C2004/4429, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 3239 (18 August 2004)

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
ABN 72 110 028 825

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 8124

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON

C2004/4429

CARLTON AND UNITED
BREWERIES LIMITED

and

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY,
MINING AND ENERGY UNION

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re appropriate workplace agreement
to apply to two employees at the Abbotsford
Brewery Site

MELBOURNE

10.07 AM, FRIDAY, 6 AUGUST 2004

Continued from 23.7.04

PN157

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, the matter is listed for report back. Who would like to lead off? Mr Washington?

PN158

MR WASHINGTON: If your Honour pleases, we can report that there has been two meetings amongst the unions. It is fair to say that there has been no conclusion reached at this point and we have adjourned those discussions whilst the CFMEU conduct a meeting with its delegates next week. And we have a further meeting programmed at the VTAC on Thursday of next week. And based on that we propose that this matter be adjourned for a couple of weeks to enable those discussions to continue. If your Honour pleases.

PN159

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Washington. Did you wish to say anything Mr Redford?

PN160

MR REDFORD: Your Honour, the LHMU has advised the CFMEU at the last meeting at the Trades Hall that we accept that he has got to go back and get some instructions from his members. One of the problems we have had in the process though is that our delegates have not been directly involved in meetings that have taken place. And a reason for that is that there has been some difficulties experienced by our delegates in ensuring that they are paid for being involved in union meetings and in proceedings of the Commission around the resolution of this dispute.

PN161

I do not want to make a great big issue out of it, your Honour, other than just to say it would assist in the resolution of this dispute if the company could ensure that our delegates are paid for their participation in it. As our delegates were not directly involved in those meetings it is also the case that we have had to report back to them about the outcome of them. And I have to say to you, your Honour, that whilst we have advised Mr Washington that we understand that he is going to go back and get instructions that we are going to have another meeting next week our delegates have expressed and our members have expressed frustration about this process and the time that it is taking.

PN162

And what we would say to you, your Honour, is that this needs to be resolved and it needs to be resolved quickly. We are extremely keen to hear from the CFMEU as to what its proposal is to resolve this matter. In fact our delegates are very disappointed they are not going to hear about that today.

PN163

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I envisaged that sort of information would emerge from the meetings directly between the unions in the first instance. This is really a report back to ensure the process is on track as it were.

PN164

MR REDFORD: Yes. Yes. And I suppose our delegates just make the point that they have already been through meetings and we are still waiting on that but look they are the points I wanted to make, your Honour.

PN165

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN166

MR REDFORD: The thing that I say to you about wanting this resolved quickly is because the longer it takes to be resolved the greater the likelihood of problems on the floor. And so that is why we want to get it resolved as quickly as we can. Thank you, your Honour.

PN167

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I think there is some common interest in that isn't there?

PN168

MR REDFORD: Of course. Yes.

PN169

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Richardson?

PN170

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, I do not have anything specifically to submit in relation to the process under way at the moment. The company itself is not party to the discussions as such. Obviously, principally been involved in the union hence we wait with interest obviously to see whether the unions are able to reach some form of resolution between them. If not,then as Mr Redford alluded to, we would seek that the matter be brought back before the Commission to resolve one way or the other.

PN171

We do not have any specific objections though to the process outlined by Mr Washington to enable an adjournment to take place to allow those discussions to continue and for his union or for that matter any other union to consult with their delegates in relation to those discussions. On the issue raised by Mr Redford in relation to, I think it is allowing delegates payment for attending meetings, etcetera, I am not sure in the specific circumstances relating to that or whether it is specific individuals or delegates generally but I think certainly as a practice we have sought to accommodate delegates in the past.

PN172

It does come down to - in some instances the delegates informing the company in advance of their intention to attend meetings. In particular where those employees may be rostered on certain shifts. And we have to either arrange for alternative coverage or some other arrangement for those individuals if they are intending to be absent. But generally we do try and seek to accommodate them where we know it in advance. If we are not informed in advance it is difficult to do that.

PN173

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Have there been requests made of the company for time off or payment?

PN174

MR RICHARDSON: I cannot comment specifically, your Honour, but I can refer it to my colleague, Ms Harrison here, if she can respond to that. Probably better placed to do that.

PN175

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Has there been - Ms Harrison?

PN176

MS HARRISON: Do you mind if I could ask for clarification of your question?

PN177

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Has there been a request to date in respect to attendance of meetings or payment for attendance at meetings?

PN178

MS HARRISON: There certainly has been requests from a number of delegates with respect to leave for attendance at meetings. The FEDFA delegates in particular are inclined to notify us well in advance of their required attendance at meetings so we have adequate time to arrange the necessary coverage in order for them to attend. What we are seeking from all delegates on site is advance notice of their requirement to attend a meeting.

PN179

Who exactly will be there. How long they are expected to be away for and when we may be able to expect them back at work. There was an issue, Thursday fortnight ago, that resulted in some question around whether or not payment would be made to the delegates because we had not been notified in advance of them attending a meeting at the Liquor Trades office. As an act of good faith we have since made payment for that particular meeting and just requested that they observe our requests in future with respect to notification.

PN180

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. In respect to that Mr Redford, could that be done? As much advance notice as possible be given. There does not seem to be any problem. The practice is outlined by Mr Richardson - that will be accommodated as - - -

PN181

MR REDFORD: No, that sounds fair enough. If your Honour pleases, I am just going to get some instructions on that. Sorry about that, your Honour.

PN182

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is all right.

PN183

MR REDFORD: What the LHMU says about that is that we do give notice. We give plenty of notice about these things and your Honour we will continue to do so.

PN184

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well. And there was an issue as I understand it in respect of last Thursday but ultimately payment was made by the company. Is that correct?

PN185

MR REDFORD: That is right, your Honour.

PN186

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN187

MR REDFORD: And we gave plenty of notice about that and ultimately the company paid so the issue as I understand it has been resolved.

PN188

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well. Well, I think there is an understanding that in practice that as much as possible notice will be given. And company practice is to accommodate such requests.

PN189

MR REDFORD: Yes - - -

PN190

MR RICHARDSON: Thank you, your Honour. Thank you, Mr Redford. The - just in response to that point, your Honour, in relation to notice being given. We maintain that in fact in relation to the incident that Ms Harrison referred to just previously - the meeting that was held two weeks ago. There was no notice given whatsoever to the company on that occasion. Commission may recall that we actually originally had a Commission hearing scheduled for that afternoon which was initially cancelled then relisted for the following day.

PN191

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN192

MR RICHARDSON: Now there was no notice given of any intention from the delegates on that occasion to attend the meeting. What did happen was that the delegates in lieu of that hearing apparently attended a meeting at the union office but we were not informed of that prior to that actually happening. And all we are asking for is that if employees want to be paid for attending such meetings that we be notified in advance and that certainly did not happen on that occasion.

PN193

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Well that is an understandable position. I do not think there is much value in determining whether there was or was not notice in respect of that prior meeting. Payment has been subsequently made and I think - I take it Mr Redford whatever happened on the last occasion the position of the union is that is understands and will accommodate the desire of the company to provide as much as possible notice on - - -

PN194

MR REDFORD: Yes.

PN195

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - the basis that the company continue the practice of payment for relevant meetings in those circumstances.

PN196

MR REDFORD: Yes, I am however, your Honour, compelled to put this on the record. The union's submission is that what you have been told is incorrect. That we did give notice on that occasion. And look what I say is this, your Honour, the company had noticed that the individuals concerned were going to be involved in business around the resolution of this dispute business, namely Commission proceedings, which were adjourned. But in any event they continued to be involved in that business. So in other words, your Honour, the company had notice that they would not be there. That they would - - -

PN197

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that might be the issue that the company might have taken the view that given the cancellation of the Commission hearings where it plainly was aware delegates would be involved it assumed the delegates would not be involved in any other business. But as I said I do not think there is any point in trying to determine that issue. It appears there is some common understanding between the union and the company as to how things should operate and some desire from both parties that they do operate on that basis. With notice and with payment.

PN198

MR REDFORD: Unless you would like me to put the people concerned in the box?

PN199

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I do not think there is any point in that Mr Redford. Thank you.

PN200

MR REDFORD: There is just one other issue that I wanted to raise.

PN201

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN202

MR REDFORD: There is no particular context to this issue, we just want to bring this to your attention, your Honour. You are aware that these proceedings revolve around two persons whose names are concealed - contained within a sealed envelope.

PN203

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN204

MR REDFORD: There are another two persons who the CFMEU have advised us are - or may also be involved in it. Two persons involved in production, namely involved in the B2 production line and in brewing. We just wanted to raise that to your attention, your Honour, for future reference.

PN205

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, well, it hasn't been raised by the CFMEU. And the recommendation is in the terms relating to the persons within the sealed envelope. Anything further Mr Washington otherwise I will set a date and adjourn?

PN206

MR WASHINGTON: No, your Honour, we are quite happy and content. Rome was not built in a day and we will get there eventually.

PN207

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. And the Olympic facilities were not concluded in Athens in a day either but they look like they will get there.

PN208

MR WASHINGTON: I am sure Daniel Grollo might say the same thing, your Honour.

PN209

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well. I will adjourn these proceedings. I will list the matter for a further report back at 10 o'clock on Tuesday 24 August. Obviously if there is any need for earlier attention in the Commission that will be brought to my attention. And equally if the parties view shortly before the 24th that there is no real purpose serving the parties coming back they can advise me of that and of what the situation is without a necessity to attend here. But I will list the matter for report back on that basis at 10 on the 24th.

ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY, 24 AUGUST 2004 [10.22am]