C2004/3609, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 2085 (4 June 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
(Administrator Appointed)
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 7229

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER SIMMONDS

C2004/3609

UNITED FIREFIGHTERS UNION
OF AUSTRALIA

and

METROPOLITAN FIRE AND EMERGENCY
BOARD MELBOURNE

Application pursuant to section 170LW of the Act
for settlement of dispute (certification of
agreement) re dispute resolution procedure

MELBOURNE

2.16 PM, TUESDAY, 25 MAY 2004

PN1

MR P. ROZEN: I seek leave to appear on behalf of the United Firefighters Union, together with MR T. CLARKE.

PN2

MS M. SALMON: I appear on behalf of Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have any objection to Mr Rozen's application for leave?

PN4

MS SALMON: No, sir, we do not.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Leave is granted, Mr Rozen. Yes, Mr Rozen?

PN6

MR ROZEN: If the Commission pleases. Commissioner, the Commission has before it a reference pursuant to clause 12.7 of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board and United Firefighters Union Operational Staff Agreement 2002. Has the notice made its way to the Commission's file?

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, it is on the file.

PN8

MR ROZEN: I trust it has. The Commission will see that there are two matters that are identified as presently being in dispute. The first is the failure of the MFESB to respond in accordance with the dispute resolution procedure in the agreement to the notification of a dispute and grievance forwarded to it by the union 30 April 2004. And the second is the board allowing - now, that should be the matters, rather than two matters - the matters in dispute to progress to the prejudice of the United Firefighters Union and its members covered by the agreement contrary to the requirement of clause 12.9 of the agreement.

PN9

So essentially the concern or the concerns at present are that in relation to the grievance dated 30 April 2004 which is attached to the dispute notification, there has been no meeting arranged by the board's manager employee relations as required by clause 12.6 of the agreement. And more generally in relation to that dispute - that grievance rather and the earlier one dated 11 March which appears on the page immediately before the 30 April dispute, the union contends that there has been a failure by the board to comply with clause 12.9 of the agreement; that is observing the status quo.

PN10

So what we principally seek today, sir, is that the board comply with the status quo and I will outline what it is that we say that means in this case and further that in relation to the dispute - the grievance dated 30 April 2004 that the board's representative convene a meeting so that the matters referred to in that grievance can be the subject of discussions. The underlying substantive concern is the appointment by the board of a non-operational person to an operational position that is covered by the 2002 agreement. The union contends that that constitutes a contravention of clause 38 of the agreement which requires - - -

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: I will just turn it up if I may. Yes, Mr Rozen?

PN12

MR ROZEN: - - - in summary that work that is being performed by employees in classifications in the agreement will continue to be performed for the life of the agreement by employees in those classifications directly employed by the MFESB. That is 38.1. Further 38.2:

PN13

Work now or in the future able to be performed by employees in (1) to (3) above will be performed by employees engaged in classifications in (1) to (3) above and directly employed by the MFESB.

PN14

And 38.3:

PN15

Further it is agreed between the parties this agreement is intended to cover all activities of the MFESB ...(reads)... specified in the award and this agreement.

PN16

Now, the particular position that is at the heart of the grievance is the position of manager dangerous goods. As I am instructed that position was held until very early this year by Commander Swain, S-w-a-i-n and as his title indicates he held the classification of commander which is clearly a classification that falls under the 2002 agreement as it is referred to in numerous places including but not limited to clause 21.3.4, 21.3.1 and so on. Commander Swain had previously been appointed - sorry, been employed as an inspector and as the Commission may recall upon certification of the 2002 agreement as I am instructed the inspector classification became a classification of commander.

PN17

A Mr Art Looi, A-r-t surname Looi, L-o-o-i who was a risk engineer from the community safety department was placed in the position of manager dangerous goods in an acting capacity at around the time that Commander Swain resigned. And then on 10 March 2004 he was appointed to the position of manager dangerous goods, but it is common ground as I understand it between the parties that that appointment was not made properly in accordance with the MFESBs requirements and it was then altered to be an acting appointment. The next thing that happened is that on 11 March 2004 the branch secretary of the union lodged a grievance. The grievance provided as follows:

PN18

I refer to clause 38 of the Operational Staff Agreement, I hereby lodge a grievance pursuant to clause 12 of the agreement in relation ...(reads)... an urgent meeting with you to discuss this matter.

PN19

There was a meeting in accordance with clause 12. The meeting did not resolve the grievance and on 28 April 2004 Mr Garcia on behalf of the board wrote to Mr Marshall noting the outcome of that meeting, and I tender that letter. I tender that letter, sir.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit R1.

EXHIBIT #R1 LETTER FROM MR GARCIA ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD TO MR MARSHALL, DATED 28/04/2004

PN21

MR ROZEN: The meeting by the way was on 2 April, I think I neglected to say that. What then occurred was that there was an appeal lodged by a Mr Gili, G-i-l-i, Senior Station Officer. He lodged an appeal pursuant to the appeal provisions of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Act complaining about the board's failure to promote him to the position of manager dangerous goods. He subsequently withdrew that appeal on advice because, as he was told, unless he had applied for the position - which he hadn't - then he had no standing to appeal. In a sense that is a bit of a side incident to the main progress of the grievance.

PN22

The next event of consequence is that on Friday, 30 April 2004 a dispute and grievance was lodged on behalf of Senior Station Officer Gili and that dispute grievance is attached to the notification under section 170LW in clause 12. Does the Commissioner have that letter?

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I do.

PN24

MR ROZEN: Yes. What that letter records is what the union had found out in between the time of lodging its first grievance on 11 March and the date of this letter and that is that what the board has purported to do is unilaterally to alter the position description attached to the position of manager dangerous goods, without consulting with the union as we say is required under clause 9 of the 2002 agreement and to alter the position in such a manner that it makes it impossible, virtually impossible, for any operational staff member to apply for the position.

PN25

Now, since that time, by an email dated 18 May 2004, the director of human resources of the board has advised the board staff that Mr Looi has been appointed to the position of manager dangerous goods, and it is that event that has triggered the reference to this Commission on 19 May 2004 complaining that despite an unresolved grievance about the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr Looi, or the proposed appointment of Mr Looi, and the circumstances surrounding the alteration to the job description, notwithstanding the unresolved status of the dispute, the board has appointed Mr Looi to the position in clear breach of clause 12.9 of the agreement.

PN26

So what the union says should occur in accordance with clause 12 is that Mr Looi's appointment should be revoked, that the job description revert back to what it was when the position was held by Commander Swain, that the board is free to appoint a person to that position, in an acting capacity if necessary, provided the appointment process that is followed complies with the board's human resources policies in terms of advertising the like and that a person of a classification of senior station officer for example could act up in the position which has occurred in the past on a higher duties basis.

PN27

If the board wishes to restructure the dangerous goods department, as it has purported to do, then once again it is free to do that but only if it complies with its consultative obligations under clause 9 of the agreement and finally the board should respond appropriately to the grievance of 30 April, that is by arranging or convening a meeting of the parties as required by clause 12.6. Now, if those steps are followed it may be that the substantive dispute that the union - the substantive grievance that the union has either goes away or is narrowed somewhat and our principal concern is in relation to those procedural matters and the status quo.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: What has happened to the grievance in respect of the other position?

PN29

MR ROZEN: It is the other position referred to in the letter of 11 March?

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN31

MR ROZEN: I must get some instructions on that. The matter is not entirely clear but as we understand it and I am instructed the person has been appointed to that position but we don't know whether there has been any alteration of the job description or any of the other matters that apply with the manager dangerous goods position but so far as I understand it, it essentially raises the same issue about the appointment outside of clause 38.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: It being a position previously held by someone covered by the agreement?

PN33

MR ROZEN: By a commander, yes, which we say is covered by the agreement.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Yes, thanks, Mr Rozen.

PN35

MR ROZEN: Yes, that is all I wish to say by way of - at this stage.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Ms Salmon?

PN37

MS SALMON: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I have forwarded a summary of the submission we propose to make today and I don't propose to go into that in detail unless there are some questions you may have as I add a few comments in accordance with this - - -

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I will mark it - I did have it and I have lost it. Oh, yes, here it is. I will mark that as exhibit - it is 1.

EXHIBIT #S1 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: But it seems to me to miss the point, if I can be so bold.

PN40

MS SALMON: Sorry, sir?

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: It seems to me to miss the point that Mr Rozen seems to be raising.

PN42

MS SALMON: I would like to clarify why we believe that in fact the point has been muddied in some way.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN44

MS SALMON: I would like to bring to your attention the difference between the word commander and commander operations which is the term that Mr Rozen has been referring to in the Operations Award. They are in fact two distinct positions, two distinct position descriptions, and covered by two distinct agreements. As Mr Rozen said, the previous Inspectors Award, the terminology with respect to inspector has been altered to the word commander and the position description relating to that job is the one that you have and which was held by Commander Paul Swain prior to the appointment of Mr Looi but that is not the same as a commander operations which is found in the Operations Award.

PN45

I have a copy of the position description which is attached to the Operations Award, schedule 1B, which outlines the responsibilities of commander operations. It is the one that is particularly nominated in the Operations Award. It is one that is quite distinct from the previous inspector's position description and I will just check with my friend to see whether he has got access to a copy before I hand my copy up.

PN46

MR ROZEN: Schedule 1B of the agreement?

PN47

MS SALMON: This will be 1B of operations.

PN48

MR ROZEN: Yes, I will just have that.

PN49

MS SALMON: If I could perhaps hand that up to you? Thank you very much.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit S2.

EXHIBIT #S2 POSITION DESCRIPTION ATTACHED TO OPERATIONS AWARD, SCHEDULE 1B

PN51

MS SALMON: Thank you. Commissioner, what we have is a situation here where there are two distinct groups of people commanders. There are approximately 40 of those and commander operations covered by the Operations Award there are approximately 22 of those. They are distinct. There is no interaction between the two groups insofar as changing of job roles. There is an attempt at the moment to sit down with both those groups and perhaps put together an enterprise agreement that might cover them but I have to say to you that we have reached a point where negotiations are ongoing and are unlikely to finish in the near future.

PN52

Therefore there is a distinct difference between the two groups and the terms should not be used interchangeably. Our position is this, that the inspector role that was carried out is very different to the commander operations and regardless of its title, which is closely aligned to that of commander of operations, it is covered by a different award and that particular job, the manager of dangerous goods, has been covered by a different award for some considerable period of time. The position was originally drafted - position description was originally drafted in August of 2001 in light of changes to legislation with respect to the MFESB and as we all know since August 2001 there have been significant changes in both internal and external environments to mean that the job description needed to be reviewed in light of skills and qualifications and expectations by the organisation and other organisations who look to the MFESB to carry out a fairly important role with respect to dangerous goods.

PN53

It is not a role that has been held by an individual covered by the Operations Award and in fact it hasn't ever been as manager of dangerous goods held by someone who was covered by the Operations Award. Therefore our view is, as outlined in our paper, that in fact this particular position was covered by a different award, is not bound by clause 12.7 of the Operations Award - - -

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it mightn't be but the person who has lodged the grievance is and - - -

PN55

MS SALMON: The person, yes.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - if someone lodges a grievance are you saying that you can decide whether or not to file a grievance procedure?

PN57

MS SALMON: In the first instance a meeting was held when the original grievance was lodged on March 11.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: But Mr Gili's grievance - - -

PN59

MS SALMON: That is the original grievance.

PN60

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - imposes - no, that is not. The original grievance was the one lodged by Mr Marshall.

PN61

MS SALMON: On March 11 - - -

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN63

MS SALMON: - - - with respect to those two positions.

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: Is the later one lodged on 30 April by Mr Marshall on behalf of Mr Gili.

PN65

MS SALMON: Well, I guess the point I would make is that it was exactly the same grievance with respect to those clauses in that award with respect to this particular position, the manager for dangerous goods, so if I understand you correctly my view would be that we held a meeting with - our negotiator, Peter Marshall, and Trevor Clarke to discuss whether in fact clause 12.7 was appropriate when dealing with the manager for dangerous goods position and that was - well, our position was that it didn't apply because that particular position was not covered by the Operations Award.

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but that is in relation to a grievance lodged by Mr Marshall.

PN67

MS SALMON: Yes, sir.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: There is then a grievance lodged by Mr Gili - - -

PN69

MS SALMON: And our - - -

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - well by Senior Station Officer Gili.

PN71

MS SALMON: Yes.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, the moment that was lodged doesn't that oblige the board to do certain things?

PN73

MS SALMON: If that is so, sir, our position was that the same decision regarding whether in fact 12.7 was appropriate with respect to this position was our view. If it is exactly the same grievance, that is to use 12.7 to examine the manager for dangerous goods and the answer in the first instance was that job doesn't - isn't covered by that award, are you suggesting we should have repeated that advice to Mr Gili?

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, on its - - -

PN75

MS SALMON: We didn't go through the step-by-step process.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: On its face they aren't the same. The grievance of 11 March refers to a breach of clause 12 in respect of the placement of Mr Art Looi in the position of Manager Dangerous Goods in an acting capacity and the appointment of Mr Looi to the position of Manager Dangerous Goods, which I understood occurred on 10 March, but it was apparently common ground that that appointment wasn't effective. In any event the grievance of 30 April refers to the operation of a practice that is different from the one that the board usually adopts, the appointment of Looi to the position of Manager on 10 March which seems to relate to a matter that is accepted, the advertising of a vacant position in an attempt to reclassify a position and the adoption of a new position description.

PN77

MS SALMON: That is right, sir, and there has actually been another piece of correspondence as a result of that grievance filed on April 30 on behalf of Senior Station Officer Richard Gili. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. That was originally lodged with Commander Wayne Garrard, Central Zone, MFESB, and - - -

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Who is presumably Senior Station Officer Gili's immediate superior?

PN79

MS SALMON: That is correct, and the executive manager for central zone responded to the union on behalf of Senior Station Officer Richard Gili and I am happy to - well, I perhaps need to read this out in transcript - I don't have another copy - and what it has said is that:

PN80

In your letter to Commander Garrard you notified of a dispute on behalf of Senior Station Officer Richard Gili in relation to the position of manager dangerous good. Mr Gili has also submitted an appeal on this matter. I am advised that following discussions between Mr Gili and the Corporate Secretary, Ms McKay, on 3 May Mr Gili has withdrawn his appeal. It is within this context that I seek confirmation that Mr Gili wishes to pursue the dispute as submitted in your letter dated April 30.

PN81

I am just checking the file. My memory is that we actually didn't receive a response except a notification of dispute by the UFU. Actually, I have got a copy. That can be handed up to the Commission on that.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: I will give it S3.

EXHIBIT #S3 UNION RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF MR GILI

PN83

MS SALMON: And the next response that I can find is 19 May which is notice of - notice under a dispute-settling procedure, which is a notice to the Commission.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN85

MS SALMON: So - there is in fact a copy of a letter that I have never sighted before which is to Commander - Mr Michael Walker, which confirms that Mr Gili wishes to pursue his grievance. I have to say to you I have never sighted this letter before.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that might have changed your attitude, mightn't it?

PN87

MS SALMON: It might have changed this - well, I think we would have changed having heard that you wanted to have - if you would like to have had a discussion about it we perhaps would have had another discussion.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN89

MS SALMON: Bearing in mind - - -

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: No, but you would have been also obliged, wouldn't you, to maintain the status quo? You see, even though you say that it is outside the agreement, there is a requirement not to proceed with the appointment at the very least until the grievance is resolved because it may be that in the course of the grievance you are convinced that the course of action that you are taking is not the correct one.

PN91

MS SALMON: I suppose the question that we were posing - and I would be interested to hear what your response might be - is that if the appointment was outside the agreement and on that basis if in fact Mr Gili didn't apply, what was it that we were attempting to resolve?

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Gili didn't apply because he was excluded from the - well, I don't know why he didn't - - -

PN93

MS SALMON: Oh, not at all, sir. He was not excluded from the application.

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, okay, but he didn't appeal because he didn't apply.

PN95

MS SALMON: But the advertisement was open to him to apply. The advertisement was made on April 22 and closed on May 14 - - -

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: Didn't it require a professional engineer's qualification?

PN97

MS SALMON: Indeed, sir, it did.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: And is Mr Gili a professional engineer?

PN99

MS SALMON: No, sir.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: So it was pretty pointless him applying.

PN101

MS SALMON: Which brings me - - -

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, he is excluded from - but you know, his grievance is that you have advertised - I mean, at a very basic level his grievance is that you have advertised it as a professional engineer position.

PN103

MS SALMON: Yes, sir.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: When the position has previously not been one.

PN105

MS SALMON: No, that is true.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, I understand there is an argument about whether it was covered by the agreement and all of those sorts of things, and I don't want to get into that just yet, but it seems to me that - you see the disputes procedure talks - I mean, it may be that the Commission's role in settling this particular dispute is limited in the way in which you have described in exhibit S1.

PN107

MS SALMON: Yes.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: At least in terms of the substantive dispute. I just don't want to take a view on that at this stage but the dispute procedure which is - which is in the notice now - in clause 12, it goes beyond the terms of the agreement and the parties have agreed that to ensure effective consultation between the employer, its employees and the union on all matters pertaining to the employment relationship including the application of the agreement the following procedures shall be followed in an effort to achieve a satisfactory resolution of any dispute or grievance, and there are a series of steps.

PN109

MS SALMON: Yes.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: But in particular 12.9 talks in terms of the status quo. Now, as I say, it may be that you are absolutely correct about the substantive dispute but aren't you obliged to comply with the provisions of 12.9 once Senior Station Officer Gili raises his hand, at least when he confirmed this?

PN111

MS SALMON: Would it not be dependent upon the definition of the employment relationship? I guess from our perspective the employment relationship with respect to those individuals covered by that agreement and their relationship with the organisation - - -

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, is Senior Station Officer Gili - well, he has raised a grievance about his employment relationship.

PN113

MS SALMON: Yes. I am asking the question, I - - -

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: And it seems to me to be very straight forward that he has. Now, the outcome of that grievance may well be as you describe. It may not be too, but it may well be as you described, but once a grievance has been lodged then work must continue in accordance with the existing situation or practice that existed immediately prior to the subject matter of the grievance or dispute occurring. Now, at the very least I think perhaps Mr Looi is an acting appointment, not a final appointment.

PN115

MS SALMON: There is a difficulty I guess with respect to the process that is undergone and where we are at the moment. I understand - - -

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: But it may be that we have ended up there because no one has brought it to your attention that Senior Station Officer Gili was persisting with his grievance. I mean, as I apprehend it - - -

PN117

MS SALMON: That may very well be the case.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: The commander to whom - sorry, not the commander, the - yes, the commander to whom the grievance was addressed had a responsibility to do certain things.

PN119

MS SALMON: I am just checking the date, sir, to see whether there was a reason why we weren't informed as to the receipt of that letter.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN121

MS SALMON: If I might adjourn for a moment - - -

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, certainly.

PN123

MS SALMON: - - - just to check, that may very well be a way of assisting this whole process. Is that - - -

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I agree.

PN125

MS SALMON: - - - all right with you? Thank you.

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, it seems to me that - well, what is the situation? Mr Looi has been appointed to the job.

PN127

MS SALMON: Indeed, on 18 May, that is correct, which was last Wednesday.

PN128

THE COMMISSIONER: Notwithstanding the grievance, yes.

PN129

MS SALMON: Well - - -

PN130

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, I detect that that is - - -

PN131

MS SALMON: Yes.

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - Mr Rozen's first level of complaint.

PN133

MR ROZEN: Yes.

PN134

MS SALMON: Yes, yes, and unfortunately that isn't - the situation has arisen as a result of what appears to be a lack of correspondence or at least an understanding that that was the case, so there was no deliberate move on the organisation to do that in the absence - as I said we have outlined the case as we understood it and that was the situation up until yesterday afternoon when I forwarded it to you. I would like to persist in just finding out exactly where that letter has gone. It is a concern to me that normally we have got a very comprehensive filing system but it didn't find its way to us and that is a worry. Perhaps if you could assist and tell me how it was forwarded that would assist.

PN135

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN136

MS SALMON: But we are in a bit of a quandry here, sir, because there is still a substantive problem with respect to the award or agreement that covers that position and the process and we acknowledge that the process has had its moment where it could have been done a bit better. Having said that, where does that leave us with respect to the employment of Mr Looi is one problem that we need to address and of course the question about whether in fact we should then deal with it by dealing with the process first and then dealing with his position is another question. So if I could just have a moment I think that might assist us.

PN137

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, certainly. We will adjourn for a few minutes.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [2.52pm]

RESUMED [3.02pm]

PN138

MS SALMON: ... it has gone through - Mick Walker who you have met in the last session - his in-tray and there is no copy and we would say we have never received it. The normal process for the UFU is we get a copy as well as the original addressee and often the CEO gets a copy just for free but we haven't received any copies that we can lay our hands on, so unfortunately we will be saying that we have never received - or we have never sighted and we have never received it.

PN139

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So the position is that the onus is back on you to establish the agreements were still alive, I guess.

PN140

MR ROZEN: Well, can I respond to that?

PN141

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN142

MR ROZEN: The grievance was never withdrawn and it wasn't resolved and it hadn't been the subject of a meeting.

PN143

THE COMMISSIONER: But there was the letter - - -

PN144

MR ROZEN: There was a letter of 4 May.

PN145

THE COMMISSIONER: Which seems not unreasonable in the circumstances.

PN146

MR ROZEN: Well - excuse me for a moment. Can we just make some inquiries about the status of whether that letter was sent or not?

PN147

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Would it be useful to have some discussions about that? I mean, I think - - -

PN148

MR ROZEN: It probably would. Our positions don't really alter anything in terms of clause 12 and its operation, whether the letter was sent or not. The grievance was never withdrawn, it was never resolved.

PN149

MS SALMON: Commissioner, could we - - -

PN150

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I will - you may need to respond to that, I mean, what - - -

PN151

MS SALMON: I wasn't proposing, I was actually going to make a suggestion.

PN152

THE COMMISSIONER: I think it mightn't hurt for us to have some discussions about where we are going here and while we are doing that perhaps we can get some advice about that. The proceedings will adjourn into conference.

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED [3.40pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #R1 LETTER FROM MR GARCIA ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD TO MR MARSHALL, DATED 28/04/2004 PN21
EXHIBIT #S1 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION PN39
EXHIBIT #S2 POSITION DESCRIPTION ATTACHED TO OPERATIONS AWARD, SCHEDULE 1B PN51
EXHIBIT #S3 UNION RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF MR GILI PN83