C2004/3787, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 2382 (25 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 7479

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER SMITH

C2004/3787

SENSIS (CLERICAL AND SALES
EMPLOYEES) AWARD 2000

Application under section 113 of the Act
by the Community and Public Sector Union
to vary the above award re safety net
review - wages May 2004

MELBOURNE

10.14 AM, WEDNESDAY, 16 JUNE 2004

PN1

MS L. ANDELMAN: I appear for the Community and Public Sector Union.

PN2

MR FOLLETT: I seek leave to appear on behalf of Sensis Pty Ltd in this matter.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Any objection to the application for leave?

PN4

MS ANDELMAN: No, Commissioner.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Leave is granted. Yes, Ms Andelman.

PN6

MS ANDELMAN: Thank you, Commissioner. This is an application which was lodged in the registry on 14 May. It's an application for an enterprise specific award for an increase to the rates of pay. The last variation made to the award was on 21 February 2003 for the 2002 rates made by the Commission as constituted. Commissioner, until yesterday we were acting on the understanding that there would be consent to a position where 2003 and 2004 wage rates would be increased in one go as per principle 8(c) paragraph. That is not the case and as such yesterday I e-mailed to your associate a copy of an amended draft order.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN8

MS ANDELMAN: Do you have a copy of that?

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I do.

PN10

MS ANDELMAN: Thank you. And what the application seeks to do is to vary the award for the 2003 national wage case decision and 2004 national wage case decision based on principle 8(b), that is, there is 12 months elapsed between the rates and the award being increased but that the application occurs for the 2003 and 2004 rates together in one application.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. That is the draft I have got.

PN12

MS ANDELMAN: Yes.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Is to include the 2003 and 2004 in the one application.

PN14

MS ANDELMAN: That is right.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN16

MS ANDELMAN: And our submission, Commissioner, is that that application complies with principle 8(b) and we give a specific commitment as to the absorption of the increase.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, that is going to be opposed?

PN18

MS ANDELMAN: I am not sure if that is the case.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: You are not sure, all right.

PN20

MS ANDELMAN: Thank you.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Follett.

PN22

MR FOLLETT: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. I have been instructed on behalf of my clients just to make a couple of points about the order. I haven't seen a copy prior to today but just having a quick flick through the figures, all figures in that table in the draft order provided by Ms Andelman are correct on my understanding, as are the operative dates, 16 June and 16 June. I will however say several things. I think the first of those is that I am not entirely sure it is appropriate that an order be made today with operative effect in excess of 12 months.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you putting that as a submission or a gratuitous observation?

PN24

MR FOLLETT: Well, it is a submission, Commissioner.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. You are saying that I won't, that I shouldn't?

PN26

MR FOLLETT: We are saying that you shouldn't for several reasons.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN28

MR FOLLETT: The first of those is that in the intervening 12 months before the order takes effect there could be a change in circumstances, both in terms of the employer respondent to this award and in terms of any principles of this Commission. I don't put it any higher than that, Commissioner, but what we do say, if the Commission was minded to make the order in the terms sought by the CPSU we think it is probably more appropriate and I submit that it is more appropriate that two separate orders be issued and also in that matter that the respondent Sensis Pty Ltd have an express right in that award to revisit any order that is made if there was a change in circumstances that warranted such an application in the intervening 12 months and I say nothing more to the Commission.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thanks, Mr Follett. Ms Andelman.

PN30

MS ANDELMAN: I don't have any further submissions to make.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. This is an application to vary this Sensis (Clerical and Sales Employees) Award 2000 by adjusting rates - there are now allowances in the award, Ms Andelman?

PN32

MS ANDELMAN: There is one allowance, Commissioner, and that is to do with the motor vehicle allowance and we are not seeking to vary that allowance.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. To adjust rates of pay consequent upon the decision in the safety net review - wages May 2003 and the safety net review - wages May 2004 decision. Sensis oppose the variation incorporating both decisions immediately and also oppose orders issuing which would bring into effect the 2004 decision on 16 June 2005. However, it doesn't oppose the order varying the award for the May 2003 decision.

PN34

I have considered the submissions and I believe that the proper course at this stage is to only vary the award in relation to the 2003 decision. I will not vary the award in relation to the 2004 decision at this stage and agree with Sensis that there may be changes to the wage fixing principles and other matters which may bear upon an application for a safety net wages adjustment. There is no disadvantage accruing the union in relation to this matter because the order wouldn't operate until 16 June 2005 in any event.

PN35

So I shall issue an order only varying the award for the May 2003 decision at this stage and of course grant leave to the union should leave to be necessary to make a further application to include the 2004 decision. The order shall operate from the first full pay period to commence on or after today. The matter is adjourned sine die.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.22am]