C2003/5090, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 2314 (22 June 2004)

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:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N 11790

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON

C2003/5090
C2003/5091

BUSINESS EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY - TECHNICAL
SERVICE - AWARD 1999

Application under section 113 of the Act
by Australian Municipal, Administrative,
Clerical and Services Union to vary the
above award re clause 6.2 etcetera

BUSINESS EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY - CLERICAL
OFFICERS - AWARD 2000

Application under section 113 of the Act
by Australian Municipal, Administrative,
Clerical and Services Union to vary the
above award re deleting of clause 5 of
the award

SYDNEY

10.05 AM, THURSDAY, 10 JUNE 2004

PN1

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, I think, Mr Mette, you're the only person today with us but I might just identify on the transcript some correspondence that relates to one or other of these matters. I think each of these pieces of correspondence is dated 9 June, a letter to me from AIG referring to this matter and indicating that they're unable to attend but understand that an adjournment will be sought, a facsimile to me from Australian Business Lawyers in similar terms.

PN2

I might indicate that both of those pieces of correspondence identify a period of time that they want the adjournment to be and that's a matter we can talk about, Mr Mette, and a letter to me from the ALHMWU indicating that they've had an opportunity to discuss the matter with your union, unable to attend today but indicate that there is a consent to the application. I assume that's the originating applications but I will also assume it would be to any adjournment or any application made today.

PN3

If you haven't got a copy of any of those, Mr Mette, let my associate know when we adjourn.

PN4

MR METTE: Your Honour, we have received those pieces of correspondence and I take the opportunity to confirm that we have had discussions with each of those parties. The discussions held between the AIG, ABI and ourselves were held on 3 June and we had discussions about the process going forward. As I understand one of the reasons for today's listing was to seek the views of the other unions party to this award but both unions have been notified and we've had discussions with one of those unions. We've sought discussions but have not been able to speak to the relevant people from the NUW and we'll continue to do so.

PN5

The approach that was discussed between the AIG, ABI and ourselves on 3 June was one of a practical way of dealing with the current application. In terms of the process of the application itself, there is some distance between the parties on whether there should be an exemption clause in the award or not and whether there should be as an alternative an annualised salary clause or not. The approach that was discussed as a matter of practicality was one of adjusting the current level of the exemption at the interim step with a view to reviewing the salary structure as a second step and thereafter coming back to the issue of the exemption clause if that's indeed necessary thereafter.

PN6

The current award has a relatively broad application in terms of the types of occupations it currently covers. Therefore, in our view, a review of the salary structure is an overdue matter but it's also a very difficult and time consuming matter with a large number of parties to consider both from our side and from the employers side. The approach as I understand it between ourselves and the main employer respondents from here was to come up with an alternative salary level based on their understanding of the types of salaries that are being paid in the industry at present and our understanding of that, we were to advise them of whether we consented to that general approach.

PN7

I would say today on the record that we are in favour of that type of approach as a method of practicality. However, the obvious difficulty is arriving at the interim exemption rate in the award. Going forward from here, I understand the timeframes proposed by the employer parties in the order of exemption are somewhere to mid July. We would see that as a sensible timeframe given particularly the number of parties both sides have to consult with and a number of other matters happening in the industry at present.

PN8

On that basis, your Honour, we would seek the opportunity to adjourn the matter for some time after 12 July.

PN9

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: For a further report back?

PN10

MR METTE: For a further report back, that's correct.

PN11

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm listed all of that week, Mr Mette. Would Monday, 19 July suit you?

PN12

MR METTE: That would be acceptable, your Honour.

PN13

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that's when it will be. Do you want to nominate a time. I can accommodate whatever time suits you?

PN14

MR METTE: 10 o'clock, your Honour.

PN15

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. Both of these matters are adjourned for a report back before me here in Sydney on Monday, 19 July 2004 at 10 am. We'll send out a notice of listing to that effect. Anything further we can do this morning?

PN16

MR METTE: No, your Honour.

PN17

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Commission now adjourns.

ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 19 JULY 2004 [10.11am]