C2004/3515, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 2256 (17 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 7372

A 10.6.04

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER SMITH

C2004/3515

CONTACT CALL CENTRE INDUSTRY
AWARD 2003

Application under section 113 of the Act
by the Australian Municipal, Administrative,
Clerical and Services Union to vary the above
award re safety net review - wages May 2003
decision

MELBOURNE

3.06 PM, MONDAY, 7 JUNE 2004

PN1

MR J. NUCIFORA: I appear for the Australian Services Union.

PN2

MR J. BUCHNEK: I appear for the Australian Industry Group.

PN3

MS L. ANDELMAN: I seek to intervene into this matter. I appear for the Community and Public Sector Union.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Any objection to the application for leave? Leave is granted. Yes, Mr Nucifora. I am sorry, were you objecting?

PN5

MR NUCIFORA: No, no, Commissioner. No, I was trying to nod my head.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Yes.

PN7

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, this is an application to vary the Contract Call Centre Industry Award 2003 to insert the 2004 safety net adjustment. If I may, Commissioner, first up by way of notification tender as an exhibit a bundle of documentation that represents notification to the employer respondents and the unions that are party to this award. If I may tender that bundle of documentation as one exhibit?

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

EXHIBIT #ASU1 NOTIFICATION TO EMPLOYER RESPONDENTS

PN9

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you, Commissioner. Exhibit ASU1 includes a covering letter explained by way of notification and explanation in relation to the applications served on executive officers of Publishers Loyalty and United Customer Management Solutions better known as UCMS, the two employer respondents, Commissioner, as you would recall, to what we refer to as the industry award. Commissioner, you might also note at the bottom we have served a copy of this letter and the attached documentation, exhibit ASU1, on the ACTU, Mr Richard Male, Steven Smith of course from the Australian Industry Group, otherwise represented here today, the CPSU and the NUW, of course the other union parties to this award.

PN10

Attached to the covering letter was the application to vary this award, the notice of listing and of course the draft order. A copy of that draft order, Commissioner, an electronic copy was sent to your associate earlier on today. I am happy to tender that as a separate exhibit.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: No, that is fine.

PN12

MR NUCIFORA: We include that as part of exhibit ASU1.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN14

MR NUCIFORA: More importantly, on the last page in terms of notification we have the transmission report to confirm that all of the employer respondents and union parties to this award and otherwise interested parties, particularly the AI Group and the ACTU, had been notified of this application and the notice of listing. Commissioner, if I could take you to the draft order, we include there in item A1 the variation to clause 18.5.1 to the rates of pay which of course reflect the $19.

PN15

In item A2 we insert the new absorption provision in the clause 18.6 and the ASU as per the principles makes the necessary commitment to the absorption provision that is principle 8(d) in relation to absorbing the $19 into over award rates of pay. Commissioner, we include in item A3 a variation, as we explain in the covering letter, a variation to the first aid allowance of 3.5 per cent and here we rely on the customer contact officer 2, clerical administration officer level 3 rate of $542.20. We rely on that as a key classification rate as per the Furnishing Glass Industries allowances decision in print M9675.

PN16

Commissioner, in item A4 and 5 we vary the meal allowance by 3.8 per cent. That is reflected in the difference between the meals out and takeaway indices of March 2003 and March 2004. Commissioner, we have heard from all of the representatives of the employer respondents and in particular the AIG and I understand you have a message from the NUW confirming that there is consent to that application.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN18

MR NUCIFORA: And we are aware having had discussion with Ms Andelman today and having heard from her office that there is consent on the draft order included in exhibit ASU1. The only issue that there isn't consent on is covered in the draft order of course in B and that is the operative date of 7 June 2004. Now, the ASU would submit as we always do when we lodge our applications to vary awards for the safety net adjustment, I think I have been doing it for the last 10 years, we try to get an operative date at least from the date of the applications heard before the Commission. But given that there isn't consent what we would say, Commissioner, is that if the parties are given a further 14 days to determine what the operative and anniversary should be.

PN19

It is my understanding and maybe my friends here at the table, Ms Andelman and from the AI Group, this same question was dealt with in relation to the Telecommunications Services Industry Award when the first safety net adjustment went into that newly created award and they were otherwise in a similar position as we find ourselves here. The award was made, as I recall, in September 2003. The principles don't seem to cover the situation of the 12 month gap between anniversary dates in relation to new awards and that would have been our primary position but, you know, ultimately, Commissioner, we would seek to reach consent on that with the employers.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: What was the answer in the earlier one?

PN21

MR NUCIFORA: Commissioner, the answer was, and Ms Andelman could take you to the detail, but there was a consent position reached with the employers that was not inconsistent with the principles particularly in relation to the 12 month rule.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN23

MR NUCIFORA: And course consistent with the principle that goes to reaching consent with the employer. Commissioner, what we don't want to see certainly as the applicant and on behalf of the union parties to the award, is a situation where we have some delayed anniversary date that takes us to some date later in the year when in fact most awards are varied around your late May, June, July time of the year and we don't believe that that was ever the original intention of the principles. That is, to lock in a delayed operative date each year.

PN24

So, Commissioner, we would be seeking to resolve that and we believe we could in the next 14 days and we would be quite happy to follow, if you like, the guidance of the precedence set in terms of the TSI Award. But until we get to that point we reserve our rights in relation to an operative date of 7 June, that is today's date of the hearing. Commissioner, pursuant to the safety net review decision of May 2004 in print number PR002004 we believe we have otherwise met the requirements and seek that the draft order included in exhibit ASU1 be approved subject to there being consent between the parties in relation to the operative date. If the Commission pleases.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Andelman.

PN26

MS ANDELMAN: Commissioner, thank you. I support the submissions made by my friend and would consent to an adjournment of 14 days during which time I am confident that the parties will come to an agreement to a consent about the operative date for both the 2004 wage increase and subsequent wage increases. The situation with the TSI Award was that the award was made at the end of November 2002 and the agreement reached was that the first national wage increase for 2003 would be 12 months subsequent to that date but thereafter the wage increase would flow from 1 August from each year thereafter and we believe that that is consistent with principle 8(b), even though it can be read either way, which is 12 months after the national wage case increase or 12 months after the actual rates move and that is the position that we will be seeking.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the decision made in this award was 15 August, wasn't it? The order was issued on 4 September.

PN28

MR NUCIFORA: That is right, yes.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Thank you. Mr Buchanek.

PN30

MR BUCHANEK: Commissioner, the Australian Industry Group is a respondent to this award. Commissioner, the Australian Industry Group has checked the rates and allowances contained in the draft order submitted by the union and we believe all amounts have been adjusted in accordance with the May 2004 safety net decision. The award was made on 4 September 2003 to commence on 1 September 2003. The question of the operative date is currently at issue. That being the case, we do not oppose the variations sought by the union subject to a stay of 14 days of this order, in order to confer with the unions as to an operative date for the variation for this year and subsequent years.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Well, this is an application to vary the Contract Call Centre Industry Award 2003 to reflect the increases determined by the Full Bench in the safety net and review of wages decision handed down on 5 May 2004 in print PR002004. The parties are in agreement as to the nature of the variation and are agreed on the calculations that have been done both in relation to the wage rates and the allowances. There is however a joint request that 14 days be given for the parties to confer as to the operative date of the order.

PN32

I will grant that request and in the event that the parties reach agreement on the operative date I will simply issue an order to that effect. In the event that the parties aren't agreed, the matter will be re-listed upon application. The matter is adjourned sine die.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.18pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #ASU1 NOTIFICATION TO EMPLOYER RESPONDENTS PN9