AG2004/5348, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 2701 (15 July 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED

Level 1, 17-21 University Ave., CANBERRA ACT 2601
GPO Box 476 Canberra 2601
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 5373

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER DEEGAN

AG2004/5348

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LK of the Act
by the Fantasea Cruises Pty Ltd for certification
of Fantasea Cruises Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement

CANBERRA

9.45 AM, MONDAY, 5 JULY 2004

PN1

MR K.J. NIELSON: I appear for Fantasea Cruises.

PN2

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr Nielson.

PN3

MR NIELSON: Thank you. This is the third in a series of enterprise agreements for Fantasea Cruises. It is fair to say that the staff are quite comfortable working under the agreements. Meetings with staff to consider the present version was straightforward and no-one took up the offer of any subsequent meeting. As set out in the papers there was a total of 13 meetings, split to cover the various sections of the company. There was no request made by any organisation of employees to be involved in discussion of the agreement.

PN4

The process followed was that no-one was given a copy of the agreement without attending a meeting. At these meetings the agreement was discussed clause by clause. At the end of each clause there was a pause to be sure that everyone was fully aware of its content, then the next clause was addressed. At the end of the consideration of the agreement, the whole agreement was again thrown open for any discussion. At the conclusion of the meeting staff were invited to feel free to be in contact if they subsequently thought of any point they wanted clarified.

PN5

At the conclusion of each meeting staff were informed they had two weeks in which to make up their minds about how they felt about the agreement. They were told the document had been drawn up at which they could indicate their decision. It was made clear they had a right to disagree with agreement if that was their considered decision. It was indicated that we would wish to be sure their disagreement was based on fact and not a misconception and in this regard they were urged to clarify any points with which they disagreed. This was well accepted by all attendees. No-one sought clarification of any issues.

PN6

There were no staff with difficulties in understanding English as can be seen from the attachment to the papers we provided. There are no disagreements from the staff for the adoption of the agreement. Five people have not signed. Two of these are casuals who have been not used for some time and they're probably unlikely to be used again. One staff member who worked on Lindeman Island did not bother to come in to sign on his day off and the other one, based on Hamilton Island, didn't bother to come in. A fifth member was absent on leave.

PN7

On the agreement itself, the agreement is practically identical to the previous version. The changes are pay scales have been increased.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: By how much, Mr Nielson?

PN9

MR NIELSON: In the main by several thousand dollars on each level. In percentage terms I don't know. I'd have to have a quick look at that.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, keep going because I've got a few questions.

PN11

MR NIELSON: Okay. The long service leave now comes in at ten years and this is in line with the state decision to make ten years the level there. There is now no longer a charge for accommodation and food for the staff at Reef World. There used to be a charge of $10 a day so that really meant that the crew on that facility received actually a pay increase of $100 over their ten day shift. We've clarified an area of the application of the 85 per cent training wage.

PN12

There was a bit of confusion in that in the previous agreement there was an idea - where people came and they needed some training to be able to fully do a job they were to be put on a training wage of $85 per cent until they are assessed as being proficient.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: So, where is that provision?

PN14

MR NIELSON: That comes in in the present wage and it will be - - -

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't see anything about 85 per cent except in June, new rates and that's not a training rate. Look actually, Mr Nielson, it is - - -

PN16

MR NIELSON: I am sorry.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: It is not a problem because I have got so many questions it is going to take us some time to answer them all.

PN18

MR NIELSON: All right, okay. The idea of the training wage is it is purely in fairness to the people who are employed. If someone is not able to do the job fully then we didn't believe they should be getting the full wage till they were able to do the job.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: That's fine except that if an award of the Commission doesn't allow that to happen it is a reduction against the award provision and on your statutory declaration you have no reductions against any award that covers these people so I assumed that you meant there were no reductions, Mr Nielson.

PN20

MR NIELSON: Yes.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Nielson, I am really concerned about this agreement. I accept that it is the third agreement in a series. I didn't certify either of the other two as far as I know but there are some major problems as far as I am concerned. Well, one is, I find it incredibly difficult to do a no disadvantage test against the awards that you have nominated as being applicable in that it is not clear to me which classifications under the agreement are covered by which awards. So, I take it the divers are all covered by the Recreational Diving Industry Award?

PN22

MR NIELSON: Yes.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Which classifications does the Clerical Employees Award cover?

PN24

MR NIELSON: That would cover some of the administrators.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, who are the administrators? There is no classification of administrator,

PN26

MR NIELSON: Okay.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: We have logistic employees - - -

PN28

MR NIELSON: Yes, they're the logistic employees and they - - -

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, who is covered by the Retail Industry Award?

PN30

MR NIELSON: The Retail Award is Julius at the Jetty, that's the jetty shop.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, so which classification is in the - - -

PN32

MR NIELSON: In that they were arranged in - - -

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: So, they are logistic employees, are they?

PN34

MR NIELSON: Yes.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: As well.

PN36

MR NIELSON: Logistic as opposed to - you have the Maritime Employees - - -

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. So, how do these people know, when they decided to agree to this agreement, what they would normally have been covered by. What classification under which award would normally cover them if the agreement didn't cover them?

PN38

MR NIELSON: Well, in the discussion that we had with each one, they know where they fit.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: They might know where they fit in the agreement, how do they know where they fit in the award.

PN40

MR NIELSON: The same thing.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, perhaps you could give me the information you gave them and then I'll be able to see whether they're disadvantaged or not, because I can't. I am supposed to do a no disadvantage test whereby I look at these classifications in your agreement and see if they are paid more or less or they have different conditions as against the award. The logistic employee tells me nothing, all right.

PN42

MR NIELSON: All right.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: So, what I'd like is a list of all the classifications and what they would be under, which award, so that I can look at it.

PN44

MR NIELSON: Yes.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: And then I will tell you whether it passes the no disadvantage test. There are other matters that concern me because normally the statutory declaration that you've made is supposed to give me any reductions as against the award and that means - - -

PN46

MR NIELSON: Yes, well, if we are paying more than the award - - -

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: That's the wages.

PN48

MR NIELSON: Yes, that's what - - -

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't know whether you pay more than the award because I don't know what provision of which award covers which person so how am I supposed to know that you are paying more than the award.

PN50

MR NIELSON: Well, I accept - - -

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: And how do I know that somebody - you see, what it says is, some of the employees - that's their salary. They get nothing else. Now, I don't know that a salaried employee under a particular award who worked under the award conditions with penalty rates might not be on more. And I can't tell because I don't know who they are, what classification they would be, what their hours of work are.

PN52

MR NIELSON: Yes, well, it's set down - the general hours of work are specified in the agreement itself. We have a heading that says, "Hours of work," in section 8.

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I read that and it meant nothing to me, "In general office support staff work a standard 40 to 45 hours."

PN54

MR NIELSON: That's right.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: "In general" means what? 40 to 45 hours means what? Do they work 40 hours, do they work 45 hours, do they work it every week, do they work it some weeks? How can I do a no disadvantage test on the basis of that sort of information and how do these people know that they haven't been disadvantaged against the award when their conditions are so loose.

PN56

MR NIELSON: Well, let me say to you that the company is an industry leader in that area. We pay more money than anywhere else in the whole district. And for instance - - -

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, then you shouldn't have any difficulty giving me the information.

PN58

MR NIELSON: No, it's all right, Commissioner, I am not arguing that. I am just saying to you that - - -

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't need a promotion for the company, Mr Nielson, I need the information upon which I can do the - sorry, the statutory requirement which is a no disadvantage test. I can't do it on the information with which I have been provided so if you could provide me with the information which is the classification for each employee under whichever award actually covers them. So, you've listed five. I don't know that I can do the no disadvantage test against the Offshore Island Resorts Industrial Agreement unless that's a state award. Is it, do you know?

PN60

MR NIELSON: Yes, I think it is.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, if it's a state award I can. So, if you can just give me a piece of paper or several pieces of paper which tell me which of these employees or classifications - I don't need it for individual employees but I need it for classification. A logistic employee grade A would be what, under which awards? A logistic employee grade B - because for all I know they don't line up at all.

PN62

MR NIELSON: No, but what I am saying, because these are done in bands - and the idea of bands which I would have gone on to say - - -

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I know how bands work, Mr Nielson.

PN64

MR NIELSON: - - - is to allow people to move along a band and we've got an overlap in our bands.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that is fine but I don't know whether they are disadvantaged or not. I have a statutory responsibility to see if a particular person on a particular band is disadvantaged as against the particular classification they would have been on if this agreement did not exist and they were covered by the award. I can't do it with the information I have been provided. That is all.

PN66

MR NIELSON: Very well.

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: So, you can provide me with that information, I will be able to do the no disadvantage test and if what you say is true, there shouldn't be a problem. The other concern I have is asking people to sign something which says whether they disagree or don't disagree with a particular agreement put out by the employer. I have some real concerns about whether there is genuine consent.

PN68

MR NIELSON: Well, we looked at that and the reason we went down this - this is the third time we've done it - is because rather than to try and have a show of hands - - -

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what is wrong with a secret ballot? I mean, you send out a thing saying yes or no and then you ask them to put it in a box. In fact, it is probably less difficult than asking them to come in to sign something where they know who has agreed and who hasn't agreed, where they know the employer will know whether they agree or don't agree.

PN70

MR NIELSON: Yes.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: You see, I have a major problem with that sort of - because I have to be assured that they genuinely consented and that means that they consented it without any duress at all.

PN72

MR NIELSON: Commissioner, if they hadn't genuinely agreed I wouldn't be standing here. I can say to you this is a matter of my own professional pride.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that's a matter for you, Mr Nielson. Fine and I am sure you feel quite confident in the fact that these people were not under any duress. I don't know them, I don't know the circumstances upon which they did this, I don't know anything. All I know is they were asked to signify whether they agreed or disagreed and their employer would know what their attitude was and I very rarely, very rarely, have an agreement where that is the case.

PN74

MR NIELSON: Well, I mean, I put it on a show of hands.

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: It's usually secret ballot. They sometimes have a show of hands. A show of hands are usually only in union meetings where the employer is not present. Union usually conducts a show of hands ballot. Normally it's a secret ballot. The majority - the vast majority - - -

PN76

MR NIELSON: Well, no-one has ever raised the question of a secret ballot with me before.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I can't help that and I am - - -

PN78

MR NIELSON: Had we known that that was a requirement it would have been done.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: It's not a requirement.

PN80

MR NIELSON: Well, then - - -

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: As I said, I have got a major concern. The other major concern I have is most certified agreements that are employee only are certified in the state where - - -

PN82

MR NIELSON: Well, we've been in the Commonwealth now - this is the third agreement.

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, each person is different. Some people take their statutory responsibilities more seriously than others, I don't know. I can't speak for my fellow Commissioners. All I can say is, I worry about an agreement which is a signature on a signature page which is available to the employer. I worry about an employee only agreement where no union is involved where they can't turn up to represent their views because the certification process takes place so far away from their home base.

PN84

Normally in an LK agreement I expect to see one or two employees available to answer questions about what they thought or what they knew about it. I am concerned about a lot of provisions of this agreement. Now, if what you say is correct and they pay more money than anybody else and the conditions are such that there is no question about the no disadvantage test, then I will probably say, "No problem." If it's that good then there probably was genuine consent.

PN85

MR NIELSON: Well, just let me quote a couple of figures to you.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN87

MR NIELSON: For instance, there are masters on the reef trips. Under the award, they would probably come out around about $42,300, of that - - -

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: And you are paying?

PN89

MR NIELSON: 53,000.

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: And the hours under the award?

PN91

MR NIELSON: That's relating them across.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, that's relating them across.

PN93

MR NIELSON: If, for the same time, following the award to what they do, they would get $42,300 odd.

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So, you're talking about - which master are we talking about who is on 53,000?

PN95

MR NIELSON: The top.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: I can't find one.

PN97

MR NIELSON: They don't have to be, Commissioner, I am sorry.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: How do they get it.

PN99

MR NIELSON: Well, if you look at the top, Senior Master starts - it says 50 upwards, right?

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN101

MR NIELSON: Now, that's your base.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it's only the base I can do a no disadvantage against. So, where do they get the additional money from.

PN103

MR NIELSON: Where do they get it from?

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I mean - - -

PN105

MR NIELSON: Every employee is reviewed at least once a year and they get a pay rise every year when they do that.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Where's that - - -

PN107

MR NIELSON: That's a standard - - -

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: Is it in the agreement? How am I supposed to know what the standard is if it is not in the agreement and if it is not in the agreement it is not a right. If it is not a right I don't do the no disadvantage test against it.

PN109

MR NIELSON: Well, I am sorry. The way the thing has operated for the last three - the last two agreements and the way the company has operated always is that the people are all reviewed at least once a year and they get a pay rise normally in that.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I am sorry but I don't know that, Mr Nielson. How am I supposed to know how - all I can do is look at what the agreement says and see if, against what the agreement says, it is better or worse than the applicable award and I take into account rates of pay, hours of work, penalties, loadings, etcetera.

PN111

MR NIELSON: Yes, we put all that in.

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: But I can't take into account anything that is not in the agreement so anything that is not in the agreement is immaterial, anything which is not a right is not - - -

PN113

MR NIELSON: Well, I mean, this is - you must understand, this is rather difficult from my point of view. We've run two agreements through the Commonwealth.

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: I am sure it is very difficult and I am sorry but I take my statutory responsibilities seriously and I am not going to certify an agreement unless I am satisfied that it passes the no disadvantage test.

PN115

MR NIELSON: I understand that perfectly. All I am saying is that - - -

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, it is no good telling me what other people have done in similar circumstances before. That's a matter for them. Each of us has a statutory Commission which we are individually appointed to. We don't work as a collective. Now, I have my Commission, I am going to apply this legislation. The legislation says I do not certify an agreement unless I am satisfied, one, there's been genuine consent and two, it passes the no disadvantage test. If it's as good as you say you shouldn't have any difficulty giving me the information.

PN117

MR NIELSON: It is as good as I say or I wouldn't be here.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, in that case, give me the information, I'll do the no disadvantage test and the agreement will be certified.

PN119

MR NIELSON: Right.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So, I doubt that you can give it to me right this minute, can you?

PN121

MR NIELSON: No, of course not.

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, I will adjourn the matter. As soon as you get the information to me the matter will be listed within a couple of days of you giving me the information so I can run it against the awards and then if the agreement passes the no disadvantage test it will be certified.

PN123

MR NIELSON: Now, I need to really understand what you require in the terms of this for future - because there will be another company who wants to have an enterprise agreement and they are also on their third one.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. The staff need to know which award covers them.

PN125

MR NIELSON: Yes, I understand that. No, the question I wanted to know is - - -

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: The vote. Is that what you need to know?

PN127

MR NIELSON: Yes.

PN128

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, as I said, you take a risk. If it's a good certified agreement where there is no doubt about the disadvantage, then sometimes it's easy to see that you don't need - that a person would be a fool to knock it back.

PN129

MR NIELSON: That's right.

PN130

THE COMMISSIONER: If it's borderline and there's any question of duress, whether it's not intentional, but you must understand that asked to sign a thing for your employer, do you agree or disagree with what the employer is putting up, some people might feel intimidated. I am not saying your staff do, I am saying some people do. I'd feel a lot happier if it was a secret ballot but you haven't run a secret ballot on this occasion. If the no disadvantage test comes out in front and sufficiently in front for me not to have any concern about whether the consent was genuine, then I won't have a problem.

PN131

MR NIELSON: Yes.

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: However, if it is borderline then I would probably like to run a secret ballot.

PN133

MR NIELSON: Sure.

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: And the Commission can run a secret ballot.

PN135

MR NIELSON: Yes. The point you're raising, to me, makes me - - -

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: As I said, we're 85 per cent, I should imagine, higher. In fact, I'd go even so far as to say closer to 90 per cent of LK agreements, employee only agreements, is secret ballot. The only agreements that I see that are usually not secret ballot tend to be in the building industry and the cleaning industry where they are union agreements and the union runs the ballot. And so the people - the employer is not involved in the vote taking so people go into a union meeting and they say whether or not they agree with anything and it's no skin off their nose whether the union knows whether they agree or not, it's whether the employer knows.

PN137

MR NIELSON: Yes.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: And these are usually agreements that the unions have already agreed to. However, in LK agreements, to be sure that you've got genuine consent, a secret ballot is a very wise move then there is no doubt.

PN139

MR NIELSON: I mean, all I can say to you is that - - -

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: That it's been okay in the past.

PN141

MR NIELSON: Yes, and our company is a very happy company. The morale is high, people work well within it and we don't have problems and people realise that they - - -

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, if I knew anything about your company and if your company operated in my area I might know that, Mr Nielson, but since you are a company that I am supposed to be certifying the agreement for operates out of Queensland, it may be that if this was being certified in Queensland you might find that members of the Commission in Queensland know of your company and know what jolly little people the staff are. I don't.

PN143

MR NIELSON: At the time we started having agreements they didn't have them in Queensland. We couldn't get a certified agreement in Queensland, that is why we are working in the Federal level.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: Excuse me. The Federal Commission operates in Queensland, that is what I am saying. You can get this very agreement certified in Queensland, in Brisbane, by Federal members of the Commission.

PN145

MR NIELSON: Right. Well, that's not a problem. I thought it was just more convenient here, that is all.

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it's more convenient, perhaps, for you but if any of your staff - if there was one dissenting member of your staff who wanted to turn up and say, "Well, really, I didn't feel right because I had to sign that, but I really didn't want to sign it but then everybody else had signed it and I knew the boss would know that I didn't want to sign it so I had to sign it anyway but I've changed my mind and I don't think it's good. They couldn't do it. You couldn't ask them to come to Canberra. For all I know, and this is merely hypothetical, Mr Nielson, I am not suggesting that it happened in your company or anything else, but for all I know, all these signatures you and your friends did one day last week.

PN147

Because nobody in Queensland, right, not one member of this Fantasea Cruises staff, would know that this agreement was being certified in Canberra today because we only advertise - unless they get on to our web site - but we only advertise in the Canberra Times. So, there are very few people who read the Canberra Times who would know that the Fantasea Cruises agreement - - -

PN148

MR NIELSON: No, well, they all know.

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: Because you've told them. But I only know what you tell me. As I said, this is hypothetical and I am not suggesting for a moment - but, you know, for all I know you could be the greatest con man that ever walked, Mr Nielson. All I am saying is these people - if this was being certified in Brisbane, they would see it in the Courier Mail. "Goodness, look, Fantasea Cruises is getting an enterprise agreement today. Should we know something about it. Perhaps we had better go along and see what it is." And that's what I am saying. That is why I always think it's wise to get it certified in the place where the work is, where the employees are.

PN150

MR NIELSON: That is no problem to us.

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think in future that is probably a good idea but I have got this one and you are here and I have started to look at it so why don't we keep going. You get me the information I need and I will do the no disadvantage test. If it passes the no disadvantage test it will be certified.

PN152

MR NIELSON: Right.

PN153

THE COMMISSIONER: But I suggest you give some consideration to a secret ballot. It's not that expensive and the company can run a secret ballot.

PN154

MR NIELSON: I am not saying that's not - I mean, all this, to me, is all brand new news. I am sorry, had this been the way which things are done, we would have done it. We've been meticulous in the way we've prepared this document, the way we've consulted with the staff, the pains we've gone to to make sure everybody understands what's there.

PN155

THE COMMISSIONER: It happens all the time. Various members of the Commission have various standards. My standard is what the legislation requires of me and I am afraid I apply it, right?

PN156

MR NIELSON: Yes.

PN157

THE COMMISSIONER: There is nothing I can do about it.

PN158

MR NIELSON: But it does make it very difficult for somebody who has tried to appear - - -

PN159

THE COMMISSIONER: It might make it very difficult, I accept that and I am sorry if it has made it difficult for you but the Act is the Act and you have to comply with it and on this occasion I don't believe that I can be satisfied yet that it passes the no disadvantage test.

PN160

MR NIELSON: Yes.

PN161

THE COMMISSIONER: You give me the information required. As I said, because you haven't had the matter of the secret ballot raised with you before, I am not going to force the issue on this occasion. I just suggest for your own - because I know there are a lot of members of the Commission and you've been lucky to get two that aren't concerned by that but if I had had one letter from a member of staff who said, "I was intimidated," or if I'd asked them and a lot of members do, then I would have said, "No, go ahead, do the vote again. Go back."

PN162

MR NIELSON: All right.

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, one of the reasons I might not have heard anything from the staff is for all I know they don't know it's being - I take what you say that they know it is being certified today.

PN164

MR NIELSON: Of course.

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: And I assume they know it is being certified in Canberra. However, I suppose it would be easier for them if it was being certified in Brisbane.

PN166

MR NIELSON: Actually, being quite frank, the whole position of the staff are generally - are very, very happy with the thing, they are happy.

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: I take your word for it.

PN168

MR NIELSON: And so, I mean, it's not as though - - -

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: I take your word for it. It would be strange if an employer came to me and said, "We're putting up this certified agreement that all the staff have put their signature to, but they're not actually happy with it."

PN170

MR NIELSON: But the requirement is for a simple majority if you want to get down to it.

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: That's right.

PN172

MR NIELSON: A simple majority.

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: A simple majority with genuine consent. The question of whether the consent is genuine with they are asked to signify - why do you think we have votes in the Federal Parliament and our parliaments that are secret ballots. People don't like their votes necessarily to be known and when you're telling an employer you don't like what the employer is proposing should be your terms and conditions of employment for the next three years, do you think you'd feel safe in your job, some people. Some employers, and I am not saying this employer, but I am afraid I look at all sorts of employers and I don't know whether yours is a good employer or a bad employer and I can't take your word for it.

PN174

I have to take into account what I know about employers and employees generally and employees generally find it difficult to tell their employers that they don't like an agreement. And when they are asked to sign something which - it tells the employer immediately did they or did they not like the agreement and they have to go on working for that employer for the next three years, I can understand an employee, particularly the last employee who got to sign, looking down and thinking, "Well, I am not going to be the person who puts my signature in the disagree column because it's pristine up till now." That's all.

PN175

So, just bear it in mind, Mr Nielson. I am not saying it is a requirement of the Act, but I do have to be satisfied that there is genuine consent. And I am not sure that is genuine but if the agreement is as good as you say I will be able to assume the consent was genuine.

PN176

MR NIELSON: It's as good as I say or I wouldn't be here.

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, so you say. The matter is adjourned until I get the information to be relisted immediately upon me receiving it.

PN178

MR NIELSON: Thank you.

PN179

THE COMMISSIONER: I will adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.11am]