6074
MS McKENZIE: Thank you, I have nothing further.
PN6075
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6076
MS MAIDEN: Thank you, Commissioner. Just with this document, QF15, while it is in front of you, when you say that there were 23 airline officers award positions filled by external candidates?---Yes.
PN6077
Does that include persons that were on temporary contracts with QFCL at the time?---I am not sure exactly what you mean by temporary, but there were some people that were appointed under a fixed term contract as transition resources. A couple of people did apply for and were successful in obtaining those jobs, yes.
PN6078
So those transitional employees that were ultimately successful are included there as external candidates?---Yes, that is correct.
PN6079
You think that was a couple?---There were two, sorry three.
PN6080
Three and so is it you evidence that there still remain four vacant unfilled positions today?---As to if that is the case today, I could not comment, there may have been further appointments. This document was prepared in about December last year, so there may have been appointments since then.
PN6081
So the ten positions that have been impacted by stores out-sourcing, is it your evidence that those positions no longer exist, I do not understand that?---Yes.
PN6082
So that is actually a reduction, is it, in positions subsequent to the MMR?---That is correct, yes. It was, I suppose, shown there as a way of just tallying up the 76, which is in there from the top vacancies to show where those roles and positions had got to.
PN6083
Promotions, those seven employees that were promoted to higher positions, are those in the airline officers award or across the board?---Airline officers, all of those, and you may not be able to see it as well, but there is kind a grey bar, which is airline officer position, all the information underneath relates to airline officer.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6084
Employees successful through blue notices, can you explain to me what that means?---I suppose the MMR process, initially roles were white noticed and then applicants were restricted for those impacted by MMR. Following conclusion of that, a blue notice was done, which is a, I suppose it is Qantas terminology, which is an internal vacancy that goes across the whole Qantas group and people within QFCL that were not impacted by MMR or another Qantas company or department, were eligible to apply.
PN6085
Is it not the case that with blue notices, external employees are able to apply as well, to the whole Qantas group externally?---A blue notice of itself, no, external people cannot apply for that but at the same time external advertising may occur.
PN6086
So those employees that were successful through blue notices were persons not impacted by the MMR and who were not eligible to apply under the white notice?---Yes, that is correct. If it helps you clarify it all, they were, I suppose, already employed somewhere within the Qantas group, they were not external applicants, those four.
PN6087
Thank you, now can you also clarify for me, Mr Weedon, I think, is he one of those persons who was promoted through the MMR process?---No.
PN6088
No, so the new position that he has as business improvement manager, that is something that happened independent of the MMR process?---Yes.
PN6089
That is a promotion from his former position as production manager?---It is a different role, I would not say it is a promotion, no.
PN6090
So they are the same kind of classification and wage level?---They are both executive positions within the organisation, yes.
PN6091
There is a lot of differentiation, is there not, within the executive levels, not everyone is on the same wage rate?---If you are trying to get from me if Mr Weedon received a higher wage or not, I could not comment on that.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6092
You do not know whether or not he has received a higher wage rate?---No, executive salaries are confidential and it is not a position I dealt with.
PN6093
So now you are employed by Qantas Airways, is that correct?---Yes.
PN6094
You work for QFCL in effect, is that correct?---Yes.
PN6095
You say in paragraph 3 that you were responsible for providing human resource services to QFCL, is that right?---Yes, that is correct.
PN6096
That includes information or assistance in relation to recruitment and selection, industrial relations, etcetera?---Yes.
PN6097
So in your role in relation to industrial relations assistance, are you aware of any problems at QFCL with trade unions blocking or creating any difficulty in relation to the carrying out of performance appraisals?---The only way, I suppose, I can comment on that is in my previous role within QFCL Sydney itself. We wished to implement some performance appraisals there and some issues did come up predominantly with the Transport Workers Union at the time and I think the National Union of Workers did not agree with the process that we were trying to initiate but that is going some years back now.
PN6098
How many years is that?---Possibly, from my direct experience, I think it was about 2000, 2001.
PN6099
2000, 2001, so three to four years ago?---It would be about that, yes.
PN6100
You are not aware whether those problems are continuing, is that your evidence?---I cannot comment on it so, I am not aware in that sense, no, I have moved up to the Flight Catering Corporate Office so I am not directly involved with the Sydney issues.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6101
Right and are you aware whether or not it is standard practice to attach position descriptions to contracts of employment at QFCL?---It is standard practice, yes.
PN6102
Yes, and are you aware, in relation to Mr Ring, in your role and knowledge of remuneration and benefits, are you aware that there is an issue in relation to what his proper grading was prior to MMR, are you aware of that issue?---No, what specifically is in issue?
PN6103
Well are you aware of what grading you believe Mr Ring was prior to the MMR?---Prior to MMR, I understand David Ring was a level 9.
PN6104
Might the witness be shown a copy of an ASU - it is a copy of that letter from Mr Ring - ASU26?
PN6105
This is a letter that was sent to Mr Ring at the time of his appointment to the position of duty chief, is that correct?---It says on the front line, I obviously haven't had a chance to read through the entire document but just from the first sentence, redeployment to position of duty chef, so - - -
PN6106
Yes, and do you see in the third paragraph of that letter that the salary for this position is blah, and that this is a level 10 year one rate, do you see that?---Yes.
PN6107
Then it goes on to say, "You will operate on a six month probationary basis during which time your suitability will be assessed." Do you see that?---Yes.
PN6108
It says, "During your probationary period you will continue to receive your current salary at level 9 plus red circle" and then it says, "At the satisfactory completion of this probationary period you will be promoted to level 10 and as this salary is below your current salary you are entitled to receive a 5 per cent pay increase." Do you see that?---Mm, yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6109
Do you agree with me that on the basis of this letter Mr Ring should have become a level 10 employee six months after the date of that letter?---I am reading from the letter, it says that his probation, you know, assessments and I suppose job performance will impact on whether he does or doesn't progress to a level 10. I can't therefore say if he should have or not, it's a letter that was in place and even if you take the six months it was prior to my commencement within QFCL group so I can't answer for what would have happened back in 1997.
PN6110
All things being equal, Mr Ring's performance was satisfactory, isn't it the case that on the basis of this letter Mr Ring should have become a level 10 employee six months after the date of that letter?---If all of the assumptions are, you know, there that he had a satisfactory performance, that nothing came out after this letter that changed it or amended it or, you know, whether or not - I note the letter is not signed so whether or not Mr Ring accepted it then provided you assume all of those factors then, yes, from what the letter said, he would have moved to level 10 witch a 5 per cent increase.
PN6111
What is the date on that letter, I don't have my copy with me?---28 May 1997.
PN6112
It would be highly unusual, wouldn't it, for someone to be on probation six years after they originally appointed him, that would be highly unusual, wouldn't it?---It would be highly unusual but in all the time I was there Mr Ring never brought an issue to me of an outstanding payment or increase that he felt he was entitled to which, if he was meant to have gone to level 10, I would have thought would have come up in my time in QFCL Sydney and that never did. The fact that it wasn't raised in that six years would be unusual too, so I assume something got resolved.
PN6113
But these things arise, don't they, where the computer system has someone at a certain grading and an error has occurred and that is straightened out, that happens, doesn't it, Ms Hole?---Well, if mistakes are made and they are brought to attention then they do get corrected, yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6114
In fact is it your evidence that if Mr Ring did come to you with this letter and you had conducted an investigation and found no reason to indicate why he should be a level 9, you would have ensured that the computer was corrected and that he would be recorded as a level 10?---Well, it wasn't entirely my evidence, I mean it's not something I have investigated or been able to resolve so I can't say if he was meant to be on a 10 or if there is a reason that came in place that he was meant to be on a 9 still.
PN6115
You said to me that Mr Ring didn't come to you, so perhaps the matter was resolved, so what I am putting to you is, if Mr Ring did come to you with this letter and you conducted an investigation and weren't able to find any reason as to why it wasn't carried out that he be promoted to that level 10 that you would have corrected that issue, would you not?---It's probable, yes.
PN6116
Are you familiar with the enterprise agreement provisions in EBA 3, Ms Hole?---In relation to the ASU generally?
PN6117
In relation to redundancy provisions in EBA 3. I believe EBA 3 is an exhibit in these proceedings. Mine isn't marked. Do you see clause A5 there, it starts on the bottom of the preceding page and the bulk of the text is on the top of that page.
PN6118
THE COMMISSIONER: What are we looking at, Ms Maiden.
PN6119
MS MAIDEN: I'm sorry, Commissioner, we are looking at ASU 7, which is a copy of EBA 5.
PN6120
These outline, do they not, redundancy provisions in addition to attachment B to EBA 3?---Mm.
PN6121
They require Qantas to investigate, provide information to and consult with the ASU on a number of options?---Yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6122
They talk about redeployment to another position and opportunity for job swaps where there is a reasonable skill and location match, do you see that?---Yes.
PN6123
Do you agree with me that job swaps in relation to this middle management review exercise were not offered in relation to this process?---I don't agree with that, no.
PN6124
So job swaps were offered, were they?---The agreement itself says these options may be investigated concurrently, I don't - if you look at all the steps that were taken in regard as I understand it to the MMR process, expressions of interest were sought. To some extent there is a job swap opportunity by letting someone put their EOI, you know, and take expressions of interest and leave the organisation, it creates a vacancy that someone can then, you know, swap or move into, I think.
PN6125
But that's not the meaning of job swaps, is it, that's actually redundancy, isn't it?---Well, it's the meaning as well. I mean in opening up an expression of interest it creates a vacancy for someone to move into somebody's job is to an extent a job swap in essence.
PN6126
But isn't a job swap about retaining both individuals, is it not one person swapping into one person's job and another person swapping in, isn't that the essence of a job swap?---Sort of.
PN6127
Isn't it the case that job swaps were not investigated in relation to this MMR process?---I still go back to my first answer, I mean the MMR impacted, I suppose, on a very large range of conditions and areas in the administrative supervisor, that whole middle management structure, pretty well everyone was impacted and reviewed. In a lot of areas, there were a lot of jobs and positions and people that were impacted, so they're all in the same situation, they all have the same opportunity to apply for new or different jobs, people got EOI, which also opened up opportunities and other vacancies for people to move into existing jobs that were there similar to a job swap. It was considered, you know, in a broad definition of the whole process in MMR, yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6128
There was no expression of interest for jobs that are put out across the Qantas Group were there?---Across the Qantas Group no but the MMR was the QFCL business and QFCL, you know, is separate. It's a separate business and across the Sydney business it was considered amongst all of the impacted, you know, positions and the whole focus of the MMR.
PN6129
You're employed by Qantas Airways yet you work for QFCL, isn't that the case, you agreed with that?---That is but that's because the HR process itself is centralised and we're all employed by Qantas Airways Limited but other employees are employed by Qantas Flight Catering not Qantas Airways Limited. The HR is a different function.
PN6130
There's a significant degree of overlap, is there not, between Qantas and QFCL?---All QFCL employees have a QFCL contract of employment.
PN6131
Except yourself who you've said is employed by Qantas Airways but actually does work for Qantas Flight Catering?---Support services; I provide support services to Qantas. I don't, you now, you do work for it but human resources is centralised and you report up through human resource managers not to catering managers or anything, so the reporting stream is through the HR group not through Qantas Flight Catering.
PN6132
Do you agree with me that this option of employees taking extended leave and exhausting accumulated leave is about giving employees the opportunity to consider their position and time at which further positions may have arisen before they actually have to exercise their final choice to take redundancy? Do you agree that that's the purpose of that provision?---On the face of it it appears to have that kind of reasoning, yes.
PN6133
Are you aware whether that option was investigated by Qantas?---No, you know, employees didn't request to take leave and if you look at, I suppose, the timing of the MMR process itself it extended out over what, seven months probably before people were redundant. So during that time the purpose that you've mentioned for, you know, taking leave, allowing them to investigate their opportunities they had that opportunity to them in the seven months.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6134
Wouldn't having taken additional leave on top of that seven months given them more opportunity to consider their options and to see whether further positions have arisen, isn't that the case?---I mean it's a very broad statement. If you look at the individuals that I suppose we're considering all of those persons got other jobs so they're in the business and still able to consider any of those opportunities that then come up then leave just isn't appropriate in those circumstances because they had positions which they were in. Any new opportunities that would have come up in the business such as, you know, more attractive jobs they were then able to apply for and unlike perhaps taking extended leave or unpaid leave they're not at a disadvantage, they are continuing to work. So it just wasn't relevant to the people in these circumstances, no.
PN6135
So it's your evidence, is it, that because nobody sought it so it wasn't investigated? Is that your evidence?---Of all of the people that we're talking about that I'm aware of, no, no one took - applied for that leave or sought leave.
PN6136
So the onus was on the employee in relation to that award provision, was it?---I'm not saying that. The provision itself is that we have to investigate and provide information. The people we're talking about today they have redeployment into other jobs. If you've got another job there's no point in providing them information saying well you've got your job but how about you take extended leave to consider your options because they're already in the business able to consider any options that would come up. As I understand the provision we don't have to sit there and say that - it comes down to some of the individuals and the circumstances. They had seven months at least to consider all of their options. These people did apply for jobs, were successful and/or redeployed into these roles and offering them leave once redeployed into a role wouldn't have provided them with any greater opportunities. In an investigative sense it wouldn't have offered anything or added any value.
PN6137
You're aware, aren't you, that a number of those employees actually weren't happy with the positions that they were offered to be redeployed into, isn't that the case?---I couldn't comment on that. I mean they accepted the - - -
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6138
That's why we're here, isn't it?---They accepted the redeployment opportunities, yes.
PN6139
Mr Parthenis and Mr Bayeh accepted their redeployment opportunities, did they?---Mr Parthenis in the end elected to take redundancy and Mr Bayeh didn't pursue any redeployment opportunities. I mean I can't comment whether they were happy or unhappy. That's not something I'm able to comment on. For those that took redeployment they accepted that and the others basically rejected offers of redeployment that were given to them and didn't comment at the time whether they were happy about that or unhappy about that.
PN6140
But they certainly weren't asked about whether they were interested in taking extended leave or accumulated leave?---For the two you're talking about Mr Parthenis specifically said to me that, you know, he'd thought about it and he wanted to take his redundancy. So, having said to me he wanted to take redundancy that's his decision which he opted for. Mr Bayeh at the time was offered basically some further secondment redeployment positions which would keep him in the business for longer to look at other opportunities and he rejected them.
PN6141
So it's your evidence then that you didn't raise that issue of extended leave and accumulated leave?---My evidence is that in terms of the circumstances of the individuals the need to investigate and offer or consult on that was not relevant to these persons.
PN6142
That was a decision that you made without discussing it with them?---It's a decision that basically came up in the circumstances and - - -
PN6143
You didn't discuss it with them, did you, Ms Hole? Now we're going to be here all day. You didn't discuss it with them, did you?---There was no need to discuss it with them, no.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6144
So you didn't, no?---Well when there's no need to do something I don't do it, no.
PN6145
Similarly with unpaid leave?---The answer is going to be the same in regards to accumulated leave. I've dealt with that as leave in general.
PN6146
Part time, job share they weren't investigated were they by Qantas's part of the MMR process?---I'd disagree with that. On basically the redeployment form that was provided to persons one of the options that they could have ticked was part time positions, so it was an area that was placed out there to employees and if you know people had said they were interested in part time and if other people had come back then maybe opportunities for job share would have been there but none of them indicated or ticked on that form that they wanted part time, no.
PN6147
What is that part time work there that's one of those options on I think it's SH25, page 108?---It's a general area similar to some of the CSA storepersons or whatever but if people had said they were interested in part time it may have been something that we could accommodate.
PN6148
So is it your evidence that that box, part time position, didn't necessarily relate to junior positions within the organisation?---It's there as an option that people could have ticked if they wanted part time or not and we would have investigated to see if anything was available.
PN6149
Right. Are there any part time workers at QFCL?---In QFCL Sydney specifically?
PN6150
Yes?---There were some in stores. I'm unsure if they're still there now or not.
PN6151
Is it a common type of employment at QFCL?---No, it's not that common in the business, no.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6152
Would you have considered converting jobs into part time if people had expressed interest?---If it was a job that was capable of being performed part time and was one, either an existing job or one that could have been performed part time then yes we would have considered it.
PN6153
Are supervisory positions capable of being performed part time in your opinion?---Part time I'd say probably not, no.
PN6154
Now, in paragraph number 4, you talk about gathering information for Mr Harden in relation to the appeal process, do you see that?---Yes.
PN6155
What material did you gather for him?---As discussed earlier, I got some information for the grounds of appeal and the emails and the clarification received from Davidson Trahaire, consolidated, I suppose, some of the information in regards to some of the interview results and the assessment results, just I suppose put it in an order that was available for him to use, made sure we had copies of those documents, also made sure that, you know, he had basically their applications for the roles, copies of their resumes, I believe that was largely it.
PN6156
So you prepared some folders for him, did you, with the interview results and Assessment Centre results?---Copies of the Assessment Centre results, the interview results, the applications that people had made for the various positions.
PN6157
The resumes?---Yes.
PN6158
You investigated the questions with Davidson Trahaire and provided him with those answers?---Yes.
PN6159
In relation to the interview results, did you give him the interview summary form or the entire interview guide?---It's a while ago. I believe copies of the entire interview guides were there in all of the folders.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6160
With the Assessment Centre, you provided the entire report?---Yes.
PN6161
Did you provide any assistance to Mr Harden in relation to the interpretation of those reports?---No.
PN6162
Do you know how those reports are constructed and how they should be interpreted?---No. I mean the reports were there. They had their competencies basically in the outcomes that Davidson Trahaire assessed on for those reports.
PN6163
Well you recall, don't you, that they have a column in the summary table at the back that talks about likely competence? Do you know how they come up with that?---No, that's what Davidson Trahaire function is.
PN6164
And you don't know what that means yourself?---Specific to this, I wouldn't say I'd know that, no.
PN6165
Did you get copies of the employees files for Mr Harden?---Their whole personnel files?
PN6166
Yes?---No.
PN6167
So did you get copies of any of their performance appraisals?---No.
PN6168
Did you get copies of any referee reports or anything of that nature?---You wouldn't have referee reports on a file, that's not something that's collected or collated, no. I mean in anybody's employment there's a standard and perhaps there's someone, if you're recruiting for a job, you may get a reference check then, but otherwise no.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6169
You didn't search reports out from any referees for Mr Harden?---For the subject of the appeal, no.
PN6170
Well, for any other purpose?---No.
PN6171
Did you have any discussions with Mr Harden about the appeals?---I mean I would have had discussions in terms of, look, this is the information, this is what it is, this is the scores, but anything sort of more than that, no.
PN6172
So you didn't assist him in determining those appeals for example?---Largely no. I mean, Mr Harden and I worked together, you know, on things. I provided him with information he may have questioned, I don't know, I mean it's, well I mean that was back in April last year, so it's at least 12 months ago. I mean Mr Harden conducted the appeals and he finalised and wrote them, yes. He may have asked, you know, this, I don't know, I'm going into a lot of "mays", so I don't know. But, yes, so I suppose the answer is no, Mr Harden did finalise them, yes.
PN6173
Are you saying that you were involved in developing the learning contracts?---Yes.
PN6174
Do you agree that these learning contracts are a document that would apply to an employee that was assessed to be marginally below the minimum requirements and able to be trained for a position in a reasonable period of time and therefore establishing that training regimen, is that the purpose of those documents?---The purpose of the documents was for persons that were successful and, you know, I wasn't involved in the selection decisions as to who was or wasn't successful, but where a person was there, then you looked at, I suppose broadly speaking, the skills and competencies required for the position they'd been appointed to and, in essence, the skills and competencies that that person had and worked out how to, you know, develop them further if they were, you know, not at that full skill or competency required.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6175
To bridge the gap, is that correct, between their actual competencies and the competencies required for the position which they'd been successful for?---It was a development plan to get them to the level of performance and skill that we required them to be at for the new roles, yes.
PN6176
And by implication, does it not indicate that the person did not have the required competence for the position they'd been successful for?---For some of the characteristics or the individuals that may have been, but in some instances they would have the competencies we required but were still out to, you know, as we should always be, trying to actually develop people and even enhance their skills above the competence required. It wasn't just to get them to a minimal competence. In some cases, you know, people had done supervisory training, so looking at aspects to give them a greater skill set. It's not just getting them up to the minimum, no. Some people, you know, for some the characteristics or the skills we required, had that competency and we were just actually trying to develop it further and enhance it. Whereas some of the other competencies required them to actually develop to achieve a better standard, you know, and perhaps more to that minimum.
PN6177
Well, wasn't there a learning contract actually if someone failed to perform in accordance with it gave a ground for taking disciplinary action, isn't that correct?---In the end, if someone didn't reach the required skill and standard set for all areas then, yes, disciplinary action could have amounted from that.
PN6178
So somebody could have met all the requirements for the position, yet you put them on a learning contract and if they didn't improve over and above the minimum requirements for that position, they could have been disciplined, is that your evidence?---Well, if they'd met all the requirements from the position then we're not going to be disciplining somebody for that, no.
PN6179
But if they didn't meet their learning contract, they could have been disciplined, couldn't they?---They could have been disciplined if they didn't meet aspects of the learning contract but that doesn't automatically mean that they would have been disciplined for not meeting the standards. As I said, the learning contract looked at a lot of areas and it was all about trying to develop people to their absolute maximum potential, over and above the minimum skill requirement perhaps.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6180
Do you agree with me that the period of time for those improvements in a learning contract extended to 12 months in some cases?---Yes, that's correct.
PN6181
Are there any instances of that time period being longer?---I couldn't honestly answer yes or no to either of those. I'm not sure. I don't - from recollection, they were set at 12 months.
PN6182
You also say in paragraph 4 that part of your job was finding employees suitable for redeployment within QFCL and Qantas so you agree, do you, that it was possible for employees to be redeployed within Qantas as part of the MMR process?---Part of the redeployment process if they were blue notice roles, then yes, we would make sure people were aware of the blue notice vacancies that I spoke about earlier so that they could apply for that, yes. They had to be positions that were advertised.
PN6183
Now, could you have arranged a job swap with Qantas if Qantas agreed?---I cannot answer that, I do not know.
PN6184
Because you have never tried?---I do not know, I mean could I have arranged it, no, it is not something I could arrange entirely on my own, it obviously has a lot to do with different areas of the business and stuff so I just cannot say yes or no.
PN6185
Well if the impediments that you are talking about relate to the receiving organisation, do they not, of Qantas?---Well there is a relation to it, yes.
PN6186
So if Qantas was amenable to the job swap, is it not true that, that could have been arranged?---I mean anything is possible in a hypothetical sense, yes.
PN6187
Now when you talked about getting this material for Mr Harden for the appeals, did Mr Harden actually ask you for all that information that you said you provided?---He either would have asked me or gave me a copy of the persons appeals and from that I looked at information that he may need and get it for him. It was 12 months ago, I cannot specifically say if he said can I have XYZ.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6188
Right, well we know where you got the information, the Davidson Trahaire information, from in terms of those particular issues, the interview guides and the Assessment Centre results, they were all just held by human resources, were they?---The QFCL Sydney HR Office had them there, yes.
PN6189
The same as the applications and the resumes?---Yes.
PN6190
Now, I am looking at paragraph 7 and I take it you talk here about the half day briefing sessions and I take it that Mr Bayeh was not invited to attend those briefing sessions, is that correct?---I understand invitations went out to all persons but he could not attend because he was away from work on compensation at the time.
PN6191
You say, quite specifically, in relation to the other things like seminars, resume writing workshops etcetera, that Mr Bayeh was invited, you do not say it here so I would like to know squarely whether or not he was or he was not invited?---I cannot answer that question because I did not issue the invitations.
PN6192
You can answer whether or not you do not know, so you can answer - - -?---I do not know then.
PN6193
Did you attempt to find out whether or not he had been invited in preparing your witness statement?---As I said, prior to that, I understand that all persons were invited so my understanding is that anyone who was impacted, at that point, to MMR was invited to the session so from that I understand he would have been invited. I cannot say absolutely. 100 percent if he was or was not, no, but given the evidence that I was told that people all were invited I understand he was.
PN6194
Even though he was off on stress leave?---Well, he was off on worker's compensation was my understanding, I do not know what it was specifically about.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6195
Well that is relevant, is it not, I mean if someone is off on worker's compensation in relation to stress leave, would you not be concerned about worsening their condition by inviting them to things that put the potential of redundancy before them?---It could be seen that way but if someone is off on - and I will use a very broad definition, of stress because it is not actually a medical title, it is not something that compensable with stress so leaving that aside, ignoring someone or not informing them of what is happening in the business because they are away from the work place would cause them greater stress, I would have thought. So someone may be away from the work place at the time but we still need to communicate with them, you would not want them hearing about something second or third hand and knowing if it does or does not impact them which would cause them a lot of stress too.
PN6196
You say that you provided information to Mr Bayeh at a later stage, so when was that?---If the information about it was provided, I did not provide it to him.
PN6197
Sorry, do you know when that was?---I am unable to answer that question, sorry, I do not know, sorry, I forgot I was meant to say I do not know, I do not know.
PN6198
Now, paragraph 3, actually just before we go on, paragraph 10, did I say 3, 10, here you are talking about the resume writing workshops and you say Mr Bayeh was invited, how do you know that to be the case?---From, I suppose, the mail merge listing and the invitations that went out.
PN6199
Were you in charge of that process?---No.
PN6200
You do not have a copy of the letter that was sent to Mr Bayeh?---There was a database, which had all the names in it and then it did a mail merge into letters so his name was in the mail merge file and into the letter, which is annexure 4, so that would have been a copy of the letter he received except that would have been individually addressed.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6201
So you assume that he received a letter because his name was in the mail merge document, is that your evidence?---Yes.
PN6202
Is your answer the same in relation to paragraph 13 in the interview skills workshop?---Yes, that is correct.
PN6203
Now, taking you to paragraph 20, you say at the beginning there that:
PN6204
Every person that met minimum requirements for a new position was invited to attend a pre-Assessment Centre workshop.
PN6205
Now, that is incorrect, is it not?---No.
PN6206
So it is your evidence, is it, that Ms Spezzano, Mr Mountassallem, Mr Psaltis, Mr Parthenis, Mr Ring and Mr Manu met the minimum requirements for the new positions, is?---The minimum requirements that you are referring to in that wording is a very, I suppose, superficial assessment of someone's job application and saying yes, it is someone who will be proceeding through to the Assessment Centre process, it is not implying that they actually met the minimum requirements of the job as your question was asking, no.
PN6207
Well does not you actual statement say that they met the minimum requirements for the new position?---The wording does say that but the intent of the wording is not the interpretation you are implying on that, no.
PN6208
So, did you actually intend to say every person that met the minimum requirements in a cursory basic manner was invited to attend the pre-assessment workshop, would that have been a better kind of wording?---I suppose the minimum requirements for proceeding through to a selection process, as you will do with anyone where you are recruiting you will do an initial cull I suppose of all applicants and that is based on - it is a quick review of their resume and their
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
application and the information in their resume and you yes, someone who could potentially do the job and then you will call them in for whatever selection process will be in place to then ascertain if they are suitable and able to carry out that role.
PN6209
So those persons in paragraph 21 made it through the first cull?---Made it through the first cull, yes.
PN6210
I notice that you do not make any comment there about Mr Bayeh, is that because he was not invited to attend the Assessment Centre skills workshop?---No, he was invited to attend.
PN6211
Is it your evidence, I am sorry, that he was invited and did not attend?---That would be my evidence, yes.
PN6212
You do not say that in your witness statement, do you?---No, it does not appear to be in the witness statement, no. But I mean by nature, in essence every person who participated in the Assessment Centre and selection process were all invited to attend that and Mr Bayer did participate in it and obviously the Assessment Centre and interviewing selection process.
PN6213
But not the workshop?---He was invited.
PN6214
You are assuming that based on your database records?---Database records, I believe.
PN6215
Now, paragraph 22 that continues over to the top of page 6 talks about there being a written assessment one day and a practical face to face assessment on another day. Do you see that?---Sorry, which?
PN6216
It's implied through the dates listed there for each of the individuals?---Yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6217
The written element was done as an individual, it wasn't a group exercise, you had your own test, you completed it rather like an exam type situation?---Each person had their own both written report or test aptitude booklet in front of them and completed their own answers. I think, although I could be wrong, I think there may have been a couple of people in the room when they did it but individually.
PN6218
I have no issue with that?---Individually, yes, they worked alone on that, yes.
PN6219
I would assume that would be the case as well but in relation to the face to face practical assessment, that was conducted mainly in groups with people doing the exercises together, is that right?---I understand that there was a combination of group discussions which obviously had other applicants participating in that group discussion as well as some role plays which were individual assessments.
PN6220
So would you agree with me that based on the date that you've written there, you might want to check this as I say it, that Ms Spezzano and Mr Ring appeared to have attended the same practical face to face assessment on 13 February, is that right?---I don't know, I don't know if they had different morning and afternoon sessions on the same day. I am not in a position to answer yes or no to that question.
PN6221
Do you think it's possible that they could have had more than one Assessment Centre on the same day?---It's possible. I don't know.
PN6222
So you don't know?---No.
PN6223
Now, paragraph 23. You say after the Assessment Centre process and I take it by that you mean what happened with Davidson Trahaire?---Yes.
PN6224
You say the successful candidates were required to attend a target and selection interview?---Yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6225
So those persons that attended a target and selection interview were successful at the Assessment Centre, is that right?---They were successful in having got through the first stage. As I understand it the Assessment Centre, there were people who on the face if it their Assessment Centre results didn't necessarily indicate that they were able to meet the requirements of the role but taking into account the broader nature of the application of their work history and skills they were given the opportunity to participate further in the selection process to have greater opportunity to demonstrate the skills and competencies they had so the answer directly then to your question would be no, there would be people who I suppose did not demonstrate through the Davidson Trahaire process itself that they met the minimum requirements but they did still attend further through to selection, overall selection process.
PN6226
So strictly speaking that sentence isn't quite accurate is it?---It's probably more coming down. Maybe, from that question I'd say now that the Assessment Centre process was looking for some of the actual review of the resume of less skilled and experience. the person who looked at that as opposed to just being the Davidson Trahaire process on its own. So that was - - -
PN6227
Sorry?---A couple of questions ago you said is the Assessment Centre process a Davidson Trahaire process and I said yes. From reading that statement I say no because after the Davidson Trahaire process they did consider some of the work history as detailed through resumes and experience that people had and considered some of those and brought them to interviews who weren't on the face of the Davidson Trahaire results displaying suitability for the role.
PN6228
Just to clarify, you're saying that the Assessment Centre and resumes and work history was taken into account to determine who went to interview?---Yes.
PN6229
But you're not saying, are you, that the Assessment Centre processing included consideration of the resumes and applications?---The Davidson Trahaire process didn't, no, but I suppose an Assessment Centre in a broad HR sense can be a lot of facets related to recruitment, so it's probably, you know, some of the terminology.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6230
Isn't the case though that every time you refer to the Assessment Centre throughout your witness statement you're referring to the Davidson Trahaire process?---I'd say largely so but I suppose an Assessment Centre is of something in a broader definition, so largely I would say it would refer to Davidson Trahaire but I don't want to exclusively say that it would because it may be just different, you know, terminology.
PN6231
Within QFCL when people talk about the Assessment Centre in the context of the MMR they would be understanding that you're talking about the Davidson Trahaire process, isn't that correct?---I suppose for some of the wording I've more frequently used, yes, I would say that. If other people think that way I couldn't - I can't answer for QFCL as a whole.
PN6232
Taking into account the Assessment Centre results, their applications, their resumes, knowledge of work history, the candidates that went to the target selection interview process have some merit, is that correct?---The application was proceeded further in the selection process to give people the opportunity to demonstrate what skills and attributes and knowledge they have. It's not necessarily implying that they had, you know, they all had merit to a degree, yes.
PN6233
Now in paragraph 25 you say:
PN6234
Following the interviews the relevant selection panel conducted a final review of all stages of the selection process to determine successful applicants.
PN6235
Here you're referring to what for ease I like to call the final selection campaign, is that correct, even though I understand that the personnel on that committee might have varied depending on what job they were making a decision about, is that correct?---Yes.
PN6236
Are you aware of who was on that final selection committee in relation to the store supervisors?---No, I'm not aware.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6237
Are you aware of who was on that final selection committee for any of the positions the subject of this application?---I'm aware of some persons who participated in it but I'm not aware of the whole committee make-up, no.
PN6238
Can you just enlighten us as to who you're aware of in terms of - - -?---I understand Barbara Searle who was in the business at the time participated on those and Terry Blaker for some roles would have been there; Tyler Weedon for some; Matthew Sharratt for some or perhaps just the one kind of inventory supervisor in that area. They're the ones I definitely know participated in them and made decisions.
PN6239
Mr Skinner?---I understand - - -
PN6240
If you don't know - I'm just prompting you in case you've forgotten?---I don't know. I don't know.
PN6241
You don't know. Mr Hardy?---Don't know.
PN6242
You don't know. Mr Harden?---Don't know.
PN6243
But you yourself didn't participate on any of those committees, that's correct, isn't it?---No.
PN6244
You didn't attend any meetings of those final selection committees at all?---No.
PN6245
You didn't collate any information for those selection committees?---No.
PN6246
Or collect any information for those selection committees. Now you say, still in paragraph number 25:
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6247
Internal appointments into white notice MMR roles commenced from 25 Feb 2003.
PN6248
Are you aware of the situation with Paul Miceletzi being appointed into a white notice position in January 2003?---I don't believe he was, or I'm not aware.
PN6249
Your are not aware, okay, and in paragraph 26 you attach copies of unsuccessful letters to Ms Spezzano, four of the candidates, you don't attach them for Mr Ring, Mr Manu and Mr Bayeh is that because you couldn't locate a copy in records?---There weren't copies on their individual files, no.
PN6250
But you don't anticipate that there was any different content in relation to those pro forma letters?---No, the wording was the same for all of the persons who were unsuccessful for jobs offered, only the titles that they were unsuccessful for changed.
PN6251
In paragraph number 27 you talk again about these learning contracts and you say in the first sentence:
PN6252
Each successful applicant for a job at a similar or higher level was placed on a learning contract as part of their appointment to the new position.
PN6253
Do you see that?---Yes.
PN6254
Well that's not true is it?---No, it's true.
PN6255
Well Mr Manu was an SP1 and he became a level seven and he was given a learning contract?---I call that similar in the supervisory nature of the roles, yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6256
Well it's three whole gradings different isn't it, a substantial amount of money?---Well it's three grades different.
PN6257
So it is your evidence that that's similar?---Yes.
PN6258
The same with Mr Ring who was a SP1 or level nine, your evidence is that that's a similar position to a level seven?---The size of the supervisory roles was, you know, different but they were still supervisory roles so that's what I meant by similar, yeah.
PN6259
So similar or higher level that means specifically refers to the level of the position, does it not, the sentence?---If you want to look at it in that construction of the sentence you could read it that way but similar, you know, referring to job or higher level.
PN6260
Now paragraph number 29, you say:
PN6261
External candidates for remaining positions went to an alternative selection process which included aspects of the internal process.
PN6262
Can you tell us how it was different, and how it was the same?---Suppose all applicants had to submit a resume outlining, you know, skills and experience as a resume does. The resume was reviewed, if the skills and the experience there indicated potential suitability for a job then those persons were participated in a targeted selection process. They would, as in summary, be the similarity of the process. Some of the other areas of similarity is, although I mean for some of the people that came on board externally that are sourced through an agency, so the agency, you know, in that instance also conducted some of their own aptitude tests similar to the ones that Davidson Trahaire would have run at the Assessment Centre.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6263
The written type tests are you referring to at the assessment system, so that wouldn't have had any of those practical face to face type tests, would they?---In the sort of group discussions and role play exercises, no.
PN6264
No, and only some of the external candidates were sourced through agencies, is that correct?---Yes.
PN6265
So there would have been some external candidates that had no written tests or anything of that nature as part of their selection process?---They wouldn't have had a written test or a group discussion or a role play but they still submitted resumes and attended for interviews.
PN6266
So they had nothing even remotely approaching on what happened at the Assessment Centre, isn't that correct, for those persons that didn't go through an agency?---For that Davidson & Trahaire Assessment Centre process, no.
PN6267
Or anything similar, isn't that correct?---Well they interviews, I see the whole targeted selection process I see that as being similar.
PN6268
Yes I gather, I understand you are making that point but they didn't have anything remotely like the Davidson Trahaire aspect those persons that didn't come through agencies?---As I said in terms of the written material, the group discussion or role playing, no they didn't have that.
PN6269
No and you are not suggesting, are you, that there was any kind of direct comparison between the external applicants and the unsuccessful internal applicants, are you?---I don't want to give you the wrong impression of what you mean by direct comparison, but as I said they had to submit, you know, resumes. Their performances had been on the job considered at the interview and the demonstrated capabilities that they were able to, you know, announce during the interview, yes that was, you know, direct comparison in that sense.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6270
Well it wasn't a direct comparison in the sense that they weren't actually compared to the unsuccessful internal applicants were they?---They weren't compared no because those people had been, you know, considered, assessed as being suitable or unsuitable for a role and then remaining vacancies that were there went externally and people were then, as the other, you know, internal applicants previously were assessed against the skills and requirements of that role.
PN6271
And isn't it the case that some of those successful external applicants were in effect trialled in the new roles by being transitional employees?---I wouldn't say they were trialled, no. - - -
PN6272
You wouldn't use that word?---The transitional employees were brought in, you know, as the name implies to assist in the transition from the old sort of pre MMR structure to the post MMR structure and to enable some of them to basically cover the business in between, you know, while people were transitioning, attending interviews or doing whatever.
PN6273
Or waiting to be made redundant, isn't that correct?---I don't think people were waiting to be made redundant, we went through a lot of - - -
PN6274
Well that's not true. People were sent home weren't they when they received their redundancy letters, they were told their services weren't wanted, isn't that correct?---At the end of approximately six months' worth of detailed unselection and assistance then yes persons were formally notified at the end that they were redundant and yes at that time those positions had ceased to exist so they were sent home because the work wasn't being performed in the business any more at that level.
PN6275
And at that point these transitional employees assisted, did they not, by performing some of these new roles, isn't that correct?---They would have performed some of the functions of the new roles but they didn't perform the new roles, no.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6276
Not in their entirety?---Well the didn't perform the new roles.
PN6277
You said some of they performed some of the functions of the new roles?---There were aspects of the functions yes, you know, if you have someone in the business doing some, you know, supervisory or, you know, dealing with some client representatives or, you know, managing staff and checking attendance and managing that, yes, those functions are similar, but they weren't the new roles they were performing, no.
PN6278
Were they the old roles that they were performing?---No they weren't an old or a new role, they were a transition role that was a, you know, while people weren't performing some of the work or being released to attend or whatever basically just to keep the business flowing while you moved from one structure to the next and given the large, I suppose, organisational change that occurred with this and the, you know, stores function I suppose reporting through different areas and bits of that being broken down there was quite a large organisational change that occurred at that time, and they were just there to make sure, you know, at a higher level that the business could keep on functioning during that time.
PN6279
Performing some of the functions of the new roles?---Some of the duties, yes.
PN6280
Now paragraph number 31, I can take you to SH20 and this relates to Mr Ring, does it not?---Yes it does.
PN6281
Do I take it that the Assessment Centre report that was considered by the final selection committee did not make mention of Mr Ring's father's death?---The actual printed report that they had, no, but Davidson Trahaire, as it said in this email, they came back after having done assessments and briefed the managers as to, you know, the interview drills and what had occurred at that Assessment Centre.
PN6282
So who did they brief?---I suppose in essence a selection committee. So whoever that would have been.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6283
Right. Would you have expected that they would have briefed Mr Weedon and Mr Blaker?---I would have expected them to be there, yes.
PN6284
Were you there for that - - -?---No.
PN6285
- - - briefing? No?---No.
PN6286
So, you're not sure, you have no evidence as to what was said in those briefings?---All I can go is on what Davidson and Trahaire said in that which, if you go to the third paragraph there, their response was his recent loss and the impact that this may have had on his test Assessment Centre performance was discussed at some length in a manager feedback session and consequently, those making selection decisions about David would have been fully aware of this issue at the time.
PN6287
Well, I can't find any managers. It says that they attended a Davidson Trahaire briefing. Does that surprise you?---I can't answer that question. I don't know. I mean, I can't say if I'm surprised or not when I don't know what you have or haven't heard.
PN6288
Well, neither Mr Weedon, Mr Blaker, Mr Harden or Mr Skinner say they attended a Davidson Trahaire management feedback session?---Were they asked?
PN6289
Yes?---Well, I don't know.
PN6290
Now, SH21 relates to Mr Bayer?---Yes.
PN6291
Do you agree with me that the second paragraph of that email, that they say that his low scores need to be considered due to the possibility of him being impacted by medication at the time?---Reading from that, they were talking about, I suppose, his tests being well below average. They are unable to determine the degree, so, by being unable to determine I suppose, yes it's possible it could or it couldn't have impacted.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6292
In fact, don't they say that his particularly low scores do need to be considered given the fact that he informed them that he was taking medication?---It says it needs to be considered but the degree to which, you know, the medication or a situation isn't something they, well, as I read it they say yes or no to, but he had low scores and it could have been, you know, an impact on it.
PN6293
It could have been due to his medication?---It could have been, yes.
PN6294
Yes. Now, paragraph 32, you refer to a meeting being held to tell people, to give them notice of termination?---Yes.
PN6295
And you say, at that time, employers were offered the opportunity to seek re-deployment to another vacant position within QFCL Sydney, and was that opportunity provided in the form attached to that letter which you've annexed and referred to in paragraph 33?---That was the formal way that they could indicate what they were seeking re-deployment into, yes.
PN6296
Right, and that's, I think, SH25 in, well, there's one attached in SH25. Do you see that?---Yes.
PN6297
That's the way in which they could formally indicate their re-deployment preferences. Isn't that correct?---Yes.
PN6298
And do you agree with me that there are five box options, catering services assistant, storeperson, part time position, airline services operator and chef. Do you see those?---Yes.
PN6299
And then there's the opportunity for persons to indicate any other positions in a space below?---Yes, that's correct.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6300
So you'll agree with me will you that only five specific positions were offered as opportunities for re-deployment at this time?---They were jobs that, I suppose, we had casuals in the business to a large extent performing, that we knew they could be displaced as vacancies. At the time of going through this as well, we also indicated to people in terms of jobs that were available, either blue or white noticed on the, I suppose we have a, like an employment kind of HR notice board. We indicated that there were positions available there that they could apply for and a list was not at the meeting but subsequent to the meeting, a list of specific MMR roles that have been advertised and were unfilled at that time was made available to all of them.
PN6301
So there were other specific jobs that were noted but in terms of the form, obviously, I suppose it was a generic form that covered a lot of people, so they were jobs we knew that were directly there, people that were after other roles through the listing that was then provided to them or by being able to look at the vacancy notice boards, then, yes they would have got information on other specific roles.
PN6302
So that list, is that the one that was provided subsequent to some Commission hearings?---It did come out at the Commission hearings, which were at the same time, but we also did discuss at the meeting of providing them a list and then it arose in the Commission anyway, so.
PN6303
Right. So, you referred them to the notice boards but a list arose co-incidentally after the Commission hearings. Is that your evidence?---At the meeting that we had with them to formally notify them of redundancy, we indicated that we would give them a list of any jobs that were vacant or unfilled under the MMR. I didn't have it available at the time and, yes, the Commission matter occurred basically at the same time, so it was, you know.
PN6304
So the first time they got the list was after that, in terms of time lines, was after that Commission hearing. I'm not saying it was due to the Commission hearing?---Possibly, yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6305
I'm not taking that inference?---Yes.
PN6306
I'm just trying to get the time right?---Yes.
PN6307
Yes?---Yes, I can't remember the exact date for the Commission hearing. I knew it happened at the time, but, yes.
PN6308
O.K. Right, and paragraph number 35. You say that Mr Weedon and Ms Hair interviewed Mr Manu for the section leader role. Now, why was he interviewed for the section leader role when Mr Ring was re-deployed into it without having to attend an interview?---Mr Manu originally applied for the section leader role under the white notice process similar to the other applications that persons made. You know, for any of the supervisory or, you know, assistant production manager positions, whatever. So, following on from his original application, then he was interviewed for that.
PN6309
Right, but it is the case, isn't it, that generally people weren't actually interviewed multiple times?---Some people went to a couple of interviews or some people didn't. It depended on the roles and who'd originally interviewed them and what questions had been covered at some of the original interviews and if they felt they were in a position to make a determination or if they needed more information which they were going to glean from the interview.
PN6310
O.K., but generally, employees weren't re-interviewed for re-deployment roles. That's correct, isn't it?---For the persons that are the subject of this application, no, they weren't re-interviewed for re-deployment roles but there were others who did have some interviews for re-deployment roles.
PN6311
O.K. Now, you refer in 37 to the completion of these re-deployment preference forms. I believe they are just like the one attached to SH25?---Yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6312
And you say that you no longer have a form completed by Mr Parthenis. If the witness could be shown a copy of exhibit ASU19. Do you see that, and do you agree with me that that's the copy of Mr Parthenis' re-deployment preference form?---It accords with what I would have received, so, yes.
PN6313
Yes?---Yes.
PN6314
And do you see that Mr Parthenis' first preference there is for a pay clerk position?---Yes.
PN6315
And, I assume that, is the reason why you didn't have a copy of his form just that you couldn't find it on his file like - - -?---Yes.
PN6316
- - - the other instances?---Yes, it's been in his file and lost during the process.
PN6317
And you'll agree with me, won't you, that the position that was actually offered to Mr Parthenis wasn't his first preference on that form?---Yes.
PN6318
In paragraph number 39 you say you offered Kathy Spezzano the position of Materials Handler Section Leader?---Yes.
PN6319
Now, this is a - what's the nature of that position, is it a section leader, what does that involve?---Within the production environment which is the food production environment and I'll talk loosely because I'm probably not in the best position to talk about exactly the duties and functions that were performed but some of the functions that were previously performed in the stores department, when that sort of broke up and was I suppose, you know and the organisation was then structured around pre-production, production and post-production stores as a function didn't exist, some of the stores duties relevant to the food production area came in that production and I suppose, largely speaking, the supervisor, the section leader was a supervisor of that stores materials handling components, yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6320
Would you agree with me that there would be a supervisory aspect to that position but that it also would have manual labour type requirements, would it not?---I don't know if there would be that much manual labour, I mean, largely it's a section leader, you're managing the, I suppose, the output of the section and there are issues that have occurred in the business as to what work, you know, sort of award-covered people can do in different functions and I suppose it's been quite a long standing issue in food production that clerical airline officers award staff cannot perform, shall I call it, hands up duties, so I don't imagine there would have been that much, if any, of that sort of manual handling component to it because that would have been completed by the store persons in the area.
PN6321
The TWU people?---No, that would have been NUW actually,
PN6322
Sorry, NUW?---Yes.
PN6323
But there may have been some, a small element?---Probably on a very rare occasion there may have been but it's not something in the nature of the role, no, you are a section leader, you are accountable for making sure that everything is where it should be but not necessarily doing that yourself, no, it's a supervisory role, I mean, it's a clerical role.
PN6324
Now, you say on the following page that you've managed to give Mr Mountassallem his first preference for re-deployment to the Level 3 Materials Expediter role?---Yes.
PN6325
So that was important, was it, to try and give people their first preferences for re-deployment where possible?---Where possible and where persons were suited for it, yes, I mean, it was their first preference so we tried to work with them to give them their preferences.
PN6326
Paragraph number 43 you talk about Mr Bayeh rejecting an offer of a three months secondment role?---Yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6327
You agree with me that that was a Level 8 temporary secondment position?---It was a temporary secondment, yes and into a Level 8 role.
PN6328
Yes?---Yes, so yes, I agree, sorry.
PN6329
Are you aware that Mr Bayeh was offered a temporary Level 9 position?---I'm not aware of that, no.
PN6330
Do you agree that in the offer that was made to Mr Bayeh that you refer to in your statement here, that he was not going to enjoy salary maintenance for that 3-month period?---That was what we conveyed to him, no, it was Level 8 for that time and then should be obtain another role, then salary maintenance would go into the next role.
PN6331
Wasn't it the case that that role, he could have applied for that role on a permanent basis at the end of those three months?---Under the MMR there was a role, it was the Labour Utilisation Controller or Co-ordinator, I can't remember the, you know, I say it was Controller, it was a Level 8 role but had quite a wide ranging function inn regards to labour utilisation. At the time Mr Bayeh was potentially leaving the organisation under redundancy that role was unfilled. There was another project occurring at the time to do with a Mizzisoft which is a time and attendance software programme that was being implemented and basically, we were using the, I suppose, the approval and part of that position for that Labour Utilisation Controller to cover the Mizzisoft function which was an element of it. Yes, Mr Bayeh could have applied for that role on a permanent basis but he indicated he wasn't interested in it and I suppose, some of the prior work Mr Bayeh had done and been working on rosters, so we felt he could have some skills in that pure roster to assist with the implementation of Mizzisoft which was a project role which is how that kind of offer came up.
PN6332
That Mizzisoft role was Level 8 though, not Level 9?---Yes, I mean, to be honest, if you looked at the pure Mizzisoft function it would have been less than the Level 8 but the Labour Utilisation Controller in the full scope of that role was a Level 8, so we just said, look, we use that, you know, head count that kind of approval to offer that secondment.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6333
Now, Mr Parthenis here in paragraph 44, you say he was offered this Level 6 position which was the same level as his redundant position?---Yes.
PN6334
You agree that he had been acting as a Level 10 for two years preceding the MMR?---He'd been acting for some period, I don't know if it was for two years though.
PN6335
For the extended period, you'd agree?---A period of time, yes.
PN6336
Isn't it true that a number of persons who had been acting up for long periods were confirmed in their roles in the lead up to the MMR?---I think there were some people in the transport section who were confirmed in roles but I don't know if that was MMR related or not, I'm probably not in the best position to answer that.
PN6337
See if you recall this, that wasn't there some kind of agreement reached with the TWU that persons who had been acting for long periods of time would be confirmed in their roles in the lead up to the MMR, do you have any recollection of that?---I have a vague recollection, I'm aware something happened but it wasn't something I was directly involved in, so I can't say yes or not with certainty.
PN6338
So you don't know why Mr Parthenis wasn't confirmed in that higher role?---No, I can't answer that, no, I don't know.
PN6339
Now, in 45 you refer to a diary note of your discussions with Mr Parthenis on 13 June?---Yes.
PN6340
So is that your usual practice, to produce diary notes?---Largely, yes.
PN6341
So I was going back to 44, you have a conversation with a workers comp co-ordinator, do you see that?---Yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6342
Did you produce a file not or diary note in relation to that conversation?---No, that wasn't something I diary-noted.
PN6343
Who was this workers comp co-ordinator?---Vicki Stevens.
PN6344
By workers compensation co-ordinator do you mean return to work co-ordinator or is it something different?---No, it's the, I suppose, the rehabilitation and return to work functions are a component of her job but she also looks after some of the workers compensation, the actual claims process and management with insurance company and the overall, I suppose, workers compensation co-ordination in the full scope rather than just pure return to work but that was a function of her role, yes.
PN6345
She is trained isn't she, to be a return to work co-ordinator?---Yes, yes.
PN6346
Is QFC of itself an insurer like Qantas?---No.
PN6347
Now, you understand, don't you, that her role then as return to work co-ordinator is to develop the return to work plan for an injured worker, that's correct?---Yes.
PN6348
That it was part of that role that person is meant to have discussions with the worker and their doctor in order to work out what is appropriate in their circumstances, yes?---Yes, sorry.
PN6349
Did Ms Stevens indicate to you that she had had a conversation with - - -
PN6350
MS McKENZIE: I object to that. I mean on one hand we're objecting to the very same thing in the statement and now - it's either a hearsay question and it's not objectionable or it is.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6351
THE COMMISSIONER: She has already asked some questions about these paragraphs that she challenged earlier hadn't she?
PN6352
MS MAIDEN: Yes.
PN6353
MS McKENZIE: She was asking some questions about the nature of the discussions referred to in 44 but she's now asking a question about something that's not referred to in 44 but some further information that she may or may not have received from the co-ordinator. The basis of my objection is only that it seems to me to fall into the same category as the material that Ms Maiden herself has objected to. I don't object to it on any other basis.
PN6354
THE COMMISSIONER: I think that's right, Ms Maiden.
PN6355
MS MAIDEN: I am sorry, Commissioner. I don't mean to do the wrong thing. I just assume if it's been admitted - - -
PN6356
THE COMMISSIONER: It's only admitted largely for convenience but in the end you will tell me that a lot of this is hearsay and I will have to accept that. I can hardly rely on what other people have said as to the veracity or otherwise of what they have said, therefore, what is the point of them going on and asking more questions about it. It's going to be as fatal as the points that you no doubt will raise with me.
PN6357
MS MAIDEN: At this point in time was Mr Parthenis off work due to his workplace injury?---I can't recall.
PN6358
You can't recall. May I have the witness shown a copy of ASU20?
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6359
MS McKENZIE: Perhaps just before the question is put to Ms Hole can I just remind the Commission that I objected to the tender of these statements on hearsay grounds that they were not in themselves evidence of the contents of them. I don't know what Ms Maiden is going to ask Ms Hole but I just draw attention to the basis on which they were allowed in, the same basis as some of this other hearsay material. Paragraph 1111 of the transcript is where I objected to the tender of them.
PN6360
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I understand.
PN6361
MS MAIDEN: I think I probably need a lesson in hearsay because I must say I do not understand that but anyway.
PN6362
Do you agree with me, Ms Hole, that these certificates indicate that Mr Parthenis was not fit for any duties in the time periods indicated on them?---That's what the certificates say, yes, but - I mean bear in mind it's some time ago but I just checked the statement, I know we didn't provide Mr Parthenis with his formal notification of redundancy on the same basically, you know, dates that we did with Spezzano and Mountassallem and Psaltis because he wasn't at work at that time and we provided that to him later and my understanding was that he was at work at that time or - I know there was something to do - there was something to do with his fitness or certificates or something which is why it did occur later and he was at work on 28 May so, you know, I am reading what the certificates say which say he's unfit but there was a reason why it was later and why it occurred on the 28th which I thought was when he had come back into work and was on a suitable duties program. I mean these certificates don't support that and - I mean it's over 12 months ago so my recollection is a bit hazy but I mean I understand Mr Parthenis was in at work when we gave him the formal notification of redundancy so - - -
PN6363
I put it to you that Mr Parthenis wasn't in at work between the date of the injury and his termination?---We met with him on the 28th and I understood it was when he was at work and I also - so, yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6364
But you don't have a strong recollection in relation to that matter; would that be accurate?---We met with him in person and he was at work, yes. So - - -
PN6365
Well, he could have been there in a capacity other than working; isn't that true?---It's possible, yes, but I mean I can't recall with certainty in the same way I can't say he was totally unfit and off work at the time. The certificates say that but he was at work so, yes.
PN6366
You think he was at work but you're not 100 per cent sure?---He was at work on the 28th when we met with him, yes, we met with him so - - -
PN6367
You saw him working, Ms Hole?---Well, I can't say I specifically saw him working but he was at work so I thought - - -
PN6368
I could walk into QFCL but I don't necessarily work there and have a meeting with you - - -?---Well, you probably can't walk into QFCL because we have security restrictions in place but anyway.
PN6369
I could have a meeting with you and it doesn't mean that I work there. So it's not necessarily the case that just because you had a meeting with him at QFCL that he was actually working. I mean that's true isn't it, Ms Hole?---I understood there are elements of a suitable duties program that was put in place so and I also - I mean I have recollections that there were times at which his worker's comp claim may have been accepted for liability and then declined but I can't recall when that occurred as well.
PN6370
You have not produced any evidence about return to work plans, suitable duties plans, declining of his workers' compensation claim in relation to your witness statement have you?
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6371
MS McKENZIE: I object to that. There's about four questions in there. Ms Maiden could have asked Mr Blaker about this, he's the supervisor. Mr Blaker was not cross-examined about Mr Parthenis' medical condition at all. Ms Hole has already made it clear she can't answer about whether he was at work and she's just been asked four questions about documents.
PN6372
MS MAIDEN: Ms Hole is the one who has given evidence about the nature of his injury, she is the Human Resource Manager. I mean, to say that - - -
PN6373
THE COMMISSIONER: You should ask one question at a time.
PN6374
MS MAIDEN: I would like to ask the questions perhaps one at a time.
PN6375
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, at the same time, Ms Hole, you just answer it as - - -
PN6376
MS MAIDEN: As best you can. I am not asking for anything more than that, Commissioner.
PN6377
THE COMMISSIONER: That's right.
PN6378
MS MAIDEN: You haven't attached, have you, to your statement evidence in relation to a return to work plan have you?---It hasn't been attached but there would be evidence that could be obtained in regards to that.
PN6379
You have provided evidence about you said you didn't consider Mr Parthenis' workers' compensation injury an issue; you have said that haven't you?---In regards to his ability to perform the materials handlers section leader role and I've said that.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6380
Wouldn't his return to work plan be relevant to that?---The relevance of all of that comes into a lot of areas. Mr Parthenis never mentioned that there was an issue to do with, you know, any restrictions on his ability to perform duties to - - -
PN6381
Well, he wasn't in the workplace was he, Ms Hole?---I met with Mr Parthenis both on the day we gave him formal notification of redundancy and again at the time where he indicated to me he was declining the role. He never once mentioned that there were any concerns he had on any level about his ability to do the job. He had applied for other supervisory roles which are very similar to the materials handlers section leader so in applying for them I don't believe he would have felt he would have had any restrictions on it given that it was a new role as well and one that he never would have seen performed, I don't know if he would have been in a position to necessary say, I can't do that because of medical grounds, but it was never an issue that he raised with me.
PN6382
You don't know whether these certificates are lodged with QFCL do you?---Given that there's an obligation on employees to submit Workcover certificates I would assume they would have been; I don't know.
PN6383
Right?---So I don't know.
PN6384
You expect that they are?---Well, if Mr Parthenis was complying with his obligations they should have been.
PN6385
You know that Mr Parthenis was off work for a period of time but there's a question in your mind as to how long that is; is that correct?---Yes, he was off for a period.
PN6386
You imagine that there was a return to work plan for Mr Parthenis; that's correct?---Mm.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6387
As is Qantas' obligation under the legislation?---Yes.
PN6388
Yet, you have not attached that return to work plan, have you?---No, it has not been attached.
PN6389
You have not attached any indication of suitable duties that you have a recollection Mr Parthenis was on?---No, I have not attached information on that.
PN6390
That would be relevant, would it not, to whether or not Mr Parthenis could perform, what level of supervisory duties he could perform, is that not correct?---No, someone's return to work program is not - you know you are looking at - if he was - - -
PN6391
I was asking about suitable duties?---If he was going to be unfit for a period of time, you know, fine, but it is about getting someone to the job and looking - as I understood it, and I was informed that there were not going to be any ongoing restrictions on his ability to perform the supervisory duties. If, at the time, he may have had a level of impairment then that may have been something that existed in the time, but whether that would prevent him from undertaking the roles is not the same question. The answer I got through the workers compensation group was that there would be no impairment on him in his ability - - -
PN6392
That is a question for a doctor, is it not?---Well that was based on the advice of the return to work co-ordinator who would have discussed that, I suppose, with the medical professionals, both his and the insurance company's.
PN6393
You do not know that, do you?---That was the advice that I was given, that it had been discussed, I take the workers compensation co-ordinator - - -
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6394
Well, you do not say that in your witness statement, so you do not actually know that, do you?---I have said that the advice I received from the workers compensation co-ordinator, whose, as we have discussed, role is to liaise with doctors, was that there would not be any restrictions on his ability to perform a supervisory function - or permanent restrictions.
PN6395
I put it to you that there is no return to work plan for Mr Parthenis or suitable duties in relation to him, is that correct?---
PN6396
MS MCKENZIE: Well I object to that question, there is absolutely no foundation for it. You can put something to somebody when there is evidence that you are then going to rely on but the ASUs case is closed. There is no evidence before the Commission about Mr Parthenis' medical history, beyond these two certificates, which appear to say that he will be fit from 2 July 2003. So, I am not sure on what basis something can be put of that nature to Ms Hole because if Ms Hole denies it, where is Ms Maiden going to go with proving that she is wrong?
PN6397
MS MAIDEN: I mean, a return to work plan is an essay of something that is within Mr Parthenis' - well Mr Parthenis has presented the evidence that he has in relation to his injury. You know, I do not see how he can do anything more and it is Ms Hole that is - - -
PN6398
THE COMMISSIONER: What has he presented?
PN6399
MS MCKENZIE: It says he will be fit on 2 July.
PN6400
MS MAIDEN: No, actually, that is not what that says, that is a progress assessment, it is not a final assessment, they are quite different.
PN6401
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, why did he not present the return to work program? Is not that material in his possession as well?
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6402
MS MAIDEN: No, if it did not exist.
PN6403
THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry?
PN6404
MS MAIDEN: If it did not exist, no. He was off work.
PN6405
MS MCKENZIE: There is no other medical certificates.
PN6406
MS MAIDEN: Well if he was made redundant before 7 July, why would he go and get another medical certificate?
PN6407
MS MCKENZIE: Because he says he cannot do the job because of his - he says he denied redundancy because of his medical condition. There is no evidence about it.
PN6408
MS MAIDEN: There would be no need for him to go and get continued medical certificates if he was no longer an employee of Qantas.
PN6409
THE COMMISSIONER: No, but what is the basis that you asked the question of Ms Hole?
PN6410
MS MAIDEN: Well, that it is Ms Hole that is respondent on behalf of the organisation to this issue about Mr Parthenis' injury and she provides no evidence to support her evidence that would have been within Qantas' purview to support her view.
PN6411
THE COMMISSIONER: That is right, she has presented no evidence and that is it.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6412
MS MAIDEN: Certainly, Commissioner. I think I will only be another five minutes, Commissioner.
PN6413
THE COMMISSIONER: That is all right.
PN6414
MS MAIDEN: Your diary note, Ms Hole, at SH35?---Yes.
PN6415
Now this relates to a conversation between yourself and Mr Parthenis on 13 June 2003?---Yes, that is correct.
PN6416
Is it not the case that Mr Parthenis actually went to Ms Farrington in the first instance on that day to discuss redundancy, in your absence, I believe, from the office?---I do not know.
PN6417
Did Ms Farrington say to you, before your conversation with Mr Parthenis on 13 June, that he had dropped in?---She told me he had dropped in, yes.
PN6418
What did she say he said?---I think she said that he wanted to discuss the role with me.
PN6419
Is it not the case that Mr Parthenis had actually told Ms Farrington that he could not take that level 6 job?---
PN6420
MS MCKENZIE: Well, I object to that, how can Ms Hole answer what Mr Parthenis told Ms Farrington?
PN6421
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think she is getting to the question.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6422
MS MCKENZIE: Sorry.
PN6423
MS MAIDEN: Well, I was going to ask whether that is what Ms Farrington had told you - did Ms Farrington tell you - - -?---I do not know if you completed your question or can you just repeat it?
PN6424
Is it not the case that Ms Farrington told you that Mr Parthenis had come bay and said that he could not take the level 6 job that had been offered to him?---Ms Farrington said to me that Mr Parthenis wanted to talk to me about the role, that was the message I got. Whether he said to Ms Farrington that he could or could not, would or would not, take the job, I do not know. The message I got from Ms Farrington was that he wanted to talk to me about the role.
PN6425
Did you speak to Mr Parthenis on 13 June in your office or was it in some other part of QFCL?---It was another part of QFCL, yes.
PN6426
In a corridor or something like that, was it?---It was in the corridor outside the canteen, yes, I ran into him as I was walking past.
PN6427
You have refuted paragraph 26 of Mr Parthenis' statement. In that paragraph - do you agree with me?---I do not have a copy of paragraph 26 in entirety but I know I reviewed it at the time preparing the statement and I disagree with it.
PN6428
Well, I will show a copy to you, witness to be shown. I mean, Mr Parthenis says in paragraph 26, does he not, that he saw you in the corridor, that - well perhaps you are best just to read it out loud seeing as how you have my copy?---It says:
PN6429
Half an hour later I saw Sally in the corridor. She said that she heard that I was taking the redundancy and she talked of the final details of the clearance.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6430
So he does not say there, does he, that he raised the issue of his restrictions at that time, does he?---No.
PN6431
No, so you and Mr Parthenis are actually in agreement, it would appear, on that issue, are you not?---That he never did say that he had any injury concerns with me, yes.
PN6432
At that point in time?---At that point or at any point.
PN6433
Well talking about his evidence, it is just that in your witness statement you say:
PN6434
Mr Parthenis never raised with me the concerns he had regarding his restrictions as referred to in paragraph 26 of his statement, at the time of rejecting the section leader role.
PN6435
So that is not correct, is it?---Well in terms of that, no, obviously we did agree that it was not raised, so I apologise.
PN6436
All right now, if Mr Parthenis had accepted that level 6 section leader role, and then had subsequently been unable to perform in that role due to his injury, is it not true that he would not have been eligible for redundancy?---If at, you know I suppose, an exhaustive, you know, rehabilitation program, he was unable to perform the duties of that job, then it is probable his employment would have been terminated however, I do want to, I suppose, qualify that statement, having already discussed it is a supervisory role, there is not a large physical component in the supervisory role so I think that is an improbable outcome that ever would have arisen. It is a supervisory function.
PN6437
That's not your roles is it in the organisation to determine whether or not a role is suitable for someone with an injury; is it?---It is something that in the past I have had consultations with return to work co-ordinators in attempting to find suitable duties and to otherwise assess whether someone's employment may or may not be terminated, yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6438
And that decision is made in consultation with a doctor; isn't it?---In terms of some of the medical restrictions. Whether we are able to reasonably accommodate any of those in a job or modify a job, then they are aspects that I would get involved in, yes. And it is quite an exhaustive process.
PN6439
So, you haven't had discussions with Mr Parthenis' doctor, have you?---I haven't had discussions with Mr Parthenis' doctor.
PN6440
No, you don't know whether or not Mr Parthenis would have been able to perform that job given the nature of his injury; do you?---I may answer to that in reference - I met with Mr Parthenis after he had been terminated at which he presented a certificate outlining that he was fit for suitable duties. The suitable duties that he provided at that stage I imagine would have enabled him to have performed a supervisory role, yes. But by that point he had elected not to take the job and his employment was terminated. So, I think it is highly possible that he would have been able to perform the supervisory functions.
PN6441
You haven't attached any copy of any certificate that relates to - - - ?---I didn't keep a copy of the certificate. He presented it to me at the meeting and then left. And that meeting is referred to I think in 36. He was seeking suitable duties at that time and as the - I suppose the point says - I mean we didn't - his employment was terminated and we don't provide suitable duties for people that we don't employ. But if he was in employment then we would have provided him suitable duties and he would have been performing a supervisory role - I imagine - that was offered to him. You know, if he had accepted it at the time.
PN6442
In terms of determining suitable duties, that is something that falls down to the return to work co-ordinator; doesn't it?---Yes, it does but I have had a fair amount of experience I suppose of having looked at medical certificates. And if it says, able to lift up to 5kg, you know, sit, stand, work number of hours or whatever. Then it is something - you know I have had experience in assessing in the HR role and the workers' compensation function came under me - - -
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6443
The medical certificate actually doesn't go into that level of detail at all; does it? It just says whether someone is fit or suitable - fit for suitable duties or not; isn't that correct?---No, I think even if you look at the certificates you have tendered to me it goes on, and by nature of any suitable duty certificate it has to outline what duties they can perform. Which says:
PN6444
Has the following capabilities for number of hours, number of days, lifting, sitting, travelling, walking, standing, keying.
PN6445
And pretty well any medical certificate will do that, yes. That is the nature of the doctors to outline what suitable duties they are capable for. So it does go into that level of detail.
PN6446
You are not suggesting that the doctor is familiar with the nature of somebody's work? I mean, isn't it the return to work co-ordinator - - - ?---The doctor outlines the medical restrictions that an employee will have. We look at those medical restrictions, assess them against the duties and see if they are capable of performing them. If not - - -
PN6447
And that is what the return to work co-ordinator does?---The return to work co-ordinator specifically will do that. But, as I said, in my experience it is also aspects that I am assisted with and considered some of the rehabilitation plans and what duties we can or can't accommodate and adjustments we can make in a workplace.
PN6448
Now, you talk in 48 about:
PN6449
As a last resort employees could have been put into a position of a casual.
PN6450
You say:
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6451
Provided they were physically able to do the work.
PN6452
Do you see that?---Yes.
PN6453
So, you agree with me that that is obviously an appropriate option in relation to Mr Parthenis?---It was never assessed so I can't agree or disagree. As it says that redeployment option was not required for any employees under this restructure.
PN6454
On the last page you say in the last sentence of paragraph 54:
PN6455
At no stage during this meeting did Mr Bayer indicate to me that any promises about maintaining his salary level had been made to him by Skinner, Blaker or Hardy.
PN6456
Do you see that?---Yes.
PN6457
Well, weren't promises made to all employees about maintaining salary for a period of six months?---Salary maintenance provisions obviously exist under the Enterprise Agreement. My reading of Mr Bayer's statement was that he was indicating that he had been promised permanent salary maintenance - it didn't have an expiry date on it - so that is what that is in relation to. As opposed to the, you know, very specific salary maintenance provisions under the Enterprise Agreement.
PN6458
And, in paragraph 55 you say that paying - you provide an explanation for why Mr Bayer was paid on 26 June. You say that him receiving that payment wasn't an impediment to his redeployment?---Yes.
PN6459
Was Mr Bayer told that?---At the meeting we had with him it was aware that if he wanted redeployment it would have been there for him to pursue, yes.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE XXN MS MAIDEN
PN6460
And if he had elected to be redeployed between I think is it 28 June - a few days window, isn't there, between when he was paid and when it actually came into effect; is that correct?---What, when he was paid his redundancy and when the redundancy actually took effect?
PN6461
Yes?---There would have been I think two days.
PN6462
So if he had elected to be redeployed in that period he would have had to have repaid that money; wouldn't he?---Yes. There were instances where people did repay money.
PN6463
Now, you can understand though, can't you, that when the money goes into someone's account it may give the appearance that it is just too late to go back; that's right, isn't it?---It could give the appearance but it was clearly explained to Mr Bayer that he had redeployment options. So, an impression someone may gain at one instance would have easily been changed by the behaviour otherwise and we made attempts to offer Mr Bayer redeployment and to maintain his employment so that he could secure other roles that he was more interested in. They were discussions that I had with him, or Mr Hardy and Mr Blaker had with him - they were quite lengthy - to see if he wanted to continue his employment.
PN6464
Do you agree with me that the old positions that are the subject of this application and the new positions - were they all properly classified under the award?---I mean the process of going through it and getting jobs graded and assessed, yes I would agree that they were all correctly classified.
PN6465
PN6466
MS McKENZIE: Just one matter, Commissioner.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE RXN MS McKENZIE
PN6467
Ms Hole, you were asked some questions in relation to ASU19 which is Mr Parthenis' redeployment form; do you still have that with you?---Yes.
PN6468
Ms Maiden asked you a question in relation to the order of preference that Mr Parthenis listed positions?---Yes.
PN6469
You see the first preference there is the, pay and time clerk position. Do you know what salary level that position was?---It was a level 5.
PN6470
A level 5 position. And do you know what level the production material handlers section leader?---That is a level 6.
PN6471
And that was the position which Mr Parthenis was offered; is that correct?---Yes.
PN6472
Do you recall why Mr Parthenis was considered not suitable for the pay and time clerk position, the level 5 position?---The pay and time clerk position is a specialist payroll function that requires a lot of knowledge of payroll systems. You know, tax, accounting functions; it is a completely different skill set. And Mr Bayer's resume, work experience and - - -
PN6473
I'm sorry - Mr Parthenis'?---Mr Parthenis' resume and the work history and everything didn't demonstrate that he had any skills or experience in that field.
PN6474
Yes, thank you.
PN6475
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?
PN6476
MS McKENZIE: I have got no further evidence.
**** SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE RXN MS McKENZIE
PN6477
PN6478
MS McKENZIE: Commissioner, that concludes the evidence. I am not sure whether the Commission wants to mark the outline of contentions that we filed at the outset of the proceedings - the respondent's outline? Or if I can deal with this next Wednesday?
PN6479
THE COMMISSIONER: We will deal with it next Wednesday. The Commission will adjourn till next Wednesday. There is one thing, the actions of Qantas, Ms Maiden, are to be measured against their obligations, I take it, under EBA5 - that was in exhibit ASU7; EBA5 provisions A5. But there is also EBA3, isn't there? That is not before - that somehow has never appeared in the Commission although we might have dealt with it during the 170LW stuff. What are the - we will get that as well - but what are the provisions? It is EBA3, isn't it?
PN6480
MS MAIDEN: It is EBA3. It is appendix B to EBA3. I have a copy with me if the Commission would like me to tender it now. I only have one copy but I am sure Ms McKenzie - - -
PN6481
THE COMMISSIONER: No, it is - - -
PN6482
MS McKENZIE: I think it was an exhibit in the original proceedings.
PN6483
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, we can find it through the system. I just wanted to know, they are the two Enterprise Agreement provisions that you rely on; isn't it - EBA3, appendix B, and EBA5, A5? There is no award or anything?
PN6484
MS MAIDEN: There is also EBA6 in the sense that it doesn't go specifically to redundancy but it operates to call up the earlier ones.
PN6485
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that is right, yes.
PN6486
MS MAIDEN: Yes, but not in any specific nature in relation to redundancy. No there is no award provisions that are relevant, I don't think, Commissioner.
PN6487
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. We will adjourn till 9.30am next Wednesday.
ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 26 MAY 2004 [4.17pm]
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
TYLER WEEDON, SWORN PN5429
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS McKENZIE PN5429
EXHIBIT #QF13 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF TYLER WEEDON PN5437
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAIDEN PN5438
WITNESS WITHDREW PN6027
SALLY ALEXANDRA HOLE, AFFIRMED PN6033
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS McKENZIE PN6033
EXHIBIT #QF14 DOCUMENT PN6069
EXHIBIT #QF15 OUTLINE PREPARED BY MS HOLE PN6074
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAIDEN PN6076
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS McKENZIE PN6466
WITNESS WITHDREW PN6478
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2004/2018.html