AG2004/1223, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 334 (23 January 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
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 F5872
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER LEWIN

AG2004/1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227,
1228, 1233, 1257, 1258 and 1276

THE FERNWOOD STAFF (VIC) SOUTHLAND
ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2003

THE FERNWOOD WOMEN'S HEALTH CLUB
BALLARAT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2003

THE FERNWOOD FEMALE FITNESS CENTRE
NARRE WARREN ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2003

THE FERNWOOD STAFF (VIC) PRAHRAN
ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2003

THE FERNWOOD GREENSBOROUGH ENTERPRISE
AGREEMENT 2003

THE FERNWOOD STAFF (VIC) ALTONA
ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2003

THE FERNWOOD EPPING ENTERPRISE
AGREEMENT 2003

THE FERNWOOD CHIRNSIDE ENTERPRISE
AGREEMENT 2003

THE FERNWOOD CARLTON ENTERPRISE
AGREEMENT 2003

THE FERNWOOD STAFF (VIC) WERRIBEE
ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2003

Applications under section 170LK of the Act
by Rikt Liv Pty Limited t/as Fernwood Southland
and Others for certification of above agreements

MELBOURNE

2.45 PM, WEDNESDAY, 14 JANUARY 2004

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, I think I will expedite the taking of the appearances in light of the number of appearances that have been recorded by my associate. The appearances are recorded for each proceeding, and I will provide Auscript with a copy of the details of those appearing so it won't be necessary for personal announcements to be made. However, I gather that, Mr Zoelfel and Mr Brown, you appear on each matter, as I understand it, as agent for and on behalf of the applicants; is that right?

PN2

MR M. BROWN: Yes, Commissioner, that is correct.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. And could you inform me, just for the record, I understand this to be the case, that the terms of each of the agreements that are being dealt with this afternoon are identical?

PN4

MR BROWN: Yes, Commissioner, that is the case.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And you appreciate that these matters are listed for mention this afternoon.

PN6

MR BROWN: Yes, Commissioner, we understand that.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Now, my associate has been in contact with you in relation to these agreements and I understand requested certain information be compiled for this afternoon's mention. Did you do that?

PN8

MR BROWN: Commissioner, at this stage we are still waiting upon a letter which we thought would encompass the issue of the ownership issue, or that they are all separate entities from Fernwood - - -

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Well, we can wait for that. That is really a formality.

PN10

MR BROWN: We have the letters that were distributed to the employees, copies of letters of each - - -

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I think I will mark some of these. All right. So, in particular, these are designed to satisfy me that the necessary notice required by section 170LK(4), is it not, has been provided to each of the employees

PN12

MR BROWN: Yes, that is correct, Commissioner.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Now, as for those who are appearing in the matter who are employees, I just indicate that the Commission is necessary - it is necessary that the Commission be satisfied that certain things have happened and, if they have not happened, it is not possible for the agreements to be certified. That is a mandatory requirement of the legislation. One of the requirements is that the employer provide to the employees a notice in a form which is prescribed in the legislation, and I have before me a number of documents which are tendered to satisfy me that in respect of each employee - not a representative of employees but each individual employee - has been provided with a copy of the relevant notice and that the contents of the notice are as required by the legislation.

PN14

Unless I hear from anybody to the contrary, I am going to proceed on the assumption that each employee who is employed by one of the applicant companies has been provided with a copy of the notice. It might be useful if I just return these and they can be filed in due course as a bundle to be titled exhibit A1.

EXHIBIT #A1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: And it might be useful I think, Mr Zoelfel, if you could possibly supplement the statutory declaration in relation to the notice. I don't think there is any reference in the declarations to the notice content, is there?

PN16

MR BROWN: I thought there was, Commissioner.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, let me just check that. Perhaps you might be able to help me with that. I take it the declarations are in the same terms.

PN18

MR BROWN: Yes, they are, Commissioner.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Except perhaps in relation to the dates.

PN20

MR BROWN: To the dates, and to the various proprietors.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Would you like to take me to that part of the declaration that refers to these notices?

PN22

MR BROWN: I actually don't have them with me, Commissioner.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: You don't have the declaration with you?

PN24

MR BROWN: No.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, very well. Yes. It is in paragraph 1.4 of the declaration. Thank you. Now, I assume that that is the case for all the employees.

PN26

MR BROWN: Yes, Commissioner.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: And what you have really done now is simply to deal with the content of the notice as opposed to the service of it. Just picking up, for the benefit of the employees who are here, I am going to return this to Mr Zoelfel and it can be inspected by him, but it will be recovered by my associate at the conclusion of today's proceedings. Now, I am not in a position to announce whether or not I am satisfied that the agreement would pass the no disadvantage test in all respects, Mr Zoelfel.

PN28

One of the reasons is that I have reason to doubt that it would pass the no disadvantage test in relation to the clerical employees, and I will provide you with some information to that effect in due course. Indeed, there seems to be a significant shortfall in the weekly wage rates according to calculations that have been conducted by the Commission so far which would need to be addressed in the more substantive proceedings to follow today's mention.

PN29

Could I also ask you if you could provide us with some information for the purposes of the conduct of the no disadvantage test. Preliminary calculations indicate that, depending upon the incidence of the terms of the agreement in relation to the hours of work, the agreements may pass the no disadvantage test. But that, using the formula for calculation that we have so far, it seems that the difference between the award rates and the rates prescribed by the agreement, the advantage to the employees is fairly minimal. And, consequently, if there was any variation in the hours of work experienced by the employees, there may be a question about whether or not the agreement would pass the no disadvantage test.

PN30

Now, I want to make this as convenient for you as possible, but what we need is some record of the hours of work performed by the employees over an appropriate period so that we can have the calculations recommitted on the basis of the actual experience of the employees in relation to their hours of work. We have conducted the calculations on the basis of certain assumptions.

PN31

I am doubtful as to whether those assumptions really are appropriate. For example, only minimal hours of work for Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays have been entered into the calculations. It would seem to me that the numbers we have used so far are likely to be less than the incidence of those hours of work, given the nature of the industry and the work performed by the employees. So I am going to invite you to make a suggestion as to what information could be provided in order to allow the Commission to make a more accurate calculation of the no disadvantage test.

PN32

MR P. ZOELFEL: Is the issue, Commissioner, with respect to the penalty rate absorption provision with respect to weekend work?

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, it is - - -

PN34

MR ZOELFEL: Well, it is actually an absorption provision which is - - -

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: You will have to stand up, Mr Brown.

PN36

MR ZOELFEL: It is an absorption provision which relates only to - if a person only works on a Sunday, there is no absorption. If a person works on a Saturday, there is no absorption of the penalty rate except to the extent of any over-agreement payment which is made commonly throughout these operations.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: That is right.

PN38

MR ZOELFEL: If there is a spread of hours across the week, then the absorption is pro rata across the week. So there is, say, 24 hours work at single time - say Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday - and then there is an over-agreement component. Then the absorption would only be the extent of the margin of the over-agreement component versus the penalty that would apply on the Sunday, for example, which is 75 per cent or 25 per cent as the case would be on a Saturday.

PN39

So there would never be an issue where somebody works a combination of, say, 24 hours on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and eight hours on a Sunday. The combination of what the penalty would be on the agreement, minimum rates, they would not get less than a combination of the three 8 to 24, plus the eight hours on the Sunday, another probably 1.75, taken across what the margin would be over and above the minimum agreement rate. So that may give some light with some examples.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it may be that you can demonstrate this submission in documentary form. I would just indicate to you the way in which the no disadvantage test is currently conducted by the Commission. The comparison is made between the incidence of hours of work under the agreement and the operation of the terms of the agreement with the same hours of work performed under the relevant award, depending on the classification of the employee, and what the amount of payment payable under the award would be for those hours.

PN41

Now, I will provide you with this information in due course, partly to make sure that the assumptions about the operation of the terms of the agreement by the Commission are correct; or you may quarrel with the interpretation of the effects of the terms, I don't know but - and that is done by software which has been developed for that purpose. Now, what it shows at the present time is some advantage but not great advantage to the employees under the terms of the agreement, according to the calculations that have been conducted.

PN42

They have been conducted by staff who were dedicated to that task and I haven't had the opportunity at this stage to question the methodology that they have used in terms of modelling the terms of the agreement against the award and the data that they have entered in order to give a fair test. And I think there are some questions that I want answered but I haven't been able to have that done in the time available before this afternoon's hearing.

PN43

But it would help me if what you could provide me with is the actual incidence of hours of work of the employees covered. Now, I am assuming - correct me if I am wrong - that there must be a payroll record of this and it is really just extracting a roster or a set of rosters, or an actual payroll record recording the hours worked for a group of employees, and an appropriate sample group in each of the three categories that have to be addressed - that is to say the fitness instructors, the childcare employees and the clerical and administrative workers - over an appropriate period.

PN44

Now, the reason why I invited you to make a suggestion was because different organisations have different accounting methods and they are formatted differently, and it is convenient to provide some information for particular periods or in particular formats, depending upon the methods and the technology that the particular organisation is using. So what I am really looking for is for some information which is valid in relation to the actual experience of the employees in recent times in order that that data can be input for our program, our evaluation.

PN45

MR ZOELFEL: Some payroll records.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. But also it would assist greatly if you were able to document the treatment that you explained just a moment ago of the rates. It is not something that I think lends itself to discussion. It is something that probably needs to be done by computation and needs to be analysed, either on a screen or on paper.

PN47

MR ZOELFEL: That can be done quite easily.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, I think that that is probably all that I was really looking for this afternoon, was to establish that. I was particularly interested to have some of the employees who are covered by the agreements present so that they could understand the process and understand what has to be done. The agreement must be made in accordance with the requirements of the Act. It is not simply that it has been made in an orderly fashion. The law requires that certain things be done. Now, the law also requires that I be satisfied that the agreement passes a no disadvantage test which is prescribed in the Act which is designed to ensure that no person covered by any of the terms of the agreement will be disadvantaged by the certification of the agreement. In order to do that, a calculation is required.

PN49

Given the complexity of the terms of the agreement which you just explained, I think we need to make sure that the calculation is being conducted in a proper manner. It was essential that everybody understand that that calculation is under way. It will be produced in writing in due course and will form part of these proceedings. A preliminary calculation has been made.

PN50

I will release that information to the parties and I will direct that the employer distribute copies to those employees who have appeared today for their information to understand where the matter is up to, but also they should understand that that is really just a first attempt at assessing the terms of the agreement in relation to the no disadvantage test. And I will invite the employer to provide payroll details of the actual hours worked and also an explanation of the terms of the agreement and its effects in relation to those hours when compared with the relevant awards.

PN51

It is a question of how long this should take. That depends largely on how long it is reasonable to expect you to produce the information that I am seeking. Do you have a view on that?

PN52

MR ZOELFEL: About two weeks.

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right.

PN54

MR ZOELFEL: To get around to all the sites.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, right. Very well. Well, I will direct accordingly that within two weeks the employer provide to the Commission - what do you think is a reasonable sort of timeframe for the hours? Do you pay fortnightly?

PN56

MR ZOELFEL: Some fortnightly, some weekly.

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, if it is weekly, it will be two weeks. If it is fortnightly, it will be one fortnightly period of a sample of the employees within the relevant classifications from each of the workplaces covered by the agreements that are subject to the applications. That sample should not only reflect the classifications of work within which the employees work, but also be a reasonable sample of the number of employees that are employed in the workplace; and also to produce to the Commission a documentary analysis of the operation of the terms of the agreement in relation to those hours of work. Very well, that is that. I think I need to - do I need to designate? I do, don't I?

PN58

MR ZOELFEL: Yes, just one thing.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: 170XA, designations required, is it not?

PN60

MR BROWN: Sorry, Commissioner, there is just one issue. The Prahran and Chirnside Park franchises are relatively new and employ minimal numbers of people. So that may create a bit of an issue with respect to those.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, I am not - if you can just explain that in the documentation.

PN62

MR BROWN: Yes, okay.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: If the sampling is adequate across, there is quite a number of employment sites so I can't see that there will be an anomaly there. Now, I do need to designate, do I not, under section 170XA for three awards proposed? All right. Are there any other awards to cover this employment, to your knowledge?

PN64

MR ZOELFEL: Not that we are aware of, Commissioner. No, they were the three.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, I will order that those be the designated awards pursuant to section 170XA of the Act for the purposes of the no disadvantage test. Could I just be - there is just a few things that I was looking at when I was reading the terms of the agreement when it first arrived. Clause 8.1: what is the nature of the operation of that clause? Is that such that an employee is paid when they are undertaking training?

PN66

MR ZOELFEL: That provision, Commissioner, is that where training is a requirement of the job or it is a referred work requirement, that would be paid.

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: They will be paid their hourly rate plus other incidental costs associated.

PN68

MR ZOELFEL: Correct.

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Is clause 11.2.2, it is not meant to be understood that the number of hours to be worked, the number of ordinary hours, is to be changed?

PN70

MR BROWN: Yes. You are correct.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: It is not to be read that way. It is to be read that the incidence of the hours may be changed by mutual agreement.

PN72

MR BROWN: That is correct, that is correct.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Could you take a note of all of these things, please, Mr Zoelfel, because what I want from you is an undertaking that these interpretations are the appropriate interpretations for the purposes of the Act because they all touch upon, or potentially the no disadvantage test. In other words, an employee's hours can't be increased from 38 to 39. The agreement is a 38 hour week, ordinary time hours.

PN74

MR ZOELFEL: The agreement is for a 38 hour, ordinary hour week, yes.

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that is right.

PN76

MR ZOELFEL: That is the incidence.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, does clause 11.2.3 involve both ordinary and overtime hours?

PN78

MR ZOELFEL: The clause relates to ordinary hours.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: Ordinary hours. Thank you. Yes, please make a note of all of this because what I am going to ask you to do is to write me a letter with the information that you provide saying that you have noted these interpretations, state them in a letter and indicate that they are given - an undertaking is given that those will be the interpretations applied to the terms of the agreement if certified in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

PN80

In relation to 11.4.5, is that casual conversion provision - is there any relevant casual conversion provision in the designated awards, do you know? You may nod if the answer is you don't know. That is fine. I will just pursue that myself. Because I think that some of the casual conversion provisions in the Commission's awards are after 6 months, not 12. It is relevant for the no disadvantage test. That is not a matter as to undertakings; that is a matter for the Commission to research. I will ask my associate to take a note of that.

PN81

MR ZOELFEL: Commissioner, just at 11.4.2, we just were going to put on the record that that should be 30 per cent.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: I beg your pardon, let me just look at that.

PN83

MR ZOELFEL: Which makes it consistent with the rates at the back.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: 11.4.2, all right. So that should be 30 per cent. Yes, I think, in fact, I was coming to that. I have marked - I think it is in an appendix at the back, isn't it? There is a reference to 30 per cent.

PN85

MR ZOELFEL: There is another reference in the agreement as well to 30 per cent. That is a typo.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. That is a typographical error?

PN87

MR ZOELFEL: Yes, it is, yes.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, I need a replacement page wherever that typographical error appears with an explanation. As for clause 14.3, there are a number of casual employees employed, are there not? In fact, one of the deficiencies in the calculations conducted so far, on my instructions, is that they haven't been conducted, in my view, in accordance with the incidence of casual employment, but that will have to be remedied in due course. Do you know whether or not that provision as far as casual employees has comparative provision in the designated awards? That is to say, the total number of I presume what will be the ordinary time rate plus 30 per cent.

PN89

MR ZOELFEL: Commissioner, I am aware that the Fitness Industry 2000 (Victoria) Award has a 30 per cent provision in it.

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I am thinking about the number of hours that can be worked at the ordinary time rate plus 30 per cent. It is 184, is it not, in a month here? Or at least 184 in a four weeks cycle. It is that particular aspect of the clause.

PN91

MR ZOELFEL: I am not sure if there are those same limitations in all the awards. I know there are - - -

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: Does the Fitness Award provide for overtime rates for casuals? You don't know.

PN93

MR ZOELFEL: I would have to - - -

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: It is all right if you don't know the answer - - -

PN95

MR ZOELFEL: No, I would have to double check. I think it does, from reading recollection.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: Does this - I think somebody is suggesting to you that may not be the case. I would like you to address that subject if you could from the point of view of the no disadvantage test, the comparison of that particular provision of the casual employment terms and the terms of the relevant designated awards. Because I am assuming that the concept is that there is no overtime rate for casual employees in this agreement; that they can work any number of hours to a maximum of 184 at the ordinary time rate plus 30 per cent.

PN97

MR ZOELFEL: Correct.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: In a four week cycle.

PN99

MR ZOELFEL: It is a four week cycle, yes.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: What happens if they work more than 184 in a four week cycle?

PN101

MR ZOELFEL: There is a provision there for mutual agreement, and the general practice - and I will take this on notice - is that where they work more than 7.6 hours in a day, there would be a penalty applied. And I will check the Fitness Award; I am sure that is what that - my recollection is that that applies in that award, being the federal award. There may be some confusion. Some people may be back there with the state - the second determinations.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. What I am really looking for is some sort of clarification of what are the ordinary time rates for casual and whether or not there is any concept of a penalty rate for casuals. It seems that there is - there doesn't seem to be any expressed there. It just seems to be a maximum of 184 hours. Is it possible that a casual employee would work more than 184 hours in four weeks? Well, perhaps that might be remedied simply by an explanation that the agreement is such that it is not permissible under the terms of the agreement for that employment to occur.

PN103

MR BROWN: Yes. Makes sense.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, the other aspect of the matter is the question of full time, part time and fixed term employment where the time off in lieu of the ordinary - the excess over the ordinary hours is substituted for the payment of a penalty rate. That is the concept in clause 15; in particular, subclause 15.3, is that right?

PN105

MR ZOELFEL: That is correct. That is the concept.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: And it is hour for hour.

PN107

MR ZOELFEL: Correct.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: So there is no penalty.

PN109

MR ZOELFEL: Correct.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that the case under the relevant awards?

PN111

MR ZOELFEL: I would need to get them to check. I think it - - -

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps you can deal with that in the correspondence.

PN113

MR ZOELFEL: I am not even sure if it is dealt with in the Federal Fitness Award. I would need to check those three awards.

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you deal with that in the correspondence, please, as to how that should be reckoned for the purposes of the no disadvantage test? Can I just dwell on that for a moment. It is not entirely clear whether that is the exclusive method of compensation for the working of hours over and above the ordinary hours of 152 in the four week cycle or whether or not, in fact, it is a discretionary entitlement to the employee. Is that something that can occur at the election of the employee, or is it the entitlement?

PN115

MR ZOELFEL: Where additional hours are worked, that is an entitlement.

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: That is the entitlement. It is not just a discretionary choice of the employee to say, well, I will either have the loading or I will take an hour off in lieu of the hour worked.

PN117

MR ZOELFEL: That is the entitlement.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: That is the entitlement. All right. Is there any minimum shift length in any of the relevant designated awards as is prescribed by clause 16.2? Perhaps you could deal with that in the correspondence. Is there any equivalent of clause 22.6.1(a) in the relevant awards? I think the answer is no, is it not? It is unlikely to be yes? It confers an additional discretion for termination without notice so that the loss of the notice period is a disadvantage to be weighed in the no disadvantage test, because the award, I don't think, provides that discretionary abolition of the entitlement to notice.

[3.15pm]

PN119

But you may wish - if I am wrong about that, you may wish to comment upon that after you have considered these aspects of the agreements and the awards. I have some difficulty, I must say, with clause 23.5.2. It is not that I necessarily have a concluded view about it, I should say, in fact I think it may well be a clause which is capable of being incorporated into an agreement. But the concept of an agreement is that the terms of the agreement are fixed for the life of the agreement. In any event, you may or may not wish to comment on that, that is up to you. That is a matter I will just give some consideration to.

PN120

As I say, I don't have a concluded view about it, but I think the concept is, if there are severance pay provisions provided for by an agreement then they are to be the severance payments to apply to any severance that is relevant during the life of the agreement. The concept of the terms of an agreement are variable during their life, is a little bit at odds, I think, with the concept of the bargain the parties make for the life of the agreement. I doubt that it is a matter of great significance.

PN121

Is the sick leave entitlement the same as the relevant awards? There is five days under the agreement. Have you given consideration as to whether or not it is the same as the relevant awards? You say it is the same as the relevant awards, do you, that is to say, the number of days paid leave? Is it the case that the Long Service Leave Act Victoria would confer long service leave entitlements on casual employees in certain circumstances? I think it is, is it not.

PN122

MR ZOELFEL: I think it is.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: The Long Service Leave Act in Victoria does confer, in certain circumstances, entitlements to long service to casual employees.

PN124

MR ZOELFEL: Well, that it does, yes.

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: But this agreement is limited only to full-time employees, apparently, in clause 28.1, yet there is a bit of a contradiction in clause 28.3 where the agreement says:

PN126

Long service leave will be in accordance with the Long Service Leave Act Victoria 1992.

PN127

Is it the intention that the entitlement to leave is limited to or excludes casual employees or does it incorporate those provisions of the Long Service Leave Act which confer long service leave entitlements upon casual employees?

PN128

MR BROWN: At clause 34.7, Commissioner, the various leaves and loadings that are not - do not apply to casual employees are outlined and long service leave is not amongst them.

PN129

THE COMMISSIONER: Right so you say you are cashing it out, is that right? You say you are effectively - - -

PN130

MR BROWN: We are not because it is not there.

PN131

THE COMMISSIONER: It is not there.

PN132

MR BROWN: Long service leave is not so by effect it does apply.

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, that will require an undertaking in order to clarify the conflict between clause 28.1 and clause 28.3. Is the schedule of payments - I am sorry, schedule of the incidence of the employment for which the 30 percent loading is compensation, is that reflected in the relevant awards?

PN134

MR ZOELFEL: It is my understanding that generally the casual loading in the award - in the Fitness Award is 30 percent. It is a similar - has a similar application to what is in this agreement.

PN135

THE COMMISSIONER: Including accident pay?

PN136

MR ZOELFEL: I will have to double check that.

PN137

THE COMMISSIONER: Would you please address the comparison between the relevant award terms in relation to the incidence of the employment for which the 30 percent loading is compensation and the incidence identified in the agreement and make comment upon those? Those are the only other matters that occurred to me on my reading of the agreement that I would invite comment upon and that commentary should be provided at the same time as the other material when commentary and analysis is provided to the Commission.

PN138

Subject to the outcome of the assessment of the agreement against the no disadvantage test being positive, it may not be necessary for there to be any further attendance at the Commission. After I have received the relevant information I will advise the parties accordingly. Thank you, this matter is adjourned until a time and date to be fixed, if necessary.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.23pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #A1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS PN15