|
|
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 11414
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER LARKIN
C2003/6014
THEATRICAL EMPLOYEES (RECREATION
GROUNDS AND RACEDAY RACING OFFICIALS -
NSW AND ACT) AWARD 2000
Application under section 113 of the Act
by Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
to vary the above award re safety net review
- wages May 2003 and casual loading
SYDNEY
10.06 AM, MONDAY, 24 MAY 2004
Continued from 19.1.04
PN94
THE COMMISSIONER: Appearances please?
PN95
MR M. RYAN: I appear for the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance.
PN96
MR D. DAVIES: I continue my appearance by leave of the Commission on behalf of a number of racing industry respondents to the award. Can I indicate that there are three witness present in the Commission today as well in relation to statements that have been filed in this matter Commissioner.
PN97
MS T. MARSHALL: I appear for Employers First on behalf of respondent members.
PN98
MS M. McDONNELL: I appear for Australian Business Lawyers on behalf of respondent members.
PN99
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes Mr Ryan whenever you are ready?
PN100
MR RYAN: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner you would have received a great deal of correspondence in relation to this matter by way of submissions and submissions in reply.
PN101
THE COMMISSIONER: On that point I note that the submissions in reply were lodged seven days outside the directions on MEAA and Employers First were three days out of time as well. I don't believe, and draw me to any correspondence I received that sought the leave of the Commission to file outside of directions. Am I missing that correspondence at all Mr Ryan?
PN102
MR RYAN: No you're not, I do advise that Commissioner. Ms Marshall am I missing?
PN103
MS MARSHALL: No there was no correspondence Commissioner and I do apologise for our lateness.
PN104
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, could I please ask that in future if you can't comply with the directions I'd like the courtesy of advice please. Yes Mr Ryan whenever you are ready?
PN105
MR RYAN: Commission this application is in two distinct parts before you. One is to increase the rates of pay pursuant to last year's National Wage case and the second part is in relation to increasing the loading from 20 to 25 percent. Having regard to the fact that the 12 months has now passed since the rates were increased for the 2002 National Wage case, it would be my submission that the rates should be varied as and from today's date in relation to the 2003 National Wage case. Can I draw your attention to some correspondence from Australian Business Lawyers, Commissioner, dated 7 May.
PN106
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes I have that correspondence Mr Ryan.
PN107
MR RYAN: In relation to that you will notice that discussions were held between the Alliance and ABL concerning their client and the ACT. As you would be aware from the reading of the award the three clauses dealing with rates of pay contain a provision stating that the rates include compensation for entitlements arising our of legislation concerning annual leave and long service leave applying in New South Wales. There is no such corresponding provisions concerning the ACT Racing Club. It is obvious that that should be there and as part of our discussions concerning the matter as a whole it was agreed by the Alliance that we will insert a similar clause making it clear that certain benefits have been foregone by the by rates of pay in the award.
PN108
So we would seek to be able to tender a draft order tomorrow for the parties reflecting the increase of last year's National Wage case also inserting clause 22.1.4 as set out in the correspondence of 7 May from ABL to yourself to make it clear that rates of pay are inclusive of at least annual leave and long service leave arising out of legislation in both New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.
PN109
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ryan did you say that you seek to file draft orders tomorrow for the application of the 2003 safety net to the award?
PN110
MR RYAN: Yes.
PN111
THE COMMISSIONER: Also a draft order reflecting the agreement reached between MEAA and ABL in relation to an additional clause.
PN112
MR RYAN: Yes that is correct Commissioner.
PN113
THE COMMISSIONER: But you seek that I determine those two issues now without having any draft order or what have you?
PN114
MR RYAN: Well it is a mathematical equation Commissioner just to add on the hourly rate plus the 20 percent to it to give the new figures for the award that will allow the parties - - -
PN115
THE COMMISSIONER: You filed on the last occasion, you provided the relevant documentation in regards to the safety net adjustment did you Mr Ryan did you not?
PN116
MR RYAN: If my memory serves me correct that contained a 25 percent loading, rather than a 20 percent loading, those draft orders they were previously filed so they need to be corrected for that.
PN117
THE COMMISSIONER: No for the safety net adjustment, not for the increase in casual loading.
PN118
MR RYAN: I think the application - - -
PN119
THE COMMISSIONER: Because what you are seeking is, you are seeking that the award as it currently stands be varied - - -
PN120
MR RYAN: From today's date.
PN121
THE COMMISSIONER: - - - to increase the rates of pay in accordance with the 2003 safety net.
PN122
MR RYAN: Yes Commissioner.
PN123
THE COMMISSIONER: That's a separate issue to whether the casual loading - - -
PN124
MR RYAN: Is increased from 20 to 25 percent.
PN125
THE COMMISSIONER: That's right. So I asked you, and I'll hear from the other parties at the bar table in a moment, but you are simply asking for the increase to the rates of pay, for the safety net adjustment but you don't have a draft order for it?
PN126
MR RYAN: No, I just had a brief discussion with Ms McDonnell before these proceedings as to the relevance of that particular wording. I said we would agree with that because it is consistent with the current wording for the other two wages clauses.
PN127
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but you are going to give me a draft order for the insertion of a new clause 22.1.4 in the award which I gather is associated with the Australian Capital Territory not New South Wales?
PN128
MR RYAN: Yes that is correct Commissioner.
PN129
THE COMMISSIONER: So there is no other, you are not seeking to put a similar clause in other parts of the award or even in that award in relation to New South Wales.
PN130
MR RYAN: No.
PN131
THE COMMISSIONER: All right and you raised on the last occasion in regards to the 2003 safety net adjustment, the documents required in the Commission in relation to the notification, there was substituted service on the - all that - - -
PN132
MR RYAN: They've all been tendered - - -
PN133
THE COMMISSIONER: I've not looked at the transcript from the last occasion but I take it that that material is all before me.
PN134
MR RYAN: I think I actually tendered late last year, on the first time this matter was before you.
PN135
THE COMMISSIONER: That's all I ask. I have the relevant material that I require in regards to the service and authority to serve and what have you.
PN136
MR RYAN: And also we give the appropriate undertaking that it's absorption into over award payments.
PN137
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes and that would have been on transcript Mr Ryan?
PN138
MR RYAN: It certainly is now Commissioner.
PN139
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Davies what's your view in regards to Mr Ryan's application that I vary the award in regards to the 2003 safety net adjustment as from today's date, bearing in mind I don't have an order and I don't know whether you have an order? If I don't have one I presume you don't have one.
PN140
MR DAVIES: No I don't Commissioner, the only order I have is the one that was filed initially in these proceedings which incorporates the 2003 safety net adjustment and the 25 percent loading.
PN141
THE COMMISSIONER: That's right yes.
PN142
MR DAVIES: In terms of the principle, with a small "p", being passing on the 2003 safety net adjustment, we have no objection to that occurring. I would just like to clarify. Presumably the order that is going to be tendered tomorrow will have no reference at all to a 25 percent casual loading. Is that correct?
PN143
MR RYAN: That's correct Commissioner.
PN144
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I would have presumed that but Mr Ryan has just stated that, yes.
PN145
MR DAVIES: Thank you. On that basis then we would have no objection to the matter proceeding.
PN146
THE COMMISSIONER: I gather that the formula that will be reflected in the draft order that MEAA will file and serve tomorrow is based on the formula that you people have always used to increase the rates of pay in this award for safety net adjustments or what have you?
PN147
MR DAVIES: We certainly hope so Commissioner but if it is consistent with that then we certainly don't object.
PN148
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes and of course you reserve the right to view the draft order tomorrow and raise any objections if there is any errors.
PN149
MR DAVIES: Yes that's correct Commissioner.
PN150
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Davies. Ms Marshall?
PN151
MS MARSHALL: Commissioner like Mr Davies we are prepared to give conditional consent to the 2003 safety net review subject to the draft order and subject to our ability to check the figures in the order. But as far as that part of this application goes we are prepared to consent to it.
PN152
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms McDonnell?
PN153
MS McDONNELL: Thank you, Commissioner. Similarly, Australian Business Lawyers is prepared to consent to the 2003 safety net adjustment if it is inclusive of the 20 per cent loading as Mr Davies has pointed out and if it's line with the 2003 safety net principles. I will just take you if I may now to our correspondence dated 7 May 2004.
PN154
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you tender that, Ms McDonnell?
PN155
MS McDONNELL: Yes, it was previously forwarded to your associate.
PN156
PN157
MS McDONNELL: Thank you, Commissioner. This correspondence and the exhibit ABL 1 seeks to limit our participation in the hearing to the matters that are outlined in the correspondence. Similarly to Mr Ryan's submissions ABL and the Alliance have had discussions and we seek to insert the clause 22.1.4 in similar words to those reflected in that correspondence. The actual detail of the wording is to be confirmed between the parties and I understand Mr Ryan has made submissions to today that the parties will agree and tender a draft tomorrow as part of these proceedings.
PN158
As indicated at point 2 we will not object to the increase to the loading to 25 per cent but we do not provide our consent in that regard either. As also submitted we will not object to the 2003 National Wage Case increase and we will just limit our appearance in hearing to outlining those issues. If the Commission pleases.
PN159
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms McDonnell. Mr Davies and Ms Marshall, do you have a view on the second part of the application that has been put by the MEAA and not objected to - well, I believe consented to by ABL in relation to the insertion of a new clause, subclause 22.1.4?
PN160
MR RYAN: No, we don't have a problem with that, Commissioner.
PN161
THE COMMISSIONER: I suppose it doesn't impact upon your clients in any matters?
PN162
MR RYAN: No, indeed it doesn't and it introduces some further consistency in the award which is missing at the moment.
PN163
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Marshall?
PN164
MS MARSHALL: We have a similar view, Commissioner, to Mr Davies.
PN165
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Anything further, Mr Ryan?
PN166
MR RYAN: I don't think so.
PN167
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I think based on the material before me in the submissions of the parties in proceedings this morning I will grant the application by the MEAA to increase the rates of pay to apply the safety net wages decision of 2003 and also to insert a new clause in the award which is consented to by the ABL on behalf of its clients, that clause being 22.1.4. I have a draft of that clause and I am satisfied that both of those applications in regard to the safety net and also the new subclause is in accordance with the principles of the Commission.
PN168
My decision in that regard will be tentative having regard to the fact that I have not sighted draft orders at all and those draft orders are to be filed and served by the MEAA tomorrow. The application is granted with effect from today's date and the orders reflecting that variation will remain in force for a period of, I would presume six months, Mr Ryan?
PN169
MR RYAN: Yes, thanks, Commissioner.
PN170
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms McDonnell, do you seek to be excused?
PN171
MS McDONNELL: Yes, I do, thank you, Commissioner.
PN172
THE COMMISSIONER: Will ABL be in attendance tomorrow or I presume that once you sight the draft order you would formally advise my associate with a copy to the other parties whether ABL does or does not have a problem with that draft order?
PN173
MS McDONNELL: Yes, if that's the appropriate course we're happy to do that.
PN174
THE COMMISSIONER: In that regard then you're excused and you wouldn't be required to attend tomorrow.
PN175
MS McDONNELL: Thank you very much, Commissioner.
PN176
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you for your submissions, Ms McDonnell. Mr Ryan, whenever you are ready?
PN177
MR RYAN: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN178
MR DAVIES: I am sorry, I wonder if I might, Commissioner? I've got three witnesses here. Each of them have other commitments and I am wondering if it might be possible if we might dispose of the witness evidence at this point in the proceedings and enable them to get away, particularly Mr Drew from Wyong who has to get back there and has commitments around about lunchtime.
PN179
THE COMMISSIONER: I was going to actually raise with Mr Ryan - - -
PN180
MR DAVIES: Sorry, Commissioner, if I have jumped the gun.
PN181
THE COMMISSIONER: That's fine. I was going to raise with Mr Ryan the process. I have listed the matter for three days. I am unaware whether I need three days, I doubt very much that I do, whether the parties had discussed timing, the requirements, just so I can have an indication of how long they feel proceedings will be on foot and also the position in relation to witnesses. Mr Ryan, do you want to answer those for me?
PN182
MR RYAN: I think it's more than likely that today will satisfy the requirements of all at the bar table.
PN183
THE COMMISSIONER: That would suit me nicely, very nicely actually.
PN184
MR RYAN: I am certainly not going to read out my submissions that you can read at your own leisure, Commissioner.
PN185
THE COMMISSIONER: I went very quickly through the submissions. I didn't know whether you sought to elaborate or file any other material. I realise that the award is a casual award, it has not so much the norm but in the vast majority of cases costing documents have been tendered in relation to what is argued to be benefits forgone by casual employment and what is the actual cost or percentage of those benefits. I don't know what your position is in relation to this award, whether I have even indicative costings; I really don't know but having said that I would presume then, and I can only presume, that you would seek to refer to your written submissions and submissions in reply and possibly build or support that material. Am I correct in that?
PN186
MR RYAN: You are, spot on, Commissioner.
PN187
THE COMMISSIONER: You would say one day. Mr Davies has requested that the witnesses - - -
PN188
MR RYAN: I would certainly have no objection to that.
PN189
THE COMMISSIONER: - - - that we would hear their evidence. MEAA is not calling any witnesses at all?
PN190
MR RYAN: No, Commissioner.
PN191
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Ryan. Ms Marshall, do you have a view at all?
PN192
MS MARSHALL: I don't have any objection to the witness evidence being disposed of first up, Commissioner.
PN193
THE COMMISSIONER: Employers First won't be calling any witnesses?
PN194
MS MARSHALL: We won't be calling any evidence, thank you, Commissioner.
PN195
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. All right, Mr Davies, you might like to then, even though it is not quite the norm but due to circumstances and to have regard to the witnesses other commitments, lead off and call your witnesses. The two witnesses aren't going to stay in the hearing room while the other - - -
PN196
MR DAVIES: No, I intend to call Mr Drew first and for the other two to remain outside while Mr Drew is giving his evidence.
PN197
PN198
MR DAVIES: Mr Drew, is it correct that you're the Chief Executive with Wyong Race Club Limited?---That's correct.
PN199
Have you prepared a statement for the purpose of these proceedings?---Yes, I did.
PN200
Mr Drew, is that a two page document dated 5 March 2004 with a single page attachment?---Yes, it is.
PN201
Do you have a copy of that with you?---Yes, I do.
PN202
I tender that, Commissioner.
PN203
PN204
MR DAVIES: Mr Drew, is there anything in that statement that you wish to alter or correct?---No.
PN205
Thank you. I have no further questions for the witness, Commissioner.
PN206
PN207
MR RYAN: This is your own statement, Mr Drew?---Yes, it is.
**** TONY KEITH DREW XXN MR RYAN
PN208
Created by yourself?---Along with an accountant, yes.
PN209
And the wording of it itself, it's all yours?---Yes.
PN210
Can I ask you to have a look at your statement?---Mm.
PN211
That statement is provided, isn't it?---Yes.
PN212
Could I also ask you to have a look at the statement of Mr Colin James Lloyd and also the statement of Mr Cividin? Can you see that they've been marked up?---Yes.
PN213
If I was to put to you that those words which are marked on all three documents are identical, would you accept that?---Yes.
PN214
So how come they're so alike, if these are your own words?---They were forwarded to us by Mr Davies.
PN215
Your words were forwarded by Mr Davies to you?---Not my words.
PN216
Well, I'm just a bit confused - - -?---The context of it.
PN217
Well, they're either your words or they were words that were provided for you that you agreed with, which is it?---They were provided for me and I agreed with it.
PN218
How many race meetings are held by Wyong?---We hold 22 gallop meetings, eight harness meetings and we prepare the greyhound tack for 50 meetings held by the NTA. We lease it out to them.
**** TONY KEITH DREW XXN MR RYAN
PN219
So as far as people covered by this award go for the greyhounds, they're not employed?---No, but some we pay - we do pay some of them for trial days. Now, that's just part of the agreement we've got.
PN220
So you supply people covered by this award for their trial meetings but not for their - - -?---Not for their race meetings, no, no.
PN221
What would be the average number of people covered by the award which would be engaged to work on a race meeting?---A gallop meeting.
PN222
A gallop meeting, yes?---From 46 to 56 maybe 60 depending if you include the bar - - -
PN223
You would cover?---Yes.
PN224
For harness meetings?---Harness meetings, there would be up to 20.
PN225
As a percentage of your wages bill, what percentage is applicable to people employed under this award?---Under this award?
PN226
Yes, so you've got your maintenance staff, for example, you've got your office staff?---I've got outdoor staff, I have office staff and bar staff as well as casual race day employees.
PN227
So, just looking at the casual race day staff, what percentage of your total wages bill is applicable to casual staff?---It would be around 50 percent.
PN228
50 percent?---That's what I envisage it.
**** TONY KEITH DREW XXN MR RYAN
PN229
But you didn't do those calculations?---Didn't do them?
PN230
No, didn't do a comparison as to - - -?---No, no I didn't, no.
PN231
And you say in paragraph 14 that you had to employ fewer staff?---Yes, the way it was working out, especially with the pressures being put on us to provide prize money, increased prize money, yes.
PN232
I was just about to ask you that question. How much has your prize money gone up?---Prize money has gone up from $2.2 million to about $2.6, $2.7 million.
PN233
Over the last 12 months?---Current - it's put a lot of pressure on us.
PN234
So that's over $400,000 or that's half a million dollars and you've calculated something less than $23,000 for the cost involved here?---Yes.
PN235
Did Mr Davies make you aware that we offered to split the increase into two, half now, half 12 months later, was that brought too your attention?---Not that I can recall.
PN236
No, because that would have an impact on your paragraph 13, wouldn't it, where you calculations are based on the full five percent going?---Yes, definitely, yes.
PN237
On that basis, would that change your view as expressed in paragraph 14?---Not really. The biggest problem is that we've got directors who we've got to - and members and we just can't afford to have a loss, you know, with an increased prize money and the pressures being applied there. It may be one or two people that would suffer and we could find the positions where, you know, we'd have to have a look at it and most definitely have a look at the way we employed people.
**** TONY KEITH DREW XXN MR RYAN
PN238
I can understand you've got to look at all your dollars and cents, but is it fair for me to say that an increase in about half a million dollars in prize money in one hit makes an increase of $11,500 pretty small in comparison?---Yes, it does, but $376,000 of that was virtually enforced on us by the Thoroughbred Racing Board where they increased our prize money from $9000 to $11,000 minimum prize money and we have 170 odd or 190 odd races I believe. I've got a lot pressures.
PN239
I'm sure you've got pressures from a lot of different places, I'm just trying to get a feel that when you're looking at a claim which will have, as you say, a bottom impact of roughly $11,500 a year, is going to cause such a big problem when you've got pressures from other areas. Do you have to pay jockeys as well?---We do.
PN240
Have their minimum payments gone up, for losing jockeys?---They get paid per ride.
PN241
Yes?---It has risen, yes.
PN242
I suppose you can't have a race without jockeys, can you?---Exactly or horses.
PN243
The final question is patronage, how has patronage been at your club for the last 12 months or so?---With the impact of - we had a great cup carnival and it's steady. Winter time they drop off dramatically. Summer time we're very lucky because we have, you know, a sort of a twilight meeting.
PN244
Also an area for people having their holidays if I'm not mistaken?---It is very good.
PN245
I have no further questions, Commissioner.
**** TONY KEITH DREW XXN MR RYAN
PN246
PN247
MR DAVIES: Just two questions, Mr Drew, can you predict what would have happened to your club if you hadn't increased the prize money by $400,000?---Yes, I can. Actually, the Thoroughbred Racing Board put out a strategic plan, I think it was June last year, where a club on the Central Coast was in jeopardy of loosing their licence. We fought that very hard with the new administration and were advised last Tuesday that there would be no rationalisation but it was - we were very, very worried about it and with the harness racing, the strategic plan has come out and Wyong is not in that strategic plan. So from Wednesday we will not have harness racing at Wyong.
PN248
So worse case scenario, you could have lost your licence over prize money, is that right?---Not so much over prize money, it would be an impact, yes.
PN249
Now, if I can take you to the $11,000 increase which Mr Ryan referred to, he suggested that's $11,000 per year over two years. Do you recall him saying that?---Yes.
PN250
What's the total of $11,500 per year over two yeas?---$23,000.
PN251
And the figure in paragraph 13 of your statement?---Just under $22,000.
PN252
I have no further questions.
PN253
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Drew, thank you for taking time to come to the Commission to give your evidence, you are excused.
**** TONY KEITH DREW RXN MR DAVIES
PN254
MR RYAN: I have one question in re-examination.
PN255
THE COMMISSIONER: My apologies, Mr Ryan. Of course you may have - you are not excused, Mr Drew.
PN256
MR DAVIES: Do I get another go then to raise - - -
PN257
THE COMMISSIONER: No.
PN258
MR DAVIES: Because Mr Ryan has already had his cross examination of the witness. I have re-examined the witness. He is my witness, not Mr Ryan's witness.
PN259
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. No, that's exactly right but look, let us be quite flexible. If you have another question please raise it and then if something arises, Mr Davies, please put the question. I will stay here all day tomorrow if you chose. Mr Davies is quite correct but please go ahead, Mr Ryan.
PN260
MR RYAN: In relation to the club and harness racing at the moment, does the conduct of those three harness meetings make a profit for the club?---Three harnesses>
PN261
Does that make a profit for the club?---A minor, yes. I think it was $7000 last year.
PN262
So you're not doing any more harness racing?---They got rid of it.
**** TONY KEITH DREW FXXN MR RYAN
PN263
That is all, Commissioner.
PN264
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Ryan. Mr Davies.
PN265
MR DAVIES: No questions, Commissioner.
PN266
PN267
PN268
MR DAVIES: Mr Cividin, is it correct that you are the Commercial Manager with the New South Wales National Coursing Association?---That's correct.
PN269
Have you prepared as statement for the purpose of these proceedings?---I have.
PN270
Is that a two-page statement signed by you on 12 February 2004?---That's correct.
PN271
With approximately five attachment pages to it as well?---That's correct, yes.
PN272
I tender that Commissioner.
PN273
PN274
MR DAVIES: Did you prepare this statement from scratch?---No, it was, placed in all the figures but it was from a draft that I had.
PN275
In terms of the draft that you had, did you agree with that draft?---Yes I did.
PN276
Thank you. I have no further questions of the witness, Commissioner.
PN277
**** TONY CIVIDIN XXN MR RYAN
PN278
MR RYAN: I just ask you to explain the attachments to your statement?---Statement - - -
PN279
Attachment B?---That explains the numbers that attend, paying customers that attend Metropolitan Race Meetings, other TAB meetings and non TAB meetings over the various years.
PN280
So looking at Wentworth Park, where is that, is that the top graph?---Wentworth Park would be Metropolitan. That's the line with the, yes, the top one, yes.
PN281
You are saying the average attendance in 1997 was 581?---Correct.
PN282
Are you sure about? Having spent eleven years living one block from Wentworth park, I am pretty sure that there's more 581 people walking through the gates, when I used to live there?---They're paying members, paying customers.
PN283
So how many people normally attend, say, a Saturday night meeting?---These days, less than 320.
PN284
And in total, apart from paying customers?---I haven't got those figures with me.
PN285
Who would make up the non paying customers?---I think, I couldn't be absolutely certain, owners and trainers and invited guests.
PN286
Could I take you then to Attachment C. What does the heading there, Course Admissions at the Then Current Prices?---What does it mean?
PN287
Yes?---Exactly what it says. In 1988 there was $541,325 collected in admissions.
**** TONY CIVIDIN XXN MR RYAN
PN288
Right?---And in 2003 there was $84,565 collected.
PN289
Right. Can I take you then to the body of your statement at paragraph 13, where you say that the current payroll figure of people in this award is $353,000?---Yes.
PN290
What is the total wages bill of the National Coursing Association?---$353,000 per annum.
PN291
Your salary is paid by somebody?---That's salary, it's not wages, casual wages.
PN292
So what's the total payroll of the National Coursing Association?---I don't know offhand.
PN293
Are you able to give me any indication what percentage would be casual race day staff?---No, I wouldn't, not offhand.
PN294
Would it be about a third, a half?---Very much less than that.
PN295
When was the last time admission price was increased and by how much?---Certainly not in the last two years which is how long I've been there.
PN296
Again in relation to paragraph 13, were you aware that the alliance proposed to stagger the increase in two lots, instead of going from 20 to 25 percent in one hit, we propose going to 22-1/2 percent and then 12 months later going to 25 percent. Was that brought to your attention?---No, it wasn't.
PN297
That would have an impact, wouldn't it on the first year of the increase, as set out in your paragraph 13?---It would have an impact.
**** TONY CIVIDIN XXN MR RYAN
PN298
How many people under this award are engaged at Wentworth Park on a race meeting?---At any one night at Wentworth Park there would be anywhere between 28 and 38, depending on what type of meeting it was.
PN299
I have no further questions, Commissioner.
PN300
THE COMMISSIONER: Are you sure, Mr Ryan?
PN301
MR RYAN: I am positive this time.
PN302
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Davies.
PN303
PN304
MR DAVIES: In your position as commercial manager would you normally expect to have access to the total payroll figure of the association?---Have access to it? Yes, I do, yes.
PN305
I see?---Of course, yes, but not that I would be able to recall it at will.
PN306
Thank you, I have no further questions.
PN307
PN308
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Davies.
PN309
PN310
MR DAVIES: Mr Lloyd, is it correct that you were General Manager, Employee Relations with the Sydney Turf Club?---That's correct.
PN311
Have you prepared a statement for the purposes of these proceedings?---Yes, I have.
PN312
Is that a two page document which was signed by you on 14 April 2004 with a copy of the club fixture card attached to it?---That's right.
PN313
Do you have a copy of that with you?---I do.
PN314
I tender that.
PN315
PN316
MR DAVIES: Mr Lloyd, did you prepare this statement from scratch?---No.
PN317
Can you explain the process that was used?---We had discussions about the matter, you provided me with some draft - a draft statement which I proceeded to put into my own words, make some changes to and to modify to what I thought was accurate.
PN318
Is there anything in there you wish to alter or change?---No.
**** COLIN JAMES LLOYD XN MR DAVIES
PN319
I have no further questions, Commissioner.
PN320
PN321
MR RYAN: Could I just direct your attention to paragraph 15, Mr Lloyd. Isn't it true that since this statement was made that Sky Channel is no longer broadcasting STC meetings?---That's true.
PN322
That's left a hole, being able to watch it outside the track, isn't it?---Well, we're currently rolling out with the Victorian clubs an alternative service which is in over a thousand clubs at the moment so you can still watch Sydney racing throughout Sydney.
PN323
Can I put to you that it hasn't made its way to either Redfern or Dural, which I'm familiar with?---It's not in all pubs and clubs, no.
PN324
Your organisation, the Alliance, currently have a certified agreement, don't we, covering employees covered by this award?---Yes.
PN325
And the base of that is that the rates of pay are 2 per cent higher than the award?---That's right.
PN326
So unlike some, this will have an impact on your figures?---It will, yes.
PN327
If my calculations were correct your held 63 meetings, 63 meetings can be held at both Canterbury and Rosehill; would that be right?---I don't have the calendar in front of me but - - -
**** COLIN JAMES LLOYD XXN MR RYAN
PN328
That's why I counted on the calendar you provided?---Well, that would be correct then.
PN329
Giving an average of 13,174 per meeting. They would vary of course in size?---I can't comment on - I mean, obviously we have some meetings with more than at other meetings, that's true.
PN330
That would average out at you say between 110 and 130 per race meeting?---Staff?
PN331
Yes?---Yeah, depending on the size of the meeting, that's true, and the venue, whether it's Canterbury or whether or it's Rosehill.
PN332
So you would have to assume that a wintry Wednesday afternoon in July at Canterbury would have the smallest?---That's true.
PN333
And that the Golden Slipper would have - - -?---The largest.
PN334
Yeah, but even so the range only between 110 and 130?---Yeah, because the nature of what these people do, there's certain gates and areas that they need to staff, that's true.
PN335
You say in paragraph 13 that the wages bill for people covered by, is that the award or is that the agreement rate, based on the agreement rate?---That would be the agreement rate.
PN336
Which would be 2 per cent higher than - - -?---That's right.
PN337
Have you any idea what percentage of the total STC wages bill that 83,000 is?---830,000.
**** COLIN JAMES LLOYD XXN MR RYAN
PN338
830,000, yeah?---No. Off the top of my head, no.
PN339
In relation to prize money, how much has that increased in the last 12 months?---I don't have the figures with me, sorry.
PN340
Would it be substantial?---I wouldn't say substantial. There's been some increase, that's true.
PN341
What about the advertising budget for the Princesses at the Golden Slipper; who pays for that?---Well, that's actually an AJC advertising program.
PN342
And also STC for the Golden Slipper, do you pay part of that?---Well, we advertise for the Golden Slipper but you're referring to Princesses Are Welcome?
PN343
No, there was the one for this Easter just gone where there was both the AJC carnival and STC carnival very close together and there were certainly separate advertisements I saw for the Golden Slipper?---They're separate campaigns, yes.
PN344
That comes out of - the STC pays for your campaign?---Well, we pay for our campaign.
PN345
Have you increased advertising costs in recent years?---I can't comment. Don't have the figures in front of me.
PN346
Has that advertising campaign in recent years attracted larger numbers to your feature races?---Feature races had stabilised in the last few years. We had a slight increase on Golden Slipper day this year - I think about a thousand, 1200 more than last year - but during carnival time they had actually decreased for the last four or five years, stabilised last year and then a small increase this year.
**** COLIN JAMES LLOYD XXN MR RYAN
PN347
What about admission prices; have they been altered in any way?---There's a different admission price for festival time, carnival time, but they've been fairly consistent over the years.
PN348
So what, general admission hasn't gone up for a while?---General admission $10, has been $10 for long as I've been with the club, yeah.
PN349
In relation to your paragraph 16, it's hard to ask a question when you haven't been able to answer the ones concerning where this wages bill fits in the totality of your overall costs, but what impact do you think it would have, an extra 35,000 in total, once all the outgoings that the STC has?---Well, in relation to the total budget it's not an enormous part of the budget, but the club is always looking to improve its profitability and it's certainly not an insignificant sum either.
PN350
But it wouldn't put you into the red, would it?---No.
PN351
No further questions, thanks, Commissioner.
PN352
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ryan, you put to Mr Lloyd that there is an enterprise agreement in place and I believe your question was that you would be one of the few where this case would have an impact. That seemed rather contradictory to me. I just wanted some clarity. If there's an enterprise agreement - - -
PN353
MR RYAN: It's struck - the enterprise - - -
PN354
THE COMMISSIONER: Can I finish my question. If there's an enterprise agreement, if the MEAA is successful in this application, then to have an effect the agreement would have to provide that it would increase if the award increased.
**** COLIN JAMES LLOYD XXN MR RYAN
PN355
MR RYAN: That's what it actually does say, Commissioner. It says in the rates of pay applicable I think from March this year, it's the award rate of pay plus two per cent, unlike most enterprise agreements you'll have like a dollar figure per week or per year which overrides the award. In this one the enterprise agreement rate of pay is dependent upon what the award rate is and then there is the additional 2 per cent applicable.
PN356
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. The other two witnesses - and forgive me, Mr Lloyd, I do want to ask you a question, that's why I've not gone into re-examination but if you would just wait and be patient with me please. The other witnesses, the question of an enterprise agreement was not raised.
PN357
MR RYAN: They don't exist. To the best of my knowledge, Commissioner, there are three respondents to this award covered by enterprise agreements.
PN358
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Could I ask you, would you please address that in your submissions for me, unless of course anything you're going to say requires to be put to Mr Lloyd, but I would like some clarity in that regard as well. You might keep that in mind yourself, Mr Davies.
PN359
MR DAVIES: Yes, Commissioner.
PN360
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Lloyd, at point 13 of your statement, and I notice the other statements of the witnesses that I've heard evidence from this morning have the same percentage, at the second sentence your statement is that a 14.17 per cent increase would add an extra 35,000 per annum to the wages bill. Where did that 14.17 per cent come from?---As I understand it we currently pay a 20 per cent loading which is - so we pay 120 per cent of the rate.
PN361
So that's just the percentage increase. I'm just wondering, there are a number of classifications in the award and I was just wondering whether that 14.17 was the average of all classifications for you to arrive at a dollar value?---Yeah, it's just an average.
**** COLIN JAMES LLOYD XXN MR RYAN
PN362
So it's just an average, so you've just taken 4.17 per cent of your bill?---Of all the classifications, yes.
PN363
As in wages bill and that figure then represents the difference between the 20 per cent loading and the 25 per cent?---That's right.
PN364
Yes, thank you, Mr Lloyd.
PN365
Mr Ryan, anything arising from my questions?
PN366
MR RYAN: No, thank you, Commissioner.
PN367
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Davies, anything in re-examination?
PN368
PN369
MR DAVIES: In relation to the 4.1 per cent and the $35,000 per annum, that is, as I understand it, over and above other wage increases that would apply through safety net adjustments, is that correct?---That's right, that's correct.
PN370
So am I right in saying that the award increases by safety net adjustments, your agreement then adds 2 per cent the resultant figure in the award?---That's right.
PN371
You are saying that the further 4.1 per cent would apply attributable to the increase in the casual loading, is that correct?---That's right, that's correct.
**** COLIN JAMES LLOYD RXN MR DAVIES
PN372
PN373
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Davies, we have no more witnesses.
PN374
No, that completes the evidence that we wish to call, Commissioner.
PN375
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, witness evidence.
PN376
MR DAVIES: I'm sorry, yes.
PN377
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ryan?
PN378
MR RYAN: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I might address you on the point you raised when Mr Lloyd was in the witness box about Enterprise Agreements and the applicability for employers bound by this award. As I said, to the best of my knowledge, there are only three employers covered by this award who have Enterprise Agreements with the alliance, they are Sydney Turf Club, The Australian Jockey Club and the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust. In fact, we've just re-negotiated a new agreement with the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust and I think the members are voting on that this week-end to approve a new which agreement which does have in this particular case, defined rates of pay but a proviso that if the award is better then the award classifications will apply. Ms Montgomery is about to start re-negotiations with the Australian Jockey Club for a new agreement there.
PN379
Commissioner, if I could seek to actually tender both my submission and submission in reply.
PN380
PN381
PN382
MR RYAN: Commissioner, if I could refer to MEAA3 for the moment and make some brief points before concentrating on a couple of areas contained in those submissions and the related cases referred to. The award is somewhat unique but not totally unique in that it only applies to casual employees but it should be noted that the employers also engage other staff in regular ongoing employment office staff and the like but these employees are only required usually to attend the cases of racing, pacing and greyhounds when there is a meeting on. But the employers, as I said, do engage other full-time employees, such as office staff, ground maintenance staff and the like,
PN383
Other employers are the holders of exhibitions and the like and they usually have our local Castle Hill Show that's on for a couple of days and maybe a couple of people employed there and the like but they are much smaller employers than those which conduct racing and that is reflected in the structure of the award. Now, that point, that it's a casuals only award seems to have been the issue seized upon by the employers still opposing the application but it was a point raised fairly and squarely and dealt with by a Full Bench of the Commission in the Pastoral Industry Award at paragraph 73 of that decision. That says, where the issue is raised, that part of the award is in two parts, that award, one covering casuals, the other covering ongoing farm labourers. The Bench says:
PN384
However, if in the absence of clause 9 a comparison between the position ...(reads)... when contrasted with permanent employment.
PN385
Then in paragraphs 76 to 79 of that decision the Commission then looks at what factors should be taken into account when formulating a casual loading and it points out, of course, that at 77:
PN386
Annual leave and leave loadings are not benefits enjoyed by casual employees, they should clearly be taken into account ...(reads)... 5 days in relation to sick leave.
PN387
Long service leave at paragraphs 80 to 82 were taken into account. Then there is discussion which on first glance is a little bit confusing because it relates to terms used uniquely to the shearing industry.
PN388
There was said to be a distinction of lost time and short time. There's a distinction at paragraph 83 where the rates of the shearers have been boosted because on occasions, they cannot shear sheep because they are wet or for other factors and that's referred to as short time but in relation to Part 3 employees, it is a factor that's been properly taken into account and then at paragraph 90, they say, although they haven't had the benefit of evidence that enables precise quantification of the actual impact of this factor on Part 3 employees, confident that a period of 10 days ban will be a conservative allowance.
PN389
Then at paragraphs 91 to 94, where they consider whether notice of termination and severance pay should be taken in account and they say that, again, at paragraph 94 that five days is an appropriate ban to attribute to benefits associated with notice of termination and redundancy available full time but not to casual employees and then there's a discussion taking account of the fact that the casual employees were paid the lowest rate and finally they conclude that they increased the loading to 25 percent for both Part 2 and Part 3 employees and emphasised that the inability to collectively bargain underscored the importance of award safety net as fair minimum wages and conditions and the appropriateness of dealing with the adequacy of the casual loading on an award basis.
PN390
As I said, Commissioner, there were only three employers where there is enterprise agreements and they all rely upon the award for their rates of pay. They are the three largest employers under this award and if you look at the spread of geography concerning the employers down by the award, we would rely upon the importance of this award and as an award safety net because of the almost impossibility of securing enterprise agreements although they were the largest of the employers and again, as I said, those EBAs still rely upon the award for setting their rates of pay.
PN391
If I could turn to page 11 of the exhibit MEAA3, Commissioner, and just emphasise what we think the various decisions which have now arisen since both the metals award was varied at the end of 2000 by a Full Bench and the subsequent decisions that were brought to your attention. Now there's still the approach in this Commission to adopt a case by case approach but at the same time, there is a line throughout all those cases that certain components have been consistently held to be needed to be included in the loading applicable to casual employment.
PN392
They are annual leave and annual leave loading, personal leave, long service leave, public holidays, notice of termination, severance payments and itinerants. Throughout those cases, the mathematics have shown that annual leave, annual leave loading, sick leave and public holidays are worth 19.8 per cent, that itinerants and, through it, lost time, is a factor to be taken into account when setting the amount of loading for casual employees and if I emphasise here, Commissioner, that's even more so when you look at the fact, for example, that the STC, one of the two largest employers, has 63 race meetings, there will be a couple of barrier trials which weren't included there, but the amount of itinerants is much greater for employees under this award than it is for an award which allows for the engagement of casuals in permanent positions covered by the same award so that a lot of casuals are working five days per week, week in and week out, but it's definitely not the case with the employees here that when you take into account itinerants and the lack of payment for termination and severance that more than justifies an increase in the wages from 20 to 25 per cent and following a relevance to this particular award it is not a fact that the award only covers casuals because that matter was fairly and squarely dealt with by a Full Bench in the Pastoral Industry Award.
PN393
THE COMMISSIONER: But in that particular award, correct me if I am wrong, the casuals were contained in a part of the award?
PN394
MR RYAN: Yes, but in classifications that didn't exist in the other part of the award which covered full time employees.
PN395
THE COMMISSIONER: But the award itself had full time and casuals in different sections.
PN396
MR RYAN: That is correct, although there was a point raised and that was, as I said, fairly dealt with in paragraphs - - -
PN397
THE COMMISSIONER: I don't want you to go over your submissions. I'm sorry, continue.
PN398
MR RYAN: But he said even if that wasn't the case and they existed by themselves alone there was no permanent employees who were still appropriate at paragraph 73 to do a hypothetical testing of it. I don't wish, Commissioner, to go through the submissions in writing; you're more than capable of reading those. The points are made as to what those cases take into account. You'll note that since then I've been able to find two further cases where the loading was increased by Deputy President Ives and I attach the whole of the transcript and the two decisions. Two matters were joined in those particular cases, Commissioner, and you'll see attached to that both the decisions and the decision and the transcript.
PN399
I think it is fair to say that whilst the Commission is still adopting a case by case approach to the issue of the amount of the casual loading at paragraph 7 of both of his Honour's decisions reliance has been placed on - the two Full Bench decisions refer to the Metals Decision and the Pastoral Industry Decision and he says:
PN400
I consider those authorities relevant to ...(reads)... of the award as sought.
PN401
It's also clear that whilst one has to seek section 107 applications, as was done here, matters now seem to be dealt with by senior members of the Commission in relation to the increase in the casual loading. So we say the approach adopted by the Alliance is consistent with the current practice of seeking to vary casual loadings. We have partial consent, if you like, by one of the parties before you to increase the casual loading of 20 to 25 per cent.
PN402
The Alliance has acknowledged that it may be appropriate in an award such as this to stagger the increase so that it's increased to 22 and a half per cent and then 12 months later to the full 25 per cent. I've also suggested so there can be no misunderstanding of what the rates are to compensate for if one looks at the very bottom of page 11 of exhibit MEAA3 that we have sought to make it abundantly clear that all those benefits are foregone by the rate of pay we seek to have inserted; that is, annual leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, carer's leave, parental leave, jury service, public holidays not worked, severance pay and notice of termination.
PN403
So there can be no doubt for the future that the rates here cover all those foregone benefits because they are of a casual nature as opposed to the current wording of the award which just speaks about the rates have been loaded to compensate for entitlements arising from legislation applying to the State of New South Wales at the time of making this award in relation to annual leave and long service leave. We think that is only appropriate for an award such as this which only covers casuals.
PN404
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ryan, there's no actual calculations or even hypothetical calculations in support of the 25?
PN405
MR RYAN: No.
PN406
THE COMMISSIONER: MEAA is, and correct me if I'm wrong, MEAA is relying upon a number of decisions where the casual loading has been increased to 25 except in the Queensland - some AWU awards that I varied and that was to bring it into line with the Queensland Commission's decision which was 23 per cent.
PN407
MR RYAN: Yes.
PN408
THE COMMISSIONER: In support of the argument MEAAs position is well, other awards have been varied for 25 per cent and we say that's the appropriate figure.
PN409
MR RYAN: Yes, Commissioner, for this reason; that there's now been an involvement if you like of what's been agreed are appropriate components that form part of the casual loading.
PN410
THE COMMISSIONER: But you've not given me any costings on that.
PN411
MR RYAN: No, we've relied upon - - -
PN412
THE COMMISSIONER: Even hypothetical costings?
PN413
MR RYAN: We would say that the costings done by the Full Bench in the hypothetical case there which sets out in detail each of the components which are worthwhile being considered and which aren't to be considered because they rejected a number of components forming the casual loading now lays the groundwork for what is a mathematically accepted formula. Would you like me to point out - - -
PN414
THE COMMISSIONER: I don't know that that's been determined in the Commission, has it, that that's an acceptable formula? I hear what you're saying, it appears that a number of members or Full Benches have outlined the formula but, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think it was put up as a test case or guidance, I don't know. Did the Full Bench say well this should guide single members in their determination?
PN415
MR RYAN: No, it's certainly not a test case in the proper sense of a test case. We accept that and it was made quite clear, and we accept that, that a case by case approach is the way to go.
PN416
THE COMMISSIONER: I think members of Full Benches have said it's a case by case approach.
PN417
MR RYAN: But I think it's also well and truly accepted that if there is a line of authority from other Commission members and Full Benches that is appropriate for an advocate to rely upon those earlier decisions and also for Commission members to look at those and adopt any common thread.
PN418
THE COMMISSIONER: But that's MEAAs argument to me. That's not supported by any member's comment. It's your argument to me; you're saying to me well look this is what has happened in all of these awards and our submission to you is that you should adopt this for the particular award before you.
PN419
MR RYAN: Yes, and we say one difference, of course, that it may have an impact on some and hence we propose a staggering of the increase.
PN420
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that's at page 12 of your - - -
PN421
MR RYAN: That's our difference there because in some cases of the smaller employers around, although no evidence has been called from them, we have some of the larger ones that may have an impact and they should have some ability to plan ahead. But in relation to the issue we have partial consent from one of the employers bound by the award to the increase and - - -
PN422
THE COMMISSIONER: It's not consented to.
PN423
MR RYAN: It's not opposition. I don't know how - - -
PN424
THE COMMISSIONER: It's not opposed. It's a different concept, Mr Ryan, you must admit.
PN425
MR RYAN: It's not opposed, they've been granted leave and they don't wish to say anything more. So I can't do anything more than note that that it's certainly not opposed.
PN426
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, they're not opposing the application. It's as clear as that. They don't consent to it but they don't oppose it.
PN427
MR RYAN: Yes. In a lot of these cases, of course, there have been matters by consent but, even so, it doesn't matter if it's by consent or not but it's got to meet the requirements of the Commission member dealing with it that it's an appropriate variation to make and that has been the case in these. So, Commissioner, as I said, I don't want to repeat myself but we deal with in MEAA4 the views put forward by Employers First and McCarthy Ausgroup.
PN428
One important thing there is that McCarthy Ausgroup seem to be saying that the loading is not a casual loading and we say look, that's stretching the language. It's a loading paid to casuals which makes it a casual loading in our book and it's not something that the parties would be seen to be said - well, Mr Davies in his submissions that it's just the way the parties have decided to apply National Wage Case Decisions to the award. We can't do anything other than apply the National Wage Case Decisions in accordance with the National Wage Case Decision. We can't do something different to it.
PN429
We cannot make it less nor greater by agreement between the parties. It is the National Wage Case Decision and that's what it is. The 20 per cent is recognised to compensate at the moment lack of annual leave and long service leave. I've already dealt - - -
PN430
THE COMMISSIONER: Are they the only two components the 20 per cent was inserted into the award for?
PN431
MR RYAN: Yes.
PN432
THE COMMISSIONER: Do I have supporting material on that or that's the submission?
PN433
MR RYAN: We don't call it that because I think in 1983 the Long Service Leave Act was extended in New South Wales to apply to casuals and soon thereafter the parties agreed to have a loading to say look, nothing was done, these people will continue to get long service leave or start to accrue it and the payers agreed to make it clear that those rights were foregone for the payment of the 20 per cent loading, which is close enough to what the other Commission members have found to be worth 19.8 per cent annual leave, long service leave and annual leave loading.
PN434
There is a complaint from Employers First that we respond to, saying that the way in which the matter was conducted by the Alliance and we point to the National Union of Workers decisions of Deputy President Ives varying those awards from 20 to 25 per cent and say there's not much difference between ourselves and then just make reference to the position of Australian Business Lawyers on behalf of the Australian Capital Territory Racing Club Incorporated that they do not object to the, or do not oppose the increase in the casual loading from 20 to 25 per cent.
PN435
We say, Commissioner, that to that line of cases starting with the Metals Award at the end of December 2000 that it is now clear, we say, that even though a case by case approach has been taken, that there are certain components which have been adopted in each and every one of those decisions which should go under a casual loading to compensate for features not paid to casuals which have been consistent and are consistent with the variation we seek to make and consistent with the decision of the Full Bench in the Pastoral Industry Award which dealt with a similar situation of people in one part of that award not being able to compare with other classifications in the award doing the same work but engaged on a permanent, full time or part time basis. So they're our submissions
PN436
Speaking to our submissions, in relation to the evidence that you heard today, the figures are small as to the increase that would flow to people covered by the award by the increase in the loading, in the totality of, in the case of Wyong, some almost 400,000 in increased price money being given as opposed to an increase of 23,000 for the full 5 per cent on their calculations.
PN437
We say that's a matter we have taken into account by seeking to spread the loading increase but in any regard it's a small - to the best of their ability I was able to get out in cross-examination of the limited knowledge of the witnesses as to totality of outgoings and wages for other staff. We would submit that that cost is not onerous. It's certainly not going to make them unfinancial. On that basis, they're our submissions, Commissioner.
PN438
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Ryan. Mr Davies?
PN439
MR DAVIES: Commissioner, could I seek an indulgence and ask you to adjourn for about five minutes? I need to eat something.
PN440
THE COMMISSIONER: Actually, a courtesy break might be a good idea as well. I was just going to say actually, more or less housekeeping before I do adjourn, it doesn't appear that we'll be here tomorrow so in regards to those orders that MEAA file that we addressed earlier, file and serve them, if I don't receive a complaint in regards to those calculations or the drafts by 27 May and on the proviso that we are satisfied, the Commission is satisfied with those orders, then I will sign them on Thursday, but I would appreciate actual acknowledgment that you don't have a problem but if I don't hear from anyone by Thursday 27 May I'll sign and issue the orders. We'll adjourn for 10 minutes.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.29am]
RESUMED [11.40am]
PN441
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Davies.
PN442
MR DAVIES: Commissioner, we rely on the written submissions that have been filed on behalf of our clients in this matter and I ask that you mark those submissions.
PN443
PN444
MR DAVIES: Of course we also rely on the evidence that's been given this morning in exhibits D1, 2 and 3. I propose to make some brief additional submissions now in response to the MEAAs response rather than go through the original submissions again, although inevitably some of what I say will touch on those. The union has said today that this award is almost unique in the sense that it's a casuals only award and in my research I've not found another award which the Commission has been asked to examine in relation to casual employees that only applies to casuals.
PN445
We see that this is important in the context of this award that has been deliberately set up to cover casual employees only. If one compares and contrasts the benefit available to casual employees viz a viz full time and part time employees, we say that's appropriate to do in other areas where those three classes of people exist. But we say the Commission needs to take a different approach in relation to an award where only casual employment is provided for.
PN446
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Davies, it is correct, is it not, that the casual loading that's in the award at the current time is only to compensate casuals for the loss of the annual leave and long service leave components.
PN447
MR DAVIES: Well, I want to address you separately on that, if I may.
PN448
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, in your own good time.
PN449
MR DAVIES: Yes, thank you, if I may, I certainly intend to address you on that. As Mr Ryan has indicated, there are other awards covering other employees in this industry and indeed there's a clerical award which cover clerks who work in the offices of the various clubs who are represented here today and they're normally people who work Monday to Friday and people who may work overtime on Saturdays at race meetings or if they're casually employed as clerks, they're paid under the casual provisions of that relevant state award.
PN450
There is also an award covering race club employees which is an award of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission and that covers people who are responsible for track maintenance and set up work for race meetings and so on. Those people are generally employed Monday to Friday, some overtime on weekends, although certainly there are provisions for casual employees under those awards. The award in the clerical industry provides for a 20 percent loading for clerks and the award covering race club employees covers, sorry, I withdraw what I've just said.
PN451
The casual provisions of the Clerk's Award provides a 20 percent loading for casuals and in the Race Club Employees Award there is a provision for casuals with a loading of 15 percent. So, yes, there are other awards that exist in the industry. Generally speaking both of those awards I've quoted to you are awards that cover various classes of people, full time, part time and casuals, not casuals only, as the award before you today covers. Mr Ryan referred to and draws some comfort for the provisions of the Pastoral Award in which there is a separate section or a separate part dealing only with casuals.
PN452
But we say that that's only partial comfort to him in the sense that it is still a decision that was made in the context of an award that deals with other categories of employees in other parts of that award. It is not a casuals only award and it is not, we say, an award which has brick walls between the various parts. We say that the Commission looks at the Pastoral Award as it looks at other awards in the context of a range of classes of employees. Now, the Commission in the Pastoral Award, as I understand the decision, had the benefit of hearing evidence from the union in relation to that matter.
PN453
There's been no evidence presented on any matter today, whether it be costing or whether it be the make-up of the work force or whether it be anything else, in fact, in relation to their case to introduce casual loading of 25 percent. Indeed one might look at the type of people who are covered under this award and this is not evidence, it's statements from the bar table I accept, but my experience indicates that they fall broadly into three categories, people who are social service recipients and for whom wage increases under the award often eats into their social service payments.
PN454
There are people who work as casuals, deliberately as casuals at evenings and on weekends because they already have full time jobs and there are other categories of people who may be students or in some other form of activity other than in paid activity who also work casual work and are happy to do so under the terms of this award. Now, none of that's been brought out in evidence and it's unfortunate that we weren't able to cross-examine any union witnesses to determine which of those categories they fell into.
PN455
Why I say that is because we're talking about, in awards where there are several classes of people, we're talking about the position of casuals, viz a viz part timers, viz a viz full timers. In relation to what my friend wants you to do, he wants you to pick up on paragraph 73 of the Pastoral Award and say, well, let's compare the people under this award to that hypothetical person that's referred to in the Pastoral Award and on the basis extrapolate from that award and so some calculations, the financial basis of which hasn't been established, in my submissions, by the union on this occasion.
PN456
It's merely relied on a series of statements that the Commission has made, without saying how those statements specifically apply in this award and how those various factors should be given weight to introduce casual loading of 25 percent. The other decisions which have been cited by the union apart from the pastoral industry clearly are awards covering full time, part time and casual employees. Now, I'll turn to the question that you asked me, at least partially, in relation to the casual loading in this award. Mr Ryan, in his supplementary submissions and indeed today takes issue with our approach that it's not a casual loading but it's a casual and if I can paraphrase what he said it's something of an exercise in semantics.
PN457
I'd like to hand up an extract from the Metal Engineering and Associated Industries Award, if I may. There's only one paragraph of that award that I wish to refer to.
PN458
THE COMMISSIONER: We might mark it to keep a track of the paperwork. You've identified it. It's an extract from the - - -
PN459
MR DAVIES: Yes, it's an extract from the Metal Engineering and Associated Industries Award which is award code AW789529 and that's shown in the bottom left hand corner of the document that I've handed up and it's clause 4.2.3(a) to which I want to refer.
PN460
PN461
MR DAVIES: Thank you, Commissioner. I ask you to look at 4.2.3(a) which says, and I quote:
PN462
A casual employee is to be one engaged and paid as such ...(reads)... employees all purpose rate.
PN463
And that's the totality of that subparagraph. Now, we say that's a comprehensive clause that does three things. It defines "casual employees" as being "one who is engaged and paid as such". It establishes an hourly rate using a formula which says you take the weekly rate and you divide it by 38 and then it also establishes a casual loading of 25 percent.
PN464
Now, I would ask you to contrast that with the current award, the award currently before you. There is no weekly rate in this award. In fact, clause 6.3 of the Race Course Casuals Award specifically excludes its application to weekly employees. The rates of pay are not expressed in a weekly basis in the casuals award. They're only expressed as hourly rates. We say that it doesn't contain a casual loading, it contains a formula for converting flat safety net adjustment increases into hourly rates.
PN465
THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, Mr Davies, what clause in the award?
PN466
MR DAVIES: 6.3 and I won't read it all:
PN467
This award shall not apply to an employee who is employed by ...(reads)... or a contract of longer hiring, etcetera.
PN468
Now, we say that's a contrast the Commission should take into account between this award and the Metal and Engineering Award which was the genesis of this claim. So there's no weekly rate in the casuals award, the rates of pay expressed as hourly rates not weekly rates, and we say that clause 7.2 contains a formula for converting flat dollar safety net increases into hourly rates, that's what clause 7.2 does. Now the union refers in its submissions, both initially and again today, dealing with paragraph 73 of the Full Bench award relating to casuals.
PN469
THE COMMISSIONER: The Full Bench decision.
PN470
MR DAVIS: I'm sorry, the Full Bench decision, the Pastoral Industry relating to casuals. If I can quote from that after referring to the hypothetical permanent employee, and indeed, there are no permanent employees in this industry. I quote:
PN471
The key disadvantages suffered by casual employees and to which a casual loading is directed ...(reads)... with permanent employment.
PN472
I end the quote there, and I've taken that from the bottom of page 6 of Meads original submissions, MEAD 3. Now we say that contrast that statement with clauses 21.2 and 23.3 of the award before you, and it is clear in both of those subclauses to which I've referred, that annual leave and long service leave are both dealt with in the rates of pay under this award. The rates of pay have been loaded to take into account liability of employees in New South Wales for annual leave and long service leave obligations.
PN473
Now it doesn't say how it has been loaded, it doesn't refer back to the loading in clause 7.2. In fact, it doesn't refer to a loading at all, it refers to the rates of pay are inclusive of annual leave and long service leave obligations. We say that if the union is now relying on an increase from a 20 percent figure then - and part of their justification is paragraph 73. In fact, if the increase was to make provision for annual leave and long service leave it is double counting because the rates of pay already make those provisions in the award currently before you, it is second loading that they seek, compensating twice for the same thing.
PN474
Mr Ryan, this morning referred you to a number of factors which he says are common threads - I think they were the words he used - through other decisions of the Commission in relation to casual loadings, their annual leave and leave loadings, well, we say that the award already compensates for that. Sick leave, sick leave is a benefit that applies to permanent employees not to casuals, and we say that if you were looking at this in the context of an award which covered both classes of people where one class is missing out, viz-a-viz the other, then that would be a legitimate factor for you to take into account. We say in this case there are no people missing out, people get a set of benefits based on the nature of their employment and the industry in which they are employed.
PN475
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Davis, isn't it arguable that in relation to the sick leave that the workforce either in this industry or in a number of other industries, full time or part time, have the benefit of sick leave. The casuals employed under this award have not been compensated by that 20 percent loading for the loss of sick leave, notwithstanding the fact that there are permanents or part timers employed under this award, But just as a general concept that sick leave is available to, well, I would take it the large majority of the workforce be it full time or on a pro rata basis as being part time, whereas the casuals under this award have not been compensated for the loss of sick leave because the 20 percent quite clearly does not address the issue of sick leave.
PN476
MR DAVIS: It is undeniable that the majority of employees do receive some sort of sick leave provision, but whether it is arguable it should apply here. It seems to me that in relation to full time, and indeed part time employees, most of whom would work regular rostered hours, either weekly hours or agreed part time hours, that if they were sick during those regular rostered hours then they are entitled to a benefit that sees their income maintained at whatever might apply in normal circumstances during that week. In relation to casual employees under this award employees are engaged on a engagement by engagement basis. I see that as being different from someone who turns up regularly Monday to Friday every week.
PN477
THE COMMISSIONER: But aren't casuals that may be employed under other awards that provide for full time, part time and casual, there would be a number of industries where casuals under those awards may not necessarily have an expectation of ongoing employment either. There are casuals and there's casuals.
PN478
MR DAVIS: Yes, I agree, and indeed there's another group of casuals that are currently being taken before the State Commission of New South Wales at the moment giving evidence that they have been employed as casuals for six years on the trot, 40 hours a week and never had a holiday break, I mean, that's a different group again. I accept what you say that there are casuals and casuals, and there are casuals under awards which have provisions for casual loadings who have no - - -
PN479
THE COMMISSIONER: No, I was just going to say, and I think a component for sick leave has been had regard to by members in particular cases before, and those members be they Full Bench or be single members.
PN480
MR DAVIS: I could agree with the Commission that it has been the case, yes.
PN481
THE COMMISSIONER: I think - and correct me if I'm wrong - and Mr Ryan can address this in his reply and Ms Marshall might consider it for her when she is giving me her submission, is there not two questions in a sense in relation to the application that I have. The first one is should the casual loading of 20 percent be increased at all given that this award is a casual only award and that flows from the argument that you cannot determine the loss of any benefit under this award because there are no full time or part time to calculate a loss.
PN482
So therefore the argument would be that, well, you cannot increase that 20 percent anyway because you can't perform a type of examination or calculation that other members have done in matters before them because it is a casual only award. The next argument is if you are wrong on that argument the alternative argument I suppose in a sense is, well, even if you determine that you can consider increasing that loading you have no evidence in support in relation to what is lost by the casuals that are employed under this award.
PN483
I think your submission to me was, well, not evidence, and you admit that. The type of casual predominantly, the type of casual have other jobs or they have some form of social security benefit or they are students or what have you, which is a different type of casual to which you might find under the Metals Award or what you might find under some other award that MEAD has relied upon in their submissions to me.
PN484
MR DAVIES: Yes, those are both the issues that you have put far more eloquently than I have.
PN485
THE COMMISSIONER: Is that what you're saying to me, that is your argument?
PN486
MR DAVIES: Yes, it is. If I could just finish off in relation to the other matters which Mr Ryan has drawn on from the pastoral industry decision, I mean the issue of lost time and short time, he acknowledges is something that's perhaps unique to shearers. There are provisions in the award before you in relation to casual employees who are entitled to some form of compensation when an engagement is cancelled, depending upon when the notice is given.
PN487
I regret that I don't have the clause reference, but if you give me a moment - thank you, Mr Ryan has very kindly informed me it's 22.3.1 where employees are entitled under some circumstances that is where the postponement or the cancellation takes place on the day of the event, prior to the normal starting time and after nine o'clock employees are entitled to half rates for the minimum engagement under those circumstances, but not where the engagement is cancelled prior to that.
PN488
So, we say that if indeed there is an analogy between lost time and short time in the pastoral industry then at least it's partially met by the provisions of the clause to which, with Mr Ryan's help, I've referred you. In relation to notice of termination and severance pay, clearly there is no provision in this award for either of those. Each casual engagement stands alone. There's an engagement at the beginning, a termination at the end. I'm not able to determine from his submissions how you could again calculate a factor to compensate for severance pay and notice for people who are employed on single engagement basis on each occasion. Again, there's been no evidence led in relation to that.
PN489
Can I also say that we support the submissions that have been filed by Employers First. Obviously, they haven't been marked, but we have seen a copy of those. I have had a preview of Ms Marshall's submissions today and I support those also. I just want to touch briefly and lightly on the ABLs submissions in relation to their non opposition, as I understand it, rather their consent to a 25 percent loading going in the award for ACT employers. First of all, as I understand their correspondence, they represent only one employer, that is the one nominated in their letter and it's consent arrangements which they have entered into.
PN490
We say that's not a factor that should cause this Commission to bind all employers respondent to the award with a 25 percent loading. It is understandable that the ACT Racing Club wants to extend the provisions relating to annual leave and long service leave as currently applied in the New South Wales section of the award. There are ways and means of doing that without changing the integrity of the 20 percent factor. I refer to it as a factor in clause 7.2. It could have been done by adjustment of the base rates or indeed it could have been done, given that it's only one employer, by way of a certified agreement and as Mr Ryan has indicated in his submissions, there's a paucity of certified agreements in this industry.
PN491
If I could just finish on that note, among all of our clients, it is only the Sydney Turf Club which has a certified agreement in relation to employees covered by this award. None of our other clients do anything but rely on the award provisions.
PN492
THE COMMISSIONER: So therefore what you're saying is that there would be an affect on those particular persons.
PN493
MR DAVIES: Well, there would be an affect on everybody, including the Sydney Turf Club.
PN494
THE COMMISSIONER: Simply because of the terms of the agreement.
PN495
MR DAVIES: That's right, yes. Those are my submissions, Commissioner.
PN496
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you for those submissions, Mr Davies. Ms Marshall, whenever you're ready.
PN497
MS MARSHALL: Thank you, Commissioner. First of all, can I say that we support the submissions of Mr Davies, both his submissions made today and those which have been marked as an exhibit. We also filed written submissions on 23 April. I would seek to tender those submissions, Commissioner, and I wonder if I could have them taken as read.
PN498
PN499
MS MARSHALL: Thank you, Commissioner. I have one decision, I suppose, to tender which I came across this morning, so I apologise that it wasn't included in our submissions filed on 23 April. It's a decision of Senior Deputy President Cartwright of 24 April 2003.
PN500
THE COMMISSIONER: Is that the one that MEAA are relying upon?
PN501
MS MARSHALL: No, there's two decisions.
PN502
THE COMMISSIONER: It's a different one, in print PR930661.
PN503
MS MARSHALL: Yes, that's the one, thank you, Commissioner. In our submissions, Commissioner, we refer to the previous decision of Senior Deputy President Cartwright which was in the Glass Industry Glass Production Award, that's at point 26 of our submissions where his Honour refused to vary an award on application by the union, even in the face of consenting parties as he was not satisfied that what was proposed would represent an appropriate safety net for those employees under that award and that same issue applies here.
PN504
There's been no evidence led by the union costing out any benefit that these people may or may not miss out on to satisfy the Commission that the loading should be increased. This decision of Senior Deputy President Cartwright, which I'll refer to as the Green Triangle decision is similar and can either refer - - -
PN505
THE COMMISSIONER: This is the latest one, this is PR930661.
PN506
MS MARSHALL: That's correct, Commissioner. In particular, Commissioner, can I draw your attention to paragraphs 9, 14 and 15 which we say are relevant to our submissions that there is a severe lack of evidence brought by the union to establish that any increase should be made to the 20 percent factor in this award and the application should be dismissed. Could I also make one comment in relation to the two NUW decisions which were attached to the union's submissions in reply and draw the Commission's attention to the fact that in both of those cases there was an element of consent.
PN507
In one, there was no opposition, similar to ABL in this matter and in the other matter, which I think the employer was Brambles, there was actually an agreed position and there was consent. So the precedent value of those decisions and the majority of decisions that are relied on by the union should be minimal because there is some element of consent to them. I don't have anything further to add to our written submissions and unless the Commission has any questions in relation to our submissions I'd ask that the application be dismissed, if the Commission pleases.
PN508
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Ms Marshall, for that. Mr Ryan, anything in reply?
PN509
MR RYAN: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. If I could just deal with the nature of this award and its reference back to the decision in the Pastoral Industry Award. It's quite clear that when you look at the background to that award it's not dissimilar to the award in place here in that Part 2 of the Pastoral Industry Award covers people involved in shearing work and Part 3 governs station hands, two totally different workers.
PN510
The shearing employees are all employed as casual employees, so there's nothing else in the award for a shearer to be compared with, all shearers covered by the award are casual shearers. All there are is full time and part time farm labourers, not dissimilar to the situation here where you have, for example, casual race day meeting staff and permanent ground maintenance staff. They might be in two distinct awards, but as far as the work done, they are in different work, same employer, totally different work, and the issue of whether if Part 3 did even exist, is dealt with by the earlier submission I made as to the bench's reference in paragraph 73.
PN511
So even if it's legitimate to take a hypothetical exercise as to what should happen, we say it's not all that different to what was confronting the Full Bench in the Pastoral Industry Award.
PN512
THE COMMISSIONER: But didn't the Full Bench compare what the benefits were for the full time or part time employees in the other parts of that award.
PN513
MR RYAN: They did in the other part, they said there are station hands who are casuals and we can look at them, that's part 3 employees that's fine, we can do that exercise. But in relation to the shearing employees which are all casual they said, look, we can't compare them with anything and it doesn't matter in any case we can take a hypothetical permanent employee if you like and then see - - -
PN514
THE COMMISSIONER: It is still based on the terms and conditions that the other classifications have the benefit of though, ie, for example, a five day sick leave.
PN515
MR RYAN: Yes, for example, you could have let's say it was only - - -
PN516
THE COMMISSIONER: No, but within that award though. I mean it has been a long time since I read that decision and I'll re-read it again, but I can only presume that unless somebody, and then I'll read it, but I just bring the point.
PN517
MR RYAN: It comes to a part such as you can make a comparison with a full time person doing, being clerk of the course, or you know taking tickets at a football stadium, and I say you can do that, what are the components of a full time employee these days, what things are standard issue, if you like, for any permanent employee doing that sort of work.
PN518
THE COMMISSIONER: But there is a difference though in some awards, sick leave there's 15 days, other awards say sick leave 10 days, other awards say sick leave five days.
PN519
MR RYAN: You take a small amount and you don't assume the worse case scenario of 15 days, what's been found has been five days and you pick an amount.
PN520
THE COMMISSIONER: If you had full time, well, let's say permanent which is full time, part time. If you had an award with permanent staff and casual staff - and I would venture to say regardless of the classification necessarily under the award - if your permanent people had access, either outright or pro rata to five days sick leave, if you were looking at the casual people that are covered by that award then would you not cost the five days sick leave or if they had 10 days would you not cost the 10 days in relation to - - -
PN521
MR RYAN: No, you'd cost what may have been taken by an average person. So you don't assume the worst, you get the full benefit because it is a contingent benefit of sick leave you only get it if you're sick so there has been a shaving off of that all the way through for these comparisons. You don't assume that everybody is going to dip in because they don't into the full extent of sick leave.
PN522
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but my argument is in looking at the comparison you don't if the award provides for a set figure you don't pluck a set figure from some other award. You see sick leave is not the same, it is depending on particular awards. So you don't go outside, you don't look outside your award so to speak if you're doing a normal sort of comparison.
PN523
MR RYAN: I think it is dealt with, for example, in paragraphs 78 and 79 of the Pastoral decision, Commissioner. They say in that particular case, a bit more confusion, paragraph 79, there were five days available, that's the maximum sick leave under the award for the station hands full time.
PN524
THE COMMISSIONER: So they have used the station hands full time allocation to derive a shearers - - -
PN525
MR RYAN: No, they then go to say that the Western Australian farmers employees objected to that and so that was the full amount available. They say:
PN526
Even on a pessimistic basis five days is a modest allowance ...(reads)... and accommodation.
PN527
THE COMMISSIONER: But have they not taken that then.
PN528
MR RYAN: No, I think they say, look, it may have coincided with putting the maximum, but five days by any standard is appropriate. In relation to the fact that Mr Davies is still pressing his point that the three percent loadings, and the casual loading, with a method of applying safety net decisions to this award, well, that is just mathematically not correct because we have 38 hours per week is now Commission standard, that's referred to in 7.2 of the award in question.
PN529
So instead of just dividing the recent one by $19 and dividing it by 38 to get the proper amount this award then adds another 20 percent, and I think in my submissions, you just can't agree amongst the parties to say the $19 by adding 20 percent becomes something like $22 plus. It is $19 plus the casual loading which is reflected in the fact that it says that you don't get an entitlement to annual leave or long service leave which has been one of the standard benefits all gone by casual employees, refer to all the cases. They can get the 9.8 percent by looking at annual leave, annual leave loading and long service leave ending up to 9.8 per cent.
PN530
THE COMMISSIONER: So that's the 20 percent loading is as you say for the annual leave and long service leave.
PN531
MR RYAN: Yes, it says so in the award and if you look at all the decisions they say when you look at casual loadings those two components are the major components because every year people are entitled to annual leave, year in and year out, you don't get as a casual, and also an entitlement to long service leave is applicable as well after a period of time as an ongoing employee.
PN532
Then they say in other aspects what is foregone by a casual and should be taken into account, and in my submission sets out the common thread as to what should be taken into account in a realistic casual loading. It should also be pointed out that itinerants as has been referred to in a number of decisions as well, particularly, of Vice President Lawler in the exhibition industry, and these aren't casuals that come and go, all three witnesses today said they have a pool of casuals, a known pool, which they call on for their people to work in the classification under this award and the number will vary on how important the event is, obviously, the bigger the event the more they will use from that pool.
PN533
But it is not a defined group of people that is called upon each and every time there is an engagement, and I know that to be the case with some other employers I've dealt with in this industry that they do have a known pool of people who will be called upon to work, and if they are unable to work they won't get paid for that particular day and it is not compensated by the wording of the award as it stands with that 20 percent.
PN534
We say it is irrelevant when setting an award safety net as to what other people may do in their other time, this award applies to certain employees performing certain work. What they do in their other time is for them to know and this award not to be concerned with, what is to be concerned with is the establishment of a sound and fair award base safety net because it is the award with three exceptions which govern the employment conditions of people covered by this award, and one of the principles of this Commission is to set fair minimums through the award system in the knowledge that enterprise bargaining is to be ineffective in most cases here and that is a fact that should weigh with the Commission. They are our submissions in reply, thank you, Commissioner.
PN535
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Ryan. Nothing else at all, ladies and gentlemen. I must say I am at a total loss why I allocated three days for this matter but never mind it is not a complaint but here we go half a day and it is done. I am going to reserve my decision and thank you very much for your submissions, Ms Marshall, Mr Davies and Mr Ryan, and the Commission is adjourned.
ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [12.20pm]
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
EXHIBIT #ABL1 CORRESPONDENCE TO THE COMMISSION FROM AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAWYERS DATED 07/05/2004 PN157
TONY KEITH DREW, SWORN PN198
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DAVIES PN198
EXHIBIT #D1 TWO PAGE WITNESS STATEMENT OF TONY KEITH DREW DATED 05/03/2004 WITH SINGLE PAGE ATTACHMENT PN204
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RYAN PN207
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DAVIES PN247
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RYAN PN260
WITNESS WITHDREW PN267
TONY CIVIDIN, SWORN PN268
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DAVIES PN268
EXHIBIT #D2 STATEMENT DATED 12/02/2003 WITH FIVE ATTACHMENTS PN274
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RYAN PN278
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DAVIES PN304
WITNESS WITHDREW PN308
COLIN JAMES LLOYD, SWORN PN310
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DAVIES PN310
EXHIBIT #D3 STATEMENT OF MR LLOYD DATED 14/04/2004 PN316
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RYAN PN321
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DAVIES PN369
WITNESS WITHDREW PN373
EXHIBIT #MEAA3 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED IN THE COMMISSION ON 08/03/2004 PN381
EXHIBIT #MEAA4 SUBMISSIONS IN REPLY RECEIVED IN THE COMMISSION ON 11/05/2004 PN382
EXHIBIT #D4 SUBMISSIONS OF McCARTHY AUSGROUP PTY LIMITED PN444
EXHIBIT #D5 EXTRACT FROM THE METAL ENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES AWARD PN461
EXHIBIT #M1 SUBMISSIONS OF EMPLOYERS FIRST PN499
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2004/2065.html