C2004/3224, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 2638 (13 July 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 7690

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON

C2004/3224

RECORDS MANAGEMENT
SERVICES AWARD 2002

Application under section 113 of the Act
by Australian Municipal, Administrative,
Clerical and Services Union to vary the
above award re Redundancy Case decision
of March 2004 (PR032004)

MELBOURNE

3.34 PM, THURSDAY, 1 JULY 2004

PN1

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

PN2

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. Again, I have correspondence from Brambles, which I will mark B1, indicating the company has received the application on 29 June and has not had sufficient time to review the applications, seeking a period of seven days to review the application. Yes, Mr Nucifora?

EXHIBIT #B1 CORRESPONDENCE FROM BRAMBLES

PN3

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, once again we are at Exhibit B1, and just by way of service if I may tender as an exhibit a copy of a bundle of documentation confirming that the employer, award respondents, were notified of today's hearing and the application.

EXHIBIT #ASU1 SERVICE DOCUMENTATION

PN4

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you, your Honour. Exhibit ASU1 is a bundle of documentation which includes a covering letter from myself, served by facsimile and registered mail, and it includes a courtesy copy to Ms Hancock from Brambles head office, and included in that is the application to vary the Records Management Services Award 2002 to reflect the Redundancy Case decision.

PN5

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I wonder if you could help me, Mr Nucifora? The facsimile from Ms Hancock indicates - well, refers to Brambles Australia Limited. Presumably they own and operate at least one of the four companies.

PN6

MR NUCIFORA: Yes.

PN7

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Which one is it?

PN8

MR NUCIFORA: Yes. It was Brambles Records Management. Now it is now Recall.

PN9

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Recall?

PN10

MR NUCIFORA: That is actually not made clear anywhere, apart from knowing the history of the award.

PN11

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN12

MR NUCIFORA: That Recall is owned by Brambles.

PN13

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN14

MR NUCIFORA: And traditionally when we have safety net adjustments and any variations to the award, including simplification in 2002 with which I was involved with, Brambles have been the active employer respondent, and that is why notify the other employers in this matter by registered mail. They wouldn't normally be actively involved. They are roped-in to this award traditionally, but we don't normally get any response from them and that is particularly why in this case we don't serve every employer in such test case variations with a notification by registered mail, but it is one where we not only want to confirm that they have been sent a fax copy of the notification, that they have actually received it, because we don't normally hear from those other employers, and variations occur year in, year out, without really being any response from the other employers.

PN15

Brambles are the more active, if you like, owner of Recall and they normally respond in terms of the proposed variation. We include in Exhibit ASU1 the - just on that point, your Honour, in terms of the registered mail I have the original copy of that if that should be tendered, rather than - - -

PN16

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, that is sufficient for my purposes, Mr Nucifora.

PN17

MR NUCIFORA: Yes, the copy, yes, does have the registered mail numbers. The draft order contains the model clauses from the supplementary decision in PR062004, apart from, of course, the variation to the arrangement clause to reflect a new title for notice of termination. The redundancy disputes procedure, of course, we have, being an industry-wide award, we have identical provisions in relation to small employers. That those with less than 15 employees, and we have that of course recognised - the distinction with small employers at clause 14 in item A4, and that is a definition, of course, and a distinction of small employers, and the different severance and operative dates for small employers. The notice of termination is identical to the model clause. I am just checking to see whether 13.1.6, the definition of continuous employment - - -

PN18

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Again, that is the parental leave provision.

PN19

MR NUCIFORA: Yes, it is.

PN20

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You may need to review that with Brambles and others.

PN21

MR NUCIFORA: Because there wasn't an annual leave definition.

PN22

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Really to see whether that does the job.

PN23

MR NUCIFORA: Yes. Your Honour, we would follow the same submissions that we did in the previous matter - - -

PN24

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN25

MR NUCIFORA: - - - in relation to putting the specific test case. That is the way we are likely to go, and we - if we could have the next seven days to - as Brambles have asked to check the application and the draft order to confirm that position, but that is the way we are likely to go.

PN26

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, yes.

PN27

MR NUCIFORA: And we otherwise seek an operative date, unless otherwise - unless there are substantive issues raised by Brambles. But an operative date of 1 July 2004, and seek that the variation be approved accordingly, if your Honour pleases.

PN28

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well. This is an application by the ASU to vary the Records Management Services Award 2002. One of the respondent companies, Brambles, which operates a company known as Recall in the list of respondents, has corresponded with the Commission indicating it hasn't had time to review the application, requesting a period of seven days to do so. I am satisfied that the variation properly gives effect to the test case decision, save that the parties may wish to review the definition of continuous service to more properly reflect the intent of the test case decisions.

PN29

In respect to apprentices, I am satisfied that the departure from the test case decision in respect to the exemption of notice and in respect to apprentices is appropriate in the absence of the employment of apprentices within the award. I will provide a period of seven days until 4 pm on 8 July for Brambles, and indeed any other employer respondent, to review the draft order. In the absence of any substantive issues between the parties I will vary the award in the terms of the draft order proposed by the ASU, which I will mark ASU2, subject to possible modification of the continuous service provision, and with effect from the first pay period to commence on or after 1 July 2004.

EXHIBIT #ASU2 DRAFT ORDER

PN30

In the event that some substantive issue arises from Brambles or any other respondent by 8 July I will hear and determine those issues and in that case review the appropriate date of effect of any order arising out of the application. I will now adjourn these proceedings.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.42pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #B1 CORRESPONDENCE FROM BRAMBLES PN3
EXHIBIT #ASU1 SERVICE DOCUMENTATION PN4
EXHIBIT #ASU2 DRAFT ORDER PN30