AG2003/10625, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 339 (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 10768

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER CRIBB

AG2003/10625

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF
AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LJ of the Act by
NGT Corporate Services Ltd and Another for
certification of the NGT Staff Agreement 2003

MELBOURNE

10.58 AM, THURSDAY, 15 JANUARY 2004

THIS HEARING WAS CONDUCTED VIA VIDEO LINK AND RECORDED IN MELBOURNE

PN1

MR B. O'BRIEN: I appear for the Australian Services Union.

PN2

MR J. GLISSON: I appear for NGT Corporate Services.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Glisson, I think this was your application with respect to section 170XF. Is that correct?

PN4

MR GLISSON: That is correct, Commissioner, yes.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Would you like to make your submissions, Mr Glisson?

PN6

MR GLISSON: We are seeking in a few months to supersede a previous agreement that was registered with the Commission, an agreement that was reached before Senior Deputy President Kaufman in Melbourne on 24 September 2001. It was AG2001/4584. That agreement has been in place for a number of years now and the no disadvantage test when we registered that agreement was compared with a number of state clerical and admin awards and the CETSS Award or, to give it the correct term, it is the Community Employment Training and Support Services Award with the federal Commission.

PN7

Our organisation has expanded into a number of other states over that period of time and we feel that the state awards that we have used for the comparison are really not relevant any more, mainly because, as I say, in the range of states now we feel we should be using a federal award for the comparison. The type of work we do is similar to that espoused in the CETSS Award and, in fact, a good number of the clauses from our agreement are a direct take from the CETSS Award and we seek to have that used as the comparison for the no disadvantage test.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Glisson. Mr O'Brien?

PN9

MR O'BRIEN: Yes, Commissioner, the ASU agrees that that is the appropriate award for the purposes of the no disadvantage test. It may well be a good time to just bring something to your attention too, that just as a matter of an inadvertent error, in part 7 of the statutory declaration if we could seek leave to vary that. There is actually - the Community Employment Training and Support Services Award appears in the wrong spot. It should actually be at 7.2.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Does that accord with your understanding, Mr Glisson?

PN11

MR GLISSON: Yes, Commissioner. I apologise. I think the original draft was put together by myself, so it is my error and I am sorry about that.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: No, that is fine, Mr Glisson. I shall amend 7.1 and move the Community Employment Training and Support Services Award to 7.2.

PN13

MR GLISSON: Thank you.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr O'Brien. With respect to this matter, the Commission makes the following determination. Upon application by NGT Corporate Services Limited and in accordance with subsection 170XF(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, I determine that the Community Employment Training and Support Services Award is the appropriate award for deciding whether the NGT Staff Agreement 2003 passes the no disadvantage test. The designated award is an award under the Act which regulates terms or conditions of employment of persons engaged in the same kind of work as that of those persons under the agreement. This matter is now adjourned. We will call on the application for certification.

PN15

MR J. GLISSON: I appear for NGT Corporate Services.

PN16

MR B. O'BRIEN: I appear for the Australian Services Union.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Glisson?

PN18

MR GLISSON: Commissioner, agreement has been reached between NGT Corporate Services, our employees and the union that represents those employees, being the Australian Services Union, to give its abbreviated name, I am sorry. We seek to have that agreement certified under division 2 of section 170LJ by the Commission. This agreement, in fact, replaces or supersedes or is likely to supersede AG2001/4584, the previous NGT Staff Agreement 2001, which was certified before Senior Deputy President Kaufman in Melbourne on 24 September 2001. Madam Commissioner, may I ask is there any preference for the order in the issues that need to be raised? Do you want me to explain about the ballot process first or consultation - - -

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Glisson, I am in your hands.

PN20

MR GLISSON: Okay. We will just proceed then if that is okay. To go first to the ballot process, there was a ballot conducted by myself, the accountant at the organisation where I am employed and a number of the staff. We circulated to all staff a ballot paper; a copy of the agreement was made available on the intranet in every office on every desk of our organisation and hard copies were circulated through all the lunchrooms and in the rest areas to make sure that everybody had access to the agreement well in advance of it being put to a ballot.

PN21

The ballot was conducted and each employee was supplied with a ballot paper, an envelope which both were signed by the returning officer. They were asked to fill out the ballot paper indicating whether they support the agreement or oppose the agreement. They were asked then to put the ballot paper into the plain envelope and return that to the ballot box in each of the regions. They were then collected up and returned to our business admin office in Launceston, where the ballot was counted on 24 December. The return on the ballot, there were 110 ballot papers returned: in favour of the agreement were 87, opposed to the agreement were 23, so that is a 79 per cent in favour and 21 per cent against.

PN22

We have gone back even since then to try and find out if there were any outstanding issues that the 21 per cent opposed the agreement based on to see if we could still further improve it but the issues have been I think discussed further in that time and some of the issues really didn't relate to the agreement at all, or some of the reasons they opposed it. That related to what we refer to as policies of management rather than the agreement itself. So I think those in favour would probably now be nearer to 90 per cent than the 87 that actually voted in favour of it.

PN23

The agreement itself has been developed over a good number of months and it has been developed by way of consultation with all the regions, or all the offices of our organisation. Sorry if I refer to them as regions but we talk about our regional offices. Our main office is in Launceston and we have regional offices in Hobart, Devonport, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane - sorry, and Perth although I - yes, and Perth. So the regional offices all had discussions. We have had a number of telephone links. We have had representatives from each of the offices come to Tasmania to sit down and discuss things about the agreement. Representatives were elected in each office to make sure that it wasn't someone appointed by management and not by ourselves. And, yes, it was - they were democratically elected and those representatives took part in the discussions, the funding cuts and the feedback sessions that have been conducted over the past six months to try and improve and work on the agreement to change it to meet everybody's needs.

PN24

As I say, we had a very good base to start from. We had an agreement already registered with the Commission. That agreement has been varied each year with the CPI increases applying to the wage rates so they have maintained its relative position by the CPI. And the new agreement also would include the CPI increases for all the bands, the wage bands within the agreement. All staff at levels 4 and below will automatically get the CPI to their individual wage rate as well as the band moving. Those that are at level 5 and above, there is a range of KPIs that have been developed with their input. They set their own budgets in about May to June of each year. They set their targets, their budgets and, if they meet those targets and budgets, they will get rewards accordingly. And if they exceed - if they think they meet the KPIs, say they meet it a hundred per cent or 101 per cent, they would get the CPI plus they would be eligible for two bonuses of $1500 throughout the course of that year as well. It is a way of trying to reward those that are actually working that much harder, more effectively, more efficiently, and delivering the goods. We are a not for profit organisation and sometimes we find it difficult to motivate people to get into the market and sell things rather than simply the pastoral care of trainees. And there is very different roles within the organisation that need to be taken account.

PN25

A number of things in the agreement other than that that are changed, one of them was the fact that we have had to change the classification and definition structure and we have, in fact, simply taken the CETSS structure now and placed it into this award. The previous award was signed for our group employment staff and our basic office staff, the admin staff, but for people in a number of other areas of the organisation where we have got a new apprenticeship centre contract now, their role wasn't really picked up in the old definitions and what we have done there is broaden the definitions out using the CETSS definitions and that now does allow us to pick up all the staff and no one feels that they are really not covered by it. And that was I suppose a beef that a number of the staff had right from the start with the agreement and one of the things that we have had to change in order to get everybody happy and satisfied and feel content with the outcomes.

PN26

A couple of other things that we have changed. We have changed the redundancy clause from the old agreement to the new one. The old agreement had what I think is commonly referred to as the metal standard where up to 12 years - up to 12 weeks after four years with four weeks notice. We simply applied a standard where we are saying we will pay two weeks pay per year of service up to a maximum of 26 weeks right the way through. It saves the hassles of arguing, and arguing about whether or not someone should or should not, and we have just said it will be - or management have said it will be two weeks pay per year of service up to a total of 26 weeks capped.

PN27

Increased notice of termination especially for the level 5 and above, they are required to give four weeks notice or management would have to give four weeks notice in return if they wish to terminate. At that level we thought that to replace an individual of that calibre is much more difficult than simply grabbing someone from the unemployment register, and we would need time to replace someone if they are going to - that is not to say if individuals are leaving us to go to our competition, we would pay them out and refuse them access to the various files and information.

PN28

They are the most significant changes in the agreement. As I say, the pay rates have increased by CPI and will continue to do so. The Commission, as I understand it, would require also a clear understanding that there are - if there are females in the workforce or persons of non-English speaking background or young persons, that they have been given every opportunity to have it fully explained and they do understand the content of the agreement and the changes that are taking place. I can certainly assure the Commission that the females in our workforce all fully understand it and, in fact, over half of the committee that negotiated it were female. And I have got to be careful of what I say here because it might come back - - -

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you had.

PN30

MR GLISSON: I can certainly assure the Commission that the females in our organisation are of a calibre that people couldn't pull the wool over their eyes on anything of this nature. They are very clever individuals, I must say. For young persons, we do have a number of young persons and it has been explained to them. 90 per cent of our junior staff come to us by way of a traineeship and part of the traineeship that they undertake involves the explanation of the industrial relations system, how awards are created, made and developed, and it has been reinforced during this process to make sure they do understand what it is about; the fact that the agreement, once certified, becomes law and it will govern their terms and conditions of employment for - well, until it is replaced or rescinded or removed.

PN31

We don't have any non-English speaking background people in our workforce at this stage. That is not to say it won't be in the future but at this stage there are none. So that part of the equation really isn't an issue, I don't believe. I think really that covers all I intended to say, unless there are any questions the Commission has about the agreement. Thank you.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: No, that was very comprehensive, Mr Glisson. I thank you for that. Mr O'Brien.

PN33

MR O'BRIEN: Yes, thanks, Commissioner. The main points that I wish to make are that the agreement was negotiated on behalf of the union by Mr Ian Paterson from our Tasmanian branch - most of the union members are located in Tasmania rather than the other states - and he assures me that it matches up very appropriately to the Community Employment, Training and Support Services Award and passes the no disadvantage test in that respect. I agree with what Mr Glisson was saying that perhaps if the certificate of certification indicates that it supersedes the past agreement, makes that clear as the agreement itself doesn't make that clear; and it would continue on in concert with the other if it wasn't actually referred to as superseding in this particular agreement in the certificate. I think they are the only points that I really need to say, apart from the fact that we agree with Mr Glisson's submission. No, they are the only points that I need to make, Commissioner.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr O'Brien. Having heard the submissions of the parties, together with the statutory declarations that have been submitted in support of the application and taking into account the terms of the agreement itself, I am satisfied the agreement meets the relevant requirements of the Act and the rules. Consequently I shall certify the agreement from today's date. This matter is now adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.16am]