|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
ABN 72 110 028 825
Level 6, 114-120 Castlereagh St SYDNEY NSW 2000
PO Box A2405 SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235
Tel:(02) 9238-6500 Fax:(02) 9238-6533
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
O/N 13313
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER REDMOND
C2004/1388
THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION
and
EDI RAIL PTY LIMITED
Notification pursuant to Section 99 of the Act
of an industrial dispute re alleged refusal of
company to reclassify employees
TORONTO LOCAL COURT
10.18 AM, WEDNESDAY, 25 AUGUST 2004
PN1
THE COMMISSIONER: Appearances please?
PN2
MR K. MAHER: If the Commission pleases I appear for the Australian Workers' Union. With me I have MR J. KOSTYK, MR W. SWEETMAN, MR B. JACKSON and MR R. WINNEY. Mr Winney and Mr Jackson will be giving evidence in this matter, Commissioner.
PN3
MR S. GORDON: If it pleases the Commission, for the Australian Industry Group. I appear on behalf of our member company EDI Rail Pty Limited. With me today at the bar table are MR M. BRUCE who is the manager for test and commissioning at Cardiff and MR A. COLLISON who is the facility manager at Cardiff. Also today in the gallery for witnesses are Mr S. Richens who is the group leader for test and commissioning, Mr Jonathon White who is the group leader for fit-out and Stuart Morris who is the production manager.
PN4
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Gordon. Mr Maher and Mr Gordon, your witnesses are in court. I require the witnesses to wait outside until they're called please. Would you ask your witnesses to leave?
PN5
MR MAHER: Thank you, sir. I'm just hesitant to see them go out there. It's a little bit different environment than usual, Commissioner. I hope they get back in in one piece.
PN6
THE COMMISSIONER: I understand it's apprehended violence day at Toronto Courthouse today, Mr Maher, so you could be right. Yes, Mr Maher, this is your application.
PN7
MR MAHER: Thank you, Commissioner. As you will be aware this is the fourth time that we've been together on this matter. The last time was at the EDI Cardiff plant where the Commission took part in some inspections and I will be going to that inspection in evidence. For the record, Commissioner, this matter is purely and simply a matter that we say involves the reclassification of the F11 crew. That crew consists of a crew leader and the rest of the crew are made up of RPE level 1 mechanical tradesmen.
PN8
The union's claim is that the entire crew be reclassified to the rolling stock technician level and we will bring evidence to justify that claim. We also say on record that our claim in no way offends the wage fixing principles or the 2004 safety net review and any reclassification that would involve these people going from their current classifications to the technician classification will be entirely consistent with those principles and that review.
PN9
First up, Commissioner, I would like to call our first witness and that is Richard Winney.
PN10
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN11
MR GORDON: If it pleases the Commission would it be appropriate that I make opening submissions prior to calling - - -
PN12
THE COMMISSIONER: If you want to make an opening submission you can. Sometimes the employers prefer to leave their opening submission until they start their case but I am not opposed to you making an opening submission at this stage, Mr Gordon, if you want to.
PN13
MR GORDON: I think that would be appropriate.
PN14
MR MAHER: I have no objection, Commissioner.
PN15
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Gordon?
PN16
MR GORDON: Thank you, Commissioner. This matter as indicated was originally listed for conciliation before the Commission on 15 January. The parties requested that hearing to be stood over to allow discussions to be held at the site level. Site discussions progressed on 15 January, 11 February, 23 April, 22 June and on 23 June 2004 the parties reported back to the Commission. At this report back the parties provided the Commission with written submissions setting out the claim by the employees and the union and the company's response rejecting that claim and subsequently arranged for a site inspection to be held by the Commission on 5 August 2004. I take it that the parties all have copies of those submissions and I think that is appropriate.
PN17
THE COMMISSIONER: Those submissions I have on the file, Mr Gordon, and the parties can be assured that I have read them.
PN18
MR GORDON: The parties were not able to resolve the matter in conciliation immediately following the site inspection and the parties are now before the Commission to have the matter determined by arbitration. The arbitration is consistent with clause 12 Disputes and Issues Resolution Procedure under what is titled the NRS Certified Agreement 2004 which applies at the Cardiff site and was certified by the Commission on 11 October 2002. In particular if it is appropriate, Commissioner, I will hand up a copy of that clause. We may be specifically referring to that clause and also another clause in the same area, multiskilling, so it may be appropriate that I make that available. Do you wish that to be marked as an exhibit?
PN19
THE COMMISSIONER: Not at this stage, Mr Gordon.
PN20
MR GORDON: This dispute involves the F11 crew employees, as I understand it Messrs Robinson, Phillips, Jackson, Star and Donohue who are classified as rolling stock production employees level 1; that will be referred to commonly as the RPE level 1 classification under the EBA and they are claiming reclassification up to the next classification which is rolling stock production employee or RPT as commonly referred to.
PN21
The current weekly rate of pay for these classifications for RP level 1 as I understand it to the nearest cents anyway is $803.84 for the RPE level 1 and the RPT is $867.78 and there is a margin of difference of $63.94. The company rejects the claim on the basis that, one, the employees have not been able to demonstrate their claim when their role, responsibilities and duties are objectively compared to the RPT classification description in the EBA and the work undertaken by the other employees so classified. Secondly, the EBA specifically provides at clause 11 for the multiskilling between classification streams without receiving an increase or reduction in salary.
PN22
Thirdly, that the employees in the company entered into an EBA in good faith with employees being fully aware of the classification structure, the role and responsibilities and duties they carried out which have not demonstrably changed during the life of the EBA to date.
PN23
Fourthly, acceding to the claim would result in an unsustainable employee relations outcome which would result in further wage and reclassification claims by other RPE level 1 and RPT classification employees and/or the re-organisation of work across those classifications as a result of any change in regard to the classifications through this matter.
PN24
Accordingly, as agreement could not be reached the union and the company requested the Commission to determine the appropriate classifications for the employees subject to the claim and by way of arbitration. We would note in regard to the dispute settlement clause that the clause provides that the decision of the Commission is final and binding on the parties and the company understands this to mean that the decision of the Commission includes the decision of a single Commissioner or a Full Bench if so constituted.
PN25
Today the company intends to lead evidence from three witnesses which will demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that its position in rejecting the F11 crew claim for classification at RPT level is a fair and valid response to the claim and it will be our submission that the Commission should also reject the claim.
PN26
The nature of our submissions and evidence is consistent with long established industrial law principles used by industrial tribunals and courts to determine classification and reclassification disputes. These centre on the principle of assessing what the employees are mainly engaged to do, take into the consideration the classification description and the work actually undertaken.
PN27
I make reference now, Commissioner, to some case citations and I have identified those case citations and provided copies of each of the decisions for the parties reference and the Commission. I will hand those up.
PN28
PN29
MR GORDON: Thank you, Commissioner. When referencing those matters I will refer to the specific pages in which part of the decision I am talking to. Just briefly, Commissioner Whelan addressed at page 11 of decision in 1998 concerning a similar matter to the one before us today involving Ansett Air Freight v Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical Services Union and the case citations identify the print number details etcetera, where the Commissioner stated that the principles generally applied by the Commission, by the Federal Court and by State Tribunals in determining whether a person's employment fits within the classification description of an award are discussed by Moore J in Logan v Otis Elevator Company Pty Limited, a decision of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia which went unreported on 20 June 1997.
PN30
The following can be derived from the case discussed by his Honour in that matter:
PN31
The principle is generally referred to as the major or substantial employment although the expression principal purpose of employment is also used it is not merely a matter of quantifying the time spent ...(reads)... or spends more than 50 per cent of his or her time on one or more of the functions of this level.
PN32
This is consistent with an earlier decision of the Commission in 1991 involving the Metal and Engineering Workers Union v Acro Pty Limited at print J9438 where Commissioner Cox at page 2 of that decision in dealing with a reclassification dispute endorsed the approach taken by the Full Bench of the Commission in 1998 at print H5666 - again all decisions are included in that bundle of citations - and stated:
PN33
The question to be answered to determine this issue is whether or not Mr Williams is mainly engaged on such work.
PN34
The Full Bench decision sets out the meaning of mainly engaged in the following terms:
PN35
Mainly engaged means regularly over a period or intermittently during the week.
PN36
We endorse this approach taken in these cited decisions as being highly relevant to determining this matter. Commissioner Whelan also noted at page 8 of the 1998 Ansett Airfreight decision that in regard to the situations involving skill based classification structures as is the case with this classification structure and the certified agreement applying at the Carter facility:
PN37
While the work value principle most recently expressed by the Commission in the safety net review wages April 1998 decision, print Q1998 at page 65, is concerned with changes to work value, it is clear from an examination of that principle ...(reads)... I therefore accept that it is incumbent on the union to identify the reasons why they say the work value relativities established at that time are no longer valid.
PN38
We endorse this approach and see it as directly relevant to the matter before us today. In regard to the CEPU v Telstra Corporation decision Commissioner Holmes said at page 13:
PN39
What approach should the Commission adopt to the classification of positions? In considering the process to be utilised ...(reads)... in wage fixing principles of this Commission for many years.
PN40
Commissioner Holmes went on to set out the principles at the time which I note for the Commission's record are the same principles that apply under wage fixing principles and the following points are particularly relevant to today's matter. Point (b):
PN41
In applying the work value changes principle the Commission must have regard to the need for any alterations to wage relativities between awards to be based on skill, responsibility and the conditions under which the work is performed and that refers to section 88B(3)(a).
PN42
Point (g):
PN43
The expression the conditions under which the work is performed relates to the environment in which the work is done.
PN44
Point (h):
PN45
The Commission will guard against contrived classifications and over classification of jobs.
PN46
This case law gives good guidance on the proper and fair determination of this reclassification claim dispute. It is our submission that the following key dimensions of this dispute must be considered carefully in the context of the actual work environment and these relevant case law precedents. In effect in the first instance, and I'm concluding with these comments, Commissioner, reclassification must take into consideration for the EBA classification descriptions and the nature of work actually undertaken in the respective classifications and that goes to the issue of the major or substantial employment or principal purpose of employment or mainly engaged matter cited in the cases.
PN47
Reclassification must take into consideration the nature and frequency of carrying out the role, responsibility and duties of the higher classification and this refers to not merely the time spent on various elements of the work performed, it includes the quality and complexity of the different types of work. Reclassification must take into consideration that multi-skilling has been provided for in the rates of pay applying under the terms of the enterprise agreement. In considering the appropriate classification for a position in the context of a skill based classification structure work value principles are equally applicable.
PN48
And (4), the Commission must guard against wage leap-frogging arising out of changes in the relative position and that's work value changes point (a) and the Commission must guard against contrived classifications and over classification of jobs and that's identified in work value changes point (h). We intend to lead evidence from three witnesses that will support these submissions and the precedents established in the case law and we will down that path following the evidence led by Mr Maher, if it pleases the Commission.
PN49
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Gordon. Yes, Mr Maher, will you call your first witness?
PN50
PN51
MR MAHER: For the record again, Mr Winney, could you please state your full name and residential address?---Richard John Winney, 32 Fletcher Street, Edgeworth.
PN52
And you are employed by EDI Rail at the Cardiff work site?---Yes, I am.
PN53
How long have you been employed?---Five years.
PN54
And you are currently working as - - -?---Crew leader.
PN55
Crew leader, and you've been a crew leader for the company from - - -?---The day I started.
PN56
Day one of your employment. Mr Winney, could you tell the Commission currently what area you were working in?---We work in the F11 bogeying area which consists of bogeying the cars and testing.
PN57
How long have you been the crew leader in that area?---Probably back March 2002, yes, 2002, I'd say, approximately then, maybe a bit longer.
PN58
Prior to being a crew leader in the F11 area whereabouts were your responsibilities?---I moved all the way through from the start of the project, setting up the work shop and as each stage was finished I worked my way through until I came to the F11 stage. So I've been right through fit out, under frames, the whole lot.
PN59
And you're aware of the full role of mechanical fitters classified as RPE level 1s?---Yes, sir.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XN MR MAHER
PN60
Mr Winney, you were present the day that we had the inspection by Commissioner Redmond at the Cardiff site?---Yes, I was.
PN61
It would be fair to say that you, on behalf of the union's case, led that inspection?---Yes.
PN62
The first area of inspection was an area where we observed level one fitters working on some door mechanisms, is that correct?---Yes, they were an area where they make up the doors, put gear together, ready to go onto the cars at a later date. It's a sub-assembly area virtually.
PN63
What is the formal name of that area?---I don't think it really has a formal name, but it's a sub-assembly area that we know it as where they make up the components, certain components to go onto the units.
PN64
The work of the level 1 mechanical fitter, working in that area, could you give us a description of the way that a fitter would go through that procedure?---Well, they receive pick lists which is all the components. They will assemble a pick list into a finished unit, it would be put onto a car. They also do hubner units which is the joining of two cars together. They drill the jigs and set them up, bolt them on. They go right through. They'll set up bill mechanisms, side doors, rear doors, just put the mechanisms in. They do skirts, which is the fibre glass skirts on the side of the cars, they fit them, make them up initially then they fit them to the cars. That's just general fitting work. They do a certain amount of piping work in lockers which, there are certain stages of the project, you can only do certain stuff at certain times and they just follow through that way until the car is complete.
PN65
Now, the second area of the inspection was the area in question, the F11 area?---That's right.
PN66
Your work area?---That's it.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XN MR MAHER
PN67
The crew consists of the crew leader and a number of level 1, apparently classified level 1, mechanical fitters?---Yes.
PN68
Could you, in your own words, explain the difference between the functions required of an F11 mechanical fitter as compared to the level 1 fitters in the sub-assembly area?---In the F11 area, when we received the car that is on slave bogeys, we receive bogeys, we prepare them ready for the car to go on, naturally. We have to level the car first which is a process where we set it up on stands, we take measurements, shed levels of them and work out the twist in the car. So we've got to pack that out, get the car level, so that it will sit on the bogeys then we connect there. From that stage, we'll move it into a pit area where we tension all components under it, all the interfaces, from bogeys to car, finish off any piping that's not complete, like locker 5, locker 7s, pull and piping and add components to the car.
PN69
Could I stop you there for a moment, Mr Winney?---Yes.
PN70
That part of the F11 duties, could that be described as work that could be done by any level 1 fitter on the site at that stage?---There's a few that have done levelling through that area and a few who have done bogeying work, not all are up to scratch on it, but people can be trained.
PN71
And it's generally - - -?---Generally they don't do it. There is several members there that were in the crew originally that can do it, yes, but not all F1 fitters, not all level 1 fitters, no.
PN72
But all level 1 fitters would have the capacity to be able to be trained?---Yes, at that stage, yes.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XN MR MAHER
PN73
We move on?---Once we fit all the components we set it up for air testing which is, we've set up, we've made our own brake testing gear, using digital gauges, analogue gauges, the whole lot. We set pressure switches. We do brake function tests. I think mechanically we can't do all testing because we haven't got power on. As far as mechanically goes, we do quite a bit of mechanical - it's all mechanical work there, really, but no power. As I said, we cannot complete a full air test because of lack of power. As I said, we do the tensioning, everything is tensioned there so are all the interfaces. We set heights, air suspension heights, we'll do a couple of heights, floor heights, we record all that. All the data is recorded. We sign, put that down onto our test sheets, sign our test sheets off. From there we go to - we'll do a swing test which is move the car outside and we simulate a 70 metre curve with the moving of the traverser, the car is half on the traverser, half off. We record any faults, have taken photos of faults that occur consistently. We record the faults and sign off on that. Any repair work we have to re-test it again, after it's been repaired. Then we'll do a static gauge test which is a gauge passing over the car to show that it all comes within the SRA specifications for gauge. From there we'll go into the weighbridge area and we'll do passes over the weighbridge, record results, any fails we jack the car, jack the primary suspension on them, pack the primary suspension until we get the car within a pass. We record the data into the computer, into the software into the computer, to work out our pass or fails, but we have to, as I said, if it fails, we've got to get it to pass, so we do the packing of the bogeys then. From there we go to water test which is a complete car water test. It is put in the testing area, the towel goes over it. It's calibrated pressures, but it does the whole car. Any leaks we'll repair if we can, if not, the car is taken out repaired, if units have got to come off, we'll repair them, it goes back in again for another water test until it passes. But that is a complete car water test. Every car we do, it's always a single car test, not multiple car testing.
PN74
The third area that you led the inspection on was into the test bay itself, that had restricted access, so there was Commissioner Redmond and yourself, went into that area. How many work in the test bay?---I think there would be seven electricians and two mechanical.
PN75
They're all technicians?---As far as I'm aware of, yes, sir.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XN MR MAHER
PN76
There's seven electrical technicians and seven - - -?---I'm not sure about the electrical. I think it would be seven though.
PN77
But there are two mechanical - - -?---Two mechanical, yes.
PN78
- - - technicians. And the two mechanical technicians are the people that the F11 crew were comparing themselves to?---Well - - -
PN79
To an extent?---To an extent, yes.
PN80
But primarily the F11 crew are maintaining that they conform to the technician, production technician - - -?---Mechanically, yes.
PN81
- - - classification in the agreement?---Yes, mechanically, yes.
PN82
Are you familiar with the work that the mechanical technicians carry out in the test bay?---A fair bit of it, yes. Yes.
PN83
How are you familiar with that work?---Well, we go in there if they've got problems, they need help. They have asked us for help at times, we've gone in, we've talked to them, naturally. And we virtually work as a team, so we help each other, there's no problem there, and you find out what everybody does.
PN84
For the record, could you describe some of the functions you have carried out, assisting the technicians in the test bay?---Well, there was - there has been problems with leakage, something has gone wrong that they can't find the leak, which happened just recently actually, and they came and sought our assistance, and between us we found the problem.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XN MR MAHER
PN85
What type of leakage was it?---Air leak, sorry.
PN86
An air leak in the braking system?---Air leak in the braking system, yes. It was a solenoid actually, which we cannot pick up outside because the solenoid only works when the electric - when power is applied, and it was a faulty solenoid. But we narrowed it down to where it was.
PN87
Why would the mechanical technician in the test bay call on you people from the F11 - - -?---Maybe experience. We've tested a lot of cars and that - you go through the mechanical side of it, once electrical comes on you know that your mechanical side of it is okay, and if there's a faulty electrical part, well, it's all it can be, if all your mechanical stuff is working. If you can work it manually, it's okay. If, I mean, power goes on and there's something wrong, well obviously it's something to do with the powering system, or the unit that is being powered.
PN88
Mr Winney, you're familiar with the classification and the requirements of a rolling stock production technician in the award?---Mm.
PN89
Can I take you to some of the aspects of that. The role and responsibilities under that heading, under the supervision of the test engineer a rolling stock production technician will carry out any works or order operation falling within the competence of the RPT. Do the F11 crew work under the supervision of the test engineer?---Not directly, but the test that we perform and sign off go to the test engineer, and as far as I'm aware of, he records them into the system.
PN90
Where does the documentation come from that can form its - - -?---It comes in our work package. There's a scope of work. All the paperwork arrives with our pick list and we carry on from there. Each process has got its own set of tests. We go through the tests, do the tests and sign off.
PN91
Who compiles those check lists for you people to work through?---They're compiled by engineers from Granville, or have been made up from there. That's where they make them up.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XN MR MAHER
PN92
What role does the test engineer have in the formation of those documents?---After all the documents are completed, the test - well, all of the documents would have go with that particular car. He'd put it all together and send it with the cars, because it's that test information. The SRA would need that.
PN93
Mr Winney, does the test engineer frequently visit the F11 area?---On occasions he comes over, yes, we have a yarn, yes.
PN94
What would be the purpose of those visits?---To just say hello, virtually. Apparently we, we haven't had any complaints, so obviously we must be doing something right, because he is our customer virtually. We complete our scope of work, it goes to the test bay.
PN95
We'll carry on further down the role and responsibilities column. It says:
PN96
In doing so to the levels of the skills competency and training (a) perform work primarily involving the testing of all aspects of railway rolling stock.
PN97
How does the F11 crew conform to that part?---We do that - we do that mechanically. That's as far as we can go because there is no power on where we are. If we had power on, and more training, I'll agree with that, we could go further with the testing.
PN98
How much further could you go on the testing?---We could complete the testing the same as they do in the test bay, if we were under the same conditions.
PN99
So primarily what different test procedures would the mechanical technician in the test bay carry out that you level 1 F11 people can't?---Anything that requires power. It's unsafe to put power on where we are.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XN MR MAHER
PN100
The area of the braking system for instance, is that further tested in the test bay?---It is, because it's electrical pneumatic braking system. We can only do the pneumatic side of it. Once it goes into the test bay it is powered up and they can go a bit further with that, to complete the testing.
PN101
Do the mechanical figures have a role in that - - -?---Yes, they do, yes. They use a - they will check over the systems again and - but there's, like, computers fitted to the car which we don't have access to because they're not fitted at the time that we are working on them. They use a diagnostic computer, which we can't use because there's no power, and that's a fault finding thing. It's virtually the same as taking your Commodore to the mechanic and he puts its own diagnostic computer onto it to find faults and all that type of stuff. But we haven't got that luxury, as I said.
PN102
To go further, it says:
PN103
To perform work incidental to the primary testing task which facilitates completion of any works order and for which the RPT is skilled and competent to perform.
PN104
How does that fit in with the F11 role?---We do other - we finish off pipe work that's incomplete. If we do not finish that you - we can't do our testing. We put seats in, set them up. If all - if they're not in we can't do a weight test. It's, other components we add are all weight consuming components which are needed for that weight test. You just can't get a proper weigh if we don't fit all other components. So they're incidental and peripheral to our actual testing part, thing.
PN105
1.2 under the roles and responsibilities says:
PN106
In general to act as a team member in support of any testing and production or non production activity.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XN MR MAHER
PN107
Taking you to that, what percentage do you maintain is testing in the F11 role and what percentage is doing general production work?---We - the general production work is incidental to our testing. If we do not do that, we cannot test. The test would be irrelevant. So what we do add as what you'd call production work, is part of the test. We've got to add it. That's in our work scope, so we can complete the testing.
PN108
So your evidence is that 100 percent of your job on a day to day basis is the testing function on a testing car that is delivered to the F11 area?---Well we do shunting. We have to shunt cars between tests. If we don't shut them we still can't test. They've got to be moved to their particular areas, so we do lose time within shunting, but there is no way around that, that's part of our work scope - - -
PN109
Leaving the shunting aside then Mr Winney, is the primary function of an F11 employee to test the capacities of the car that's delivered to you?---That's the primary function, yes.
PN110
And any production work?---Is incidental to it, yes, it's got to be added otherwise we can't test.
PN111
I've no further questions.
PN112
PN113
MR GORDON: Thank you Commissioner. Mr Winney could I ask why this claim is being raised now?---It's been raised quite a while ago now.
PN114
When was the claim raised? This matter came before the Commissioner in January. I think you say you have been working in the area as the crew leader since 2002 for F11?---Yes, approximately.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XXN MR GORDON
PN115
And the EBA has been operating since 2002 we are now in 2004?---It had been discussed among the men and with the work we believe that it does go into the scope of technician. That was the feeling of most of the crew.
PN116
And when did that feeling come about?---I just forget the exact date but that we made the submission to.
PN117
But you were doing this work in the CTIs testing before the EBA was agreed to weren't you?---The original EBA, yes. There was nobody on site.
PN118
No this EBA, the one that's currently operating now?---Yes I think we were, yes. It wasn't brought up in the EBA, no.
PN119
So it's been operating since October, I think you agreed to it in about July, you continued to work under it in accordance with the classification for the rest of 2002, all of 2003 and then to 2004 you raised your claim, yet there's been no change to the duties you've undertaken during that time?---No that's right, yes.
PN120
So you went into the EBA fully aware of the classification role and duties, everybody agreed to that EBA knowing what classification they were sitting on?---Yes.
PN121
Who do you report to?---John White, he is group leader, fitout.
PN122
Group leader, fitout?---Yeah.
PN123
Okay, he is not a test engineer?---No.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XXN MR GORDON
PN124
John White supervises you on a daily basis?---Yes.
PN125
Thank you. You don't work on coupled up or powered cars, or coupled up or powered cars I should say, do you?---No, unless we are called into the test bay.
PN126
Okay. In the normal course of your duties you don't work on coupled up or powered up cars?---Not powered up cars, no.
PN127
Okay. In reference to the classification that Mr Maher was referring to, classification LPT, I can give you a copy of you don't have a copy available or are you familiar with it?---I'd like a copy yes please.
PN128
What I'll hand up Commissioner, if that's acceptable, is a copy of the exhibit that we had previously submitted. It is our response to their claim. It includes a copy of both classifications that we are referring to.
PN129
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything that you want to hand up Mr Gordon my associate will get and bring it to the witness.
PN130
MR GORDON: Thank you Commissioner. Given that you don't work on coupled up or powered up cars, you only work on single cars, can you explain to me how you can claim to meet the criteria under 1.1(a) which says:
PN131
Perform work primarily involving the testing of all aspects of the railway stock.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XXN MR GORDON
PN132
If you don't work on powered up or coupled up cars you can't do any testing on those?---Some of the testing we do is not done again, we complete it. It is finished and final, that's the way the car goes. That's levelling which we complete, the weigh, single car weigh is complete. Couple of heights, floor heights all that is complete. The baking of the cars is complete. Water test, full car water test is complete. The test bay does do a one water test when the cars are joined just over the hub and the seals where the two cars join and around the couplets where they are joined, around the electrical sections, they use a hose for that.
PN133
Is that all of the testing that occurs of the railway rolling stock?---No there is other testing done when the cars are powered up.
PN134
Thank you. Are the tests that you referred to, levelling, weight, coupling height, water test etcetera, best described as static tests that ensure the product meets the manufactured standard specification?---All testing has got to reach the standards, all testing.
PN135
Okay so you test to ensure that a single car meets the production specification?---Yes.
PN136
Do you test the functional operation of cars?---No because you need power for that.
PN137
Thank you. Do you do any commissioning work?---Gauge tests, that's finished, goes. Swing test, finished, goes. Our weigh test, we finish it. I don't think they weigh it again at Cardiff, they may do a four car, just single axle weigh as they roll it over the bridge. The water test goes as is, apart from the hub and the units where the put the hose over them, that's where the cars are joined. The levelling, we do the levelling test, nobody else touches it after that.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XXN MR GORDON
PN138
Are any of those tests related to the functional operation of railway rolling stock?---What do you mean by functional operation?
PN139
Are those tests meant to ensure the unit single car that you work on and test is manufactured to the production specification or to the functional operation of the equipment?---It would be for the SRAs specifications.
PN140
Is it to the manufactured standard, which is what you said earlier or is it to the functional operation of that piece of equipment?---Well if we don't do it you can't function them.
PN141
You don't do a functional test?---Not a functional test, no that goes on further when the power is on in certain tests.
PN142
Can I ask then how do you claim to perform all necessary testing and commissioning functions of any railway rolling stock and other products as per clause 1.3 of the RPT classification?---We do the testing without power. I've got to state this, where we are in our area we cannot put power on to go any further.
PN143
Thank you. So by having no power you in fact can't do all necessary testing?---That is correct.
PN144
Thank you. Are there any fully completed functional control systems on a single car when it is in the F11 fitout bay area where you work?---Are there any, sorry?
PN145
Are there any fully complete and functional control system on a single car when it is in the F11 bay?---When we receive it?
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XXN MR GORDON
PN146
Yes?---No.
PN147
Thank you. How do you claim to implement the correct use of control systems input and the interpretation of output in terms of monitoring reports, performance and the like as per clause 1.4 of the RPT classification?---We record our data, it's entered into the computer. I keep my own records of bogey numbers, airbag numbers, the tests, we fill out the tests. That's all recorded and it goes with the car.
PN148
But you did say a moment ago that you don't have control systems in the single car areas?---I'm sorry, yes.
PN149
You don't work on any rolling stock systems and subsystems, do you, or coupled up cars?---If we were called out to, yes, we will go out there and work on coupled cars but it all depends if we're called out there to do it.
PN150
The frequency of getting called out to lend a hand as part of a team to the test and commissioning guys, how often would that occur?---It doesn't happen a great deal but obviously we must be doing our job right.
PN151
Given that you don't do it often, how do you claim to use testing and measuring equipment for the verification of rolling stock systems and subsystems to ensure the correct operation of rolling stock as per clause 1.8 of the RPT classification?---We're using digital gauges, pressure gauges. We use dumpy levels, laser levels, digital levels, just different measuring equipment, digital spring valves for testing the bushes in the tracking arms.
PN152
I understand that you may use various measuring equipment and I think that falls quite clearly within the scope of the RPE level 1 classification. That measuring equipment that you're referring to isn't used, in fact, can't be used on any rolling stock systems and subsystems because you don't work on rolling stock systems and subsystems, you just said that?---Yes, it's - what we use it on, single car, we're only single car where we are, yes.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XXN MR GORDON
PN153
Single car, thank you. You indicated in regard to swing tests that you do you record the faults?---Yes.
PN154
Do you do any fault finding and analysis - what type of fault finding and analysis do you do?---When we're air testing we've got to test the system, single car air test, leak test. It's - we've got to get it down to - the specification is 15 KPA over 15 minutes. We get it down a lot lower than that naturally but any faults that stops us for leaks, it could be anything in the braking system, we've got to find where it is. We've got to physically go over the car and find the problems.
PN155
Do you work on an operating brake system or a brake system that's been manufactured to a production standard?---The systems we work on - they're a Sabwabco system. They're installed on the car. We apply air to them. As I said we've got no power. We can't do the full braking. We can do a manual test with them. We can apply brake, park brakes. We set what pressure switches are associated with it. We set the regulators ready for going into the test bay.
PN156
But it's not a functional test, is it?---As far as we can go it is. It is a manual one.
PN157
It's a manual static test?---Yes, it's not electrical. We can't put power on.
PN158
You mentioned in reply to a question from my colleague Mr Maher that there are seven RPT technicians with an electrical trade background and two RPT technicians with a mechanical trade background. Does the RPT classification from your perspective in the EBA identify any particular criteria that requires you to be either mechanical or electrical?---Not that I know of, no.
PN159
So really the classification is to be a technician?---In?
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XXN MR GORDON
PN160
The RPT classification in the EBA is all about being a technician?---Yes sir.
PN161
The fact that some people have an electrical trade background or a mechanical trade background or some other background doesn't either preclude or require them to give greater consideration for the RPT classification. The classification stands alone?---That's right, yes.
PN162
You did again respond to Mr Maher, I just want to make sure I understand this correctly, when he questioned work under supervision you said that you don't work under direct supervision of a test engineer?---Not direct supervision, no.
PN163
The connection you were attempting to draw with supervision was the fact that you worked to a documentation standard?---Made up by engineers, yes.
PN164
So there's no supervision of your duties in that regard. Your supervision comes from your group leader production?---Yes, yes.
PN165
That's direct supervision, sir.
PN166
You mentioned that all work undertaken comes in work packs, is that correct?---It's a router we receive with drawings and our scope of work.
PN167
And everybody works to a work pattern, is that correct?---Everybody, yes.
PN168
And they have what I think are commonly referred to as CTIs and CWIs?---No, not CTIs.
PN169
Not CTIs but CWIs. But they have engineering drawings. They have - - -?---It's the only way you can build the trains, you need all the drawings.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XXN MR GORDON
PN170
Who does all of those drawings?---Draftsmen.
PN171
And engineers?---And engineers, yes.
PN172
So if you use your connection that claiming to have some indirect supervision from a test engineer then in effect everybody has some indirect supervision from a test engineer because engineers develop all of the documentation in the work packs that the people work to? At the end of the day an engineer designs the train?---Yes, that's exactly right, yes.
PN173
Mr Maher asked you a question, and I'm not sure on what your answer was in this regard, suggesting that 100 per cent of your work is testing. How can that be correct?---He said - - -
PN174
You wouldn't be producing anything if you only test it?---We - I said in that we have to shunt, we have to add other components so that we can do the testing. The other things that we are doing there they're incidental and peripheral to the actual testing. Without putting - without doing these other parts we cannot complete our testing.
PN175
But you've got to manufacture the product. You've got to do the fitout. You've got to finish off fitting part of your fitout bay. In fact your work area is in the fitout bay?---Yes, it's right at the end of the fitout bay before electrical testing.
PN176
I note Mr Winney that you indicated through the course of your responses to Mr Maher that you had the potential to do the testing work with proper training?---Adequate training, yes.
PN177
In fact, isn't that the case with all employees in the sense that all employees have the potential with the proper training to be able to carry out high classifications?---Everybody has, yes.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY XXN MR GORDON
PN178
In that sense, you're no different from any other employee in that regard?---No, with the proper training you can do anything.
PN179
I have no further questions.
PN180
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Gordon. Mr Maher, anything in re-direct?
PN181
PN182
MR MAHER: Mr Gordon was drawing some comparisons between technicians, mechanical and electrical. From your understanding and from your knowledge, could a mechanical technician in the test bay do the same as an electrical technician in the test bay?---No.
PN183
Why not?---On the mechanical side, I wouldn't like to see them working under 1500 volts, changing anything out or 120 volts, I think it would be too dangerous. Electrical fault finding is an electrician's work. They're trained for that job. With a mechanical, you can find faults, electrical fault through your computer, diagnostic computer, it will tell you what the fault is, but if it's an electrical fault, I would say the electricians would be fixing that.
PN184
Do you know the two mechanical technicians who work in the test bay?---Yes, I do.
PN185
Have you any knowledge as to whether they have been receiving cross-skilling in electrical trade?---In all trades, even where we are, there is a certain amount of cross-skilling, that's how you get things built. You're working as a team. You help each other out. You could, yes, you could change something electrical, but there wouldn't be power on, at that stage, I'd say. They may change out a few circuit boards which is only a matter of pulling the circuit board out, put it back in, that type of stuff, but major electrical work, no.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY RXN MR MAHER
PN186
So to the best of - - -?---My knowledge, yes, I haven't - - -
PN187
To the best of your knowledge, there is a clear difference of scope of work between a technician who has an electrical trade background and one that has a mechanical trade background?---Yes.
PN188
If I was to mention to you that October 2003 was the first time that the F11 crew was looking at the reclassification issue, would that be correct?---Yes.
PN189
Just for the record again, where does the link with the test engineer come into the F11 crew?---All our test sheets that we sign off, certificates of performance, all of them go to the test engineer, I've seen him with them and he adds them to his computer, he adds for the car.
PN190
What's a CTI?---Test instruction. CWI is a work instruction.
PN191
Who else on the plant to your knowledge is involved with filling out these sheets and signing it?---CTIs, nobody.
PN192
No-one in the test bay?---In the test bay they may fill them out, yes, sign them off.
PN193
Anywhere else on the plant?---No, maybe in the loco area. I think the locos sign off CTIs as well.
PN194
Are there technicians in the loco area?---To my knowledge there is, yes.
**** RICHARD JOHN WINNEY RXN MR MAHER
PN195
Do you know whether there are any technicians in the loco area, locomotive maintenance area, I should say, Commissioner, are there any technicians in the locomotive maintenance area that are mechanical fitters by trade?---I know there's one electrical one there. I think there is one mechanical one there. I'm not sure of his pay rate though whether he is classified to pay that. I haven't gone right into that, sir.
PN196
Just one final question, Mr Winney, to the best of your knowledge, can you describe what the test engineer does?---He oversees the commissioning of the car, correlates all the information that comes in together, just a final testing, electrical, mechanical testing, ready for the car to be handed over to the customer in Sydney.
PN197
How many test engineers are there responsible for that on the Cardiff site?---One.
PN198
Just one?---Michael Brushe, yes.
PN199
And there are no test engineers anywhere else on the plant?---Not that I know of, not to my knowledge, no.
PN200
I have no further questions, Commissioner.
PN201
PN202
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Maher, if you tell my associate the name of your next witness, she'll bring him in for you.
PN203
PN204
MR MAHER: I would like at this stage formally tender a report, I think you have a copy of it that we gave to you some time ago. I would like to formally tender that document now because I'll be asking Mr Jackson to refer to it in some detail.
PN205
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you've got a copy of that report, Mr Gordon?
PN206
MR GORDON: Yes, I do.
PN207
PN208
MR GORDON: At the same time, if it pleases the Commission, it may be appropriate that the alternate document from the company is also marked as an exhibit. It was handed up in proceedings previously at the same time as that.
PN209
THE COMMISSIONER: That's headed what?
PN210
MR GORDON: EDI Rail.
PN211
THE COMMISSIONER: I haven't got a coloured one. Is that the one?
PN212
MR GORDON: That's all right, it's headed EDI Rail and it's our response to the claim.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XN MR MAHER
PN213
PN214
MR GORDON: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN215
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Maher?
PN216
MR MAHER: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN217
Mr Jackson, just again for the record, could you please state your full name and residential address?---Brian Leslie Jackson, 38 Bracken Place, Cameron Park.
PN218
How long have you been employed at the EDI Rail Cardiff site?---Three years.
PN219
And you are currently employed as a level 1 mechanical fitter?---That's correct, yes.
PN220
RPE level 1 and you currently work in the area described as F11?---Yes.
PN221
How long have you worked in that area?---Probably in excess of 18 months.
PN222
Could I refer you to the report that's just been marked M1? Have you got a copy of it there?---Yes, I do.
PN223
Are you familiar with this report?---Yes.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XN MR MAHER
PN224
In fact, you're the principal author of the report?---That's correct, yes.
PN225
Could I take you to, the pages aren't numbered, Commissioner, but the page headed Executive Summary?---Yes.
PN226
Could you go through that Executive Summary and just put some detail to it?---It's:
PN227
The group of F11 work station at EDI Rail, Cardiff, has assessed the scope of work that is carried out, and we find that we meet the criteria in the EBA.
PN228
It's the description of the EBA is an RS Classified Agreement of 2002, and this particular part is in attachment A:
PN229
...to be upgraded to an RPT, which is a rolling stock, rolling stock technician.
PN230
Yes, we felt that we met the criteria that was within the EBA so within that paragraph that's, that's basically where that's coming from, yes. So to go on:
PN231
EDI Rail has agreed in the EBA that employees should be able to better themselves. This is demonstrated in clause 11.3 of the EBA. The EBA has provision for tradespersons of any trade including vehicle builders, mechanical fitters, electricians and boiler makers to advance to an RPT.
PN232
I'll list today's trades because they're the four basic trades that we have at EDI:
PN233
In making this claim we're matching our scope of work in accordance with the EBA attachment A pages 44 to 45 of 61, for an RPT. Our skill level, general knowledge and experiences go far beyond this scope of work.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XN MR MAHER
PN234
We felt that we met the criteria that was on those pages:
PN235
During the course of this application we are not planning any industrial action at this point of time or in the future. We have taken no action whatsoever or disrupted the work-force in any way, shape or kind.
PN236
Thanks, Mr Jackson. Could I take you to the page marked 2 in the document which is headed Statement of Reply. That Statement of Reply is a reply to the company's 2 February reply to the original claim?---That's correct, yes.
PN237
If you could just go through that and read into evidence the crew's reply?---We were asked to make a reply on 2 February at our meeting with the company and yes, so:
PN238
We, the employees of F11 work station, do find this report from management to be in-concise as the body of this report does not compare the F11 scope of work with the RPT role and responsibility as set out in attachment A of the EBA. However, it does do a comparison between two employee groups, the first being it compares the test bay crew to the F11 crew.
PN239
We didn't feel that this was fair as the test bay is mainly made up of electricians, but there is fitters out there and the work they do is on a powered car, not on an unpowered car like we have and we don't have the facility. The second part is:
PN240
It compares electrical staff against mechanical staff. We are not asking for these comparisons to be made. We are asking you, that is EDI Rail management and representatives, to forget comparing us with the test bay crew and do a comparison between the F11 scope of work and the EBA listing for an RPT as set out in pages 44 to 45 of 61 in attachment A. Our original request is still ongoing. We are still using CTIs in
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XN MR MAHER
conjunction with the EBA to assist improving our claim. After the meeting of 11 February 2004 we are still willing to meet and talk to EDI Rail and explain our scope of work in a more detailed format to prove that we do meet the criteria of the EBA. We include a document headed F11 Scope Comparison to the EBA from February 2004.
PN241
That document is the next from page 3 onward of this document.
PN242
At page 3, Mr Jackson, is the F11 scope comparison to the EBA?---Yes.
PN243
And you're comparing the F11 work to the requirements of an RPT?---Yes, that's correct.
PN244
As contained in the agreement?---As in the agreement, yes.
PN245
Could I take you to page 4 then. Could you go through pages 4 and 5 and put into evidence where you have the F11 replies to the EBA agreement?---Right.
PN246
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Maher, it might shorten it a bit. The whole document is now in evidence so it doesn't have t be read into evidence, but if you want your witness to read it into evidence you can, but you can ask him general questions from that page if you want to.
PN247
MR MAHER: Yes, it may be better to do that. Thanks, Commissioner.
PN248
Could I take you to page 4, Mr Jackson?---Yes.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XN MR MAHER
PN249
Is there anything on page 4 that you feel that you need to explain over and above what you have written there?---In writing this document I felt that I explained things fairly good, but just to maybe highlight a couple of things, we believe that we work under the supervision of the test engineer as all the tests that we had set out there, they're listed down here in this document, and they're set out by three engineers, or rather, I should say they're set out by an engineer, they're approved by another engineer and they're witnessed by a third engineer, before being handed over to us to carry out the tasks of those tests. So we work under the instructions of those engineers. Those tests are then handed on to the test engineer that works in our testing facility and I believe that they would be inspected then and so therefore we're working under his provision as well because those tests then go on to the history of the car and are recorded against that car for ever and a day.
PN250
Could you go to page 4?---We're on page 4.
PN251
I'm sorry, page 5?---Yes.
PN252
Is there anything on page 5 that you feel that you may want to talk through?---Well, we meet the quality objectives of the company. We don't have, or in the past until today we've had absolutely no comebacks or breaches, as there may have been some minor re-works on some incidental items that may have needed attention from time to time, but our quality of work is right up there at the EDI standard. We satisfy the test engineer with our documentation as it's, it's always been accepted and never rejected. We use different levels of, I suppose, tooling for measurement. All those tools are calibrated by the company and we bring into the company's standards, or we meet the company's standards and utilise the listed items that we have here. We adhere to their clean work practices and their - and in 1.10, we adhere to their, all their keying in and out of the data as it's required. There's - the data from the weigh test and things like that is all put into the computers and recorded and maintained.
PN253
Could I take you to appendix B of the document and that past comparison for mechanical fitters?---Yes.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XN MR MAHER
PN254
Can you just briefly describe what this is all about?---This part of the document was created by one of the other fitters in our section. I'll just go through it with you. We were asked to do a comparison between the fitters in our section and the fitters in the test bay and the fitters that are RPE level one, which is where we are at at the moment:
PN255
We've previously looked at various points to justify our request for an employment upgrade as outlined in the EBA. With this letter we intend to show the extent of work carried out by men working in the F11 production area which is over and above the requirements of other areas. This is by no means intended to be detrimental to the professionalism of the other mechanical fitters employed with EDI Rail. Mechanical fitters employed on the Millennium project who are working in other production areas carry out the following tasks: fitting to the underframe piloting and pneumatic components, installation of both automatic and semi-permanent couplers.
PN256
There's quite a few things here that are listed down which are basic duties that are carried out by all the other fitters.
PN257
Without going through all of them- - -?---So without sort of consuming time - - -
PN258
So your evidence is that there is a clear delineation between an RPE level one and the people who are currently RPE level one's working in the F11 area?---Yes.
PN259
And your evidence is that the F11 RPE level one's comply with the requirements of an RPT, in other words a technician?---Yes, as set out in the EBA, yes.
PN260
Just a couple of questions away from the document?---Yes.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XN MR MAHER
PN261
Do you from time to time perform work in the test bay area?---Yes.
PN262
Are you aware that there are approximately seven technicians who have electrical background and two technicians that have mechanical background?---Yes.
PN263
To the best of your knowledge do all those nine technicians carry out precisely the same work?---I would say no.
PN264
To the best of your knowledge?---To the best of my knowledge they are carrying out basically electrical work and there's two people carrying out mechanical work. Is that what you are asking?
PN265
Yes, and to the best of your knowledge do those mechanical background technicians do the same work as the electrical?---No, they don't, to my knowledge they don't work on the electrical components. They work on components that are probably electrically charged like solenoids and things like that. They work from the mechanical side out. The electricians work on the electrical side back.
PN266
So your evidence is that there's a clear delineation between the technicians in the test bay with the mechanical background compared to those technicians with an electrical background?---Yes I believe so.
PN267
Just in regard to the document again, and it's in appendix B, right at the back, last page, where it is headed task in comparison for locomotive fitters. It says here that there are mechanical fitters being paid rolling stock production technician rates in that area?---That's correct, yes.
PN268
Are you familiar with what they do?---They get paid those rates when they are working on CTI's which are Clyde Test Instructions and when they are not working on Clyde Test Instructions they don't get paid those rates. That's how it has been up until recently, there's been changes there - - -
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XN MR MAHER
PN269
Are you familiar with the type of work that they do on the locomotives?---The type of work?
PN270
The form of work?---When they are being paid that RPT rate they are carrying out test duties.
PN271
And are you familiar with what those test duties are?---Not 100 percent, no.
PN272
What do you know?---Well when they are doing load testing they get paid those rates. And when they are carrying out normal duties they don't. When I say normal duties I suppose the mundane duties that a fitter does that are sort of basic hands on type work.
PN273
And the load testing, could you explain what that is?---Well I haven't been involved in load testing, obviously it's when they put the motors under the necessary loads to see if they will stand up to the endurance that they want them to.
PN274
I have no further questions.
PN275
PN276
MR GORDON: Thank you Mr Jackson. Could I just ask why is this claim being raised by the F11 crew employees now, I'm talking about this year?---This is something that has been raised in the past, prior to me entering the crew of F11 and it's been spoken about quite a bit I believe Mr Robertson off our crew has seen his superiors a number of times in the past and had been basically told that, no you're not going to get it and the people that were
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
initially doing this work were paid these rates and one of the things he felt that, along with the rest of us, that he should be entitled to be paid as the people who used to do the job. It is now I suppose come to basically getting our paperwork correct and that is why it has now become a bigger issue and the company has actually seen that we are making the effort to do something about it. But prior to that the company has been saying no.
PN277
Okay. But you were doing this work in the CTIs in particular before the EBA was agreed to weren't you?---No I wasn't. The EBA was agreed to in 2002 which is two years ago and I wasn't with this crew two years ago.
PN278
The other employees, your colleagues in the F11 bay who'd been there the whole time, they were doing the work that is currently being undertaken prior to the EBA coming into place?---There may have been. I believe Mr Robertson he's been working since trailer car five and I don't know what that dates back to.
PN279
I'll ask, I would like to tender an exhibit in this regard, it is a test report I think it is referred to as the CTI or an example of a CTI. I'll hand that up to the Commissioner and to the witness.
PN280
THE COMMISSIONER: We are up to number three, are we not Mr Gordon?
PN281
PN282
MR GORDON: For the record you have a copy of the document now marked exhibit three Mr Jackson?---Yes.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN283
Are you familiar with this document?---Yes.
PN284
Could you describe to the Commission what kind of document it is?---It's a Clyde Test Instruction being CTI00399. It outlines what we call the gauge test. It's a test to make sure that the train is standing in the upright position so that it will go through tunnels correctly and we carry this test out on a piece of equipment that is located at the rear of the workshop. That piece of equipment we from time to time have to use a master gauge to re-test to make sure it's in calibration.
PN285
And the test is basically a tolerance of all the clearances around, over the top and underneath of the rail cars.
PN286
Could you please identify to the Commission when this test instruction was undertaken?---This particular one, the results of it?
PN287
Yes, that's correct?---The 19th of the 6th '02.
PN288
What does that identify to you?---That identifies that the test was carried out in 2002.
PN289
The people who carried out that test I understand to be Richard Winney and John White are the two names that I'm familiar with?---Yes.
PN290
Does that indicate to you that CTI work was undertaken prior to the enterprise agreement, the current enterprise agreement, coming into place?---Yes.
PN291
When was the current enterprise agreement put in place?---It was 19 June or July, July, I think, 2002.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN292
July was when it was finalised at site in October when it was certified by the Commission. So prior to - that's a statement, sorry, not a question, so prior to July, employees were fully aware of the classification structure and the work that was being undertaken when they went into that enterprise agreement accepting of that classification structure?---Yes.
PN293
Who do you report to?---Richard Winney.
PN294
And Richard Winney is, for the record?---He's the crew leader.
PN295
In the F11 bay area?---In the F11 work area, yes.
PN296
Who does Richard Winney report to?---John White.
PN297
And John White is, for the record?---He's the group leader.
PN298
In the test bay area?---No, in the work shop.
PN299
In the work shop, the fit-out bay area?---Well, yes, I assume for the fit-out bay area, yes, I know he's over and above us, I don't know what his full allocation is.
PN300
Do you know who John reports to?---He would report to Stuart Morris.
PN301
Who is the - - -?---He's the work shop production manager.
PN302
Production manager. Are any of those people test engineers?---I don't believe so. I don't know. I don't know what Stuart Morris's background is.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN303
But in his position you identified him as the production manager, is that correct?---That's correct.
PN304
And you understand him to carry out the role of production manager?---Yes.
PN305
You reference CTIs as being a test instruction and that you carry out those test instructions and then try and draw the connection that somehow you're under the supervision of a test engineer because you work to test instructions, is that correct?---That's correct, yes, working under a test instruction that's been drawn up by engineers, yes, I believe that that instruction has come from that engineer with the approval of other engineers.
PN306
Do you work to engineering drawings?---Yes, all our paperwork comes through. We have drawings for each car, yes.
PN307
Do all employees, in effect, work to engineering drawings?---Well, yes.
PN308
Who develops the engineering drawings?---The design people.
PN309
And do engineers design the train?---Well, probably, yes.
PN310
So isn't it the same thing as saying, in effect, everybody works under the direction of a test engineer or an engineer as you say because they work to an engineering drawing prepared by an engineer, the same as you work to a test instruction prepared by an engineer? In effect, everybody works to a set of instructions at the end of the day that are prepared by the engineers who design the train. But you don't work under the supervision of a test engineer?---Well, we still work under the instructions of an engineer.
PN311
You work to a CTI?---Yes.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN312
You work under the supervision of your crew leader and the reporting structure up to the production manager that you just referred to?---Yes, I'm under their authority.
PN313
You don't work on a coupled up or powered up cars, do you?---No, we don't have that facility.
PN314
I'll identify a document and hand you up a copy of it. I'm referring to exhibit G2, Commissioner, and I'll ask if a copy can be handed up to the applicant. I might need to get this one back.
PN315
Mr Jackson, for the record, are you familiar with this document?---Yes, this is the document that was presented to us on either 2 or 11 February this year. It must have been the 11th. It's dated 3 February, the front of this.
PN316
Effectively, this is the company's reply to your claim which you subsequently drafted your response, that's the exhibit that you were previously looking at titled F11?---Yes, that's the response to this document, yes.
PN317
So obviously you're quite familiar with this document?---Well, not as familiar as I am of my own document.
PN318
Can I ask, given that you don't work on coupled up or powered up cars, can you explain to me how you can perform work primarily involving the testing of all aspects of railway rolling stock as per clause 1.1A of the RPT classification which is set out in the document that you have. If you turn to attachment 1 of the document, you'll see the classification set out and you will see the clause 1.1A that I'm referring to?---I may have misled you before and I may have misled the court too. I have worked on coupled cars in the past. So I do apologise for that.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN319
Can I just stop you there for a minute? When you say you have worked on coupled cars, is that part of your normal duties?---No, it's not part of my normal duties, no.
PN320
Could you please go, excuse me for a moment, could you please got to classification 1.1A, and I'll just rephrase my question again prior to dealing with that issue, can you please explain to me how you claim to perform work primarily involving the testing of all aspects of railway rolling stock when you in fact don't work on powered up or coupled up cars? How can you cover all aspects?---Well, I think like all other employees we can't actually cover all aspects.
PN321
In referring to, I'll ask you this question, do you do any commissioning work?---We do leave some of the cars or some parts of the cars in a commissioned condition ready for service.
PN322
Could you just explain again how you do that?---Yes. Referring back to a document, the report from February 2004, F11, on page 4 of that document there is a list of the items, the CTIs and CPSs that we carry out. The coupler height test, once we do the height test it is left in that condition. It's therefore commissioned. The swing test, once we have done the swing test it is also left in a commissioned condition. There's no further work carried out on it. The static gauge test, when we've completed that we leave it in a commissioned condition. The preliminary air leak-down test, some of that is left commissioned but there is further testing carried out on that. We leave the bogeys - as far as all the air system on the bogeys go, the brake system suspension system we leave them in an adjusted commissioned condition and there is further work carried out after the car is electrically charged to do two other adjustments that are carried out in that procedure.
PN323
The tests that you referred to just now being the coupler height test, wind test and static gauge test, they're tests effectively that test whether or not the product is manufactured to the specification standard, is that correct?---Yes, they're tested to the standard, yes.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN324
They're not a functional operational test because you don't have them in a functional capacity. You don't have coupled up cars and you don't have power on?---No, we don't have power on and we don't have coupled cars.
PN325
They're tests that you undertake. You don't actually commission in that process, do you?---There is no further work carried out on them after those testings, so they are left in that condition to be commissioned.
PN326
You do the test but it's not commissioning. Commissioning is the process of coupling up, powering up and operating the vehicles. So the commissioning process occurs after the tests have been done. What you do is test that the product is manufactured to the specification standard as you've previously agreed to. I'll put it simply that you make the product to the specification and you test that it's made to the specification?---Yes, we do test to make sure it's to the specification.
PN327
You don't commission the product. You don't operate coupled up cars. You don't operate powered up cars?---No, we don't.
PN328
Are there any fully complete and functional control systems on a single car when it's in the F11 bay area where you work?---Fully complete and functional control systems? I suppose there's the - yes, the suspension control system. It is left in a functional condition. There is no further adjustments to be carried out when we've completed the air testing and height levelling and it is left in a functional condition.
PN329
How do you claim to implement the correct use of control systems input and the interpretation of output in terms of monitoring, reports and the like as per clause 1.4 of the RPT classification when you - with the exception if you identify suspension systems upon a single car how do you meet the requirements of 1.4 of the RPT classification?---Yes, the control systems input well the system is run by pneumatics, by compressed air. So we input that compressed air at the correct regulated pressure. We monitor the system to make sure that the pressures that go through are the correct pressures.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN330
Can I just stop you there for a moment? You only do that to check leaks on the manufactured product though, don't you?---Yes, we do that to check leaks and we do that to ensure that the pressures - we have to record the - we have to check that the pressures are within the standards set down by the engineer who has drawn that instruction up.
PN331
Thank you. Go on, referring back to how you meet - implement the correct use of control systems input and in the interpretation of output as per 1.4 of the RPT classification?---Yes, we monitor the system for leaks. We also monitor for pressures and we report in our test sheet and that's basically all that can be done on that system. We check the heights. We adjust the heights in our height test.
PN332
Don't control systems to be operational require two cars to be coupled up?---What sort of control - what two car - what you're talking about there is the - - -
PN333
I'll use an example, the brake control system for example, they require coupled up cars to determine - - -?---To be tested from the driver's cab? Yes, to test them from the driver's cab they would have to be coupled up. To carry out the other testing we do that manually.
PN334
To check the control system they have to be coupled up?---We simulate that with valves and with our gauges and with valves that we have set up on our test board.
PN335
But you don't work on coupled up cars?---No, we don't work on coupled up cars. We have to simulate it.
PN336
You don't work on any rolling stock systems and subsystems, do you?---Rolling stock systems?
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN337
And subsystems?---I suppose if you look at the cars and - what do you want to call a system on a car? You can - - -
PN338
You can work on single cars. You don't work on, as I said before, coupled up cars or powered up cars. You don't work on the systems per se?---So what are you calling the system? Are you calling the system electronics or are you calling it the pneumatics or - - -
PN339
I'll ask you to explain it this way. Please explain to me how you claim to use testing and measuring equipment for the verification of rolling stock systems and subsystems to ensure the correct operation of the rolling stock product when you don't work on coupled up cars and you don't work on powered up cars?---I'm sort of missing you there.
PN340
I'll just refer back to the classification clause 1.8 if you could have a look at that clause. It says:
PN341
As a requirement for RPT classification use testing and measuring equipment etcetera etcetera for the verification of rolling stock systems and subsystems to ensure the correct operation of rolling stock product.
PN342
You don't work on rolling stock systems and subsystems. You work on single cars?---Yes.
PN343
In fact you don't operate in a multi-car or a powered up environment?---But you could call something like a bogey a subsystem. If you said the whole car is here and you want a part of that car it's a subpart of the car and we work on different parts of the car, like, and we carry out whatever measuring is required on those individual parts of the car.
PN344
Have jobs been previously advertised within EDI Rail Cardiff for people to take up vacancies in the RPT classifications?---I believe that has happened on one occasion.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN345
Was that an employee from the F11 bay who applied for that job?---No, it wasn't.
PN346
Okay?---There may h ave been one applied for that job but I know the job went to somebody in a different section.
PN347
Did they continue in that job?---Well, the chap who's got it he's continuing in the job now.
PN348
I will ask you to just recall back; was there a situation where an employee came from the RPE level 1 classification into the job vacancy for RPT and stayed for one week and then went back to the RPE level?---Yes, yes, there was, yes, and I believe he was sent back.
PN349
He was an F11 crew member?---He was an F11 crew member and at that point in time there was another person on the management team out there and that person told him that particular day that he came back that he was required by Dick Winney to carry out tasks within F11.
PN350
You said that he was sent back; on what basis do you make that statement? My understanding from the company is that he chose to go back?---Well, it's from what he has told me that he was told that morning to come back and he came back, that he was to see Dick Winney, that he had work for him and he required his services.
PN351
Did you apply for the job as an RPT technician?---No, I didn't.
PN352
But you want to be classified as an RPT technician?---Yes, under the current work that I'm doing I believe that I fulfil the criteria.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN353
You don't want to do any of the other work that RPT technicians do?---I'd be quite willing to do the work that the other RPT technicians do.
PN354
Well, why didn't you apply for the job?---Because I didn't think at the time I'd get it. I thought there was other people there that - because they sort of - whatever the reason they've got better familiarities with other people and I thought, well, they might - they would probably get the j ob prior to me getting it and I have applied for other jobs within the company and missed out.
PN355
You referred to situations where in your F11 document that you prepared that the company is obligated to support the development of employees in those roles. Isn't advertising vacancies for the position of RPT a part of the process of supporting internal development especially when those advertisements are internal only?---Yes, that would be supporting that.
PN356
When you went into the enterprise agreement back in mid-2002 were there any RPT classification employees working outside of the test and commissioning area?---I don't know, I couldn't accurately answer that, I don't know.
PN357
You made comment in preparing your submission that the company didn't give weight to the comparison that you'd requested which was to have your role compared against the classification of RPT; doesn't the exhibit marked G2 of which you have a copy of, the company's response, go in fact to quite some detail identifying the comparison of the classifications and the work undertaken, in fact even sets out a direct comparison between the classifications of RPE level 1 and RPT classifications?---It's got a copy of what's in our EBA which defines an RPE and an RPT.
PN358
It also has another appendix, doesn't it, immediately after that; what is that titled?---Yes, that lists - that's the Cardiff Workplace Agreement, yes, in this there's CTIs listed that we do and CTIs listed that are carried out in the testing facility.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN359
It's in fact titled a Comparison?---Yes, it's one that's been created, yes.
PN360
The CTIs that you refer to are they all, in effect, static tests? You don't do any functional testing?---We do testing - - -
PN361
You don't have coupled up cars, you don't have powered up cars?---We do test the functions of the brakes as we do our testing. We - we go right through, there's the - - -
PN362
With regard to the brakes, you're referring to brakes, you do an air leak down test; is that correct?---Yes, and that carries - and in that leak down test we have to function the operation of the brakes.
PN363
But it's not coupled up cars, the brakes don't operate a system?---No.
PN364
You're just testing to a manufactured standard that the product you've made doesn't leak?---Yes, but it's got to be function tested at - the brakes have to be activated - - -
PN365
But you don't do that functional testing; that's done in test and commissioning when it's coupled up, you just test to the manufactured standard?---We have to put air into different parts of the brake system and in that test, in that CTI, it lists out the different functions that we have got to go through and what we have actually done within our own F11 group is we've made up a test board, this hasn't been done by the company, we haven't even been sanctioned by the company on it and we've made up a test board whereby we can go through and simulate the functions of doing all these tests and it has to be done in that CTI.
PN366
Were you present when the site inspections were undertaken?---I was at work that day, yes.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON XXN MR GORDON
PN367
Do you know the areas that were inspected in that site inspection?---No, but I believe that the platforms may have been inspected, I believe the test bay would have been inspected and there was - F11 would have been inspected.
PN368
Was the loco area inspected?---I don't know.
PN369
You mentioned reference in your submissions to the locomotive area; did you ask in your group of people pursuing the claim that they look at that area as well?---The reason that's in there is the company asked us to do a comparison at our meeting which you were present at in February and that comparison was carried by Mr Robertson out of our crew and he went and did the research on that and came up with that document.
PN370
Yes, in effect, in that area now a new classification that's been inserted into the EBA during its operation for running maintainer?---There has been a new agreement in that area, yes.
PN371
If it pleases the Commission, I have no further questions.
PN372
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Maher, anything in redirect?
PN373
PN374
MR MAHER: To the best of your knowledge are there any other people on the Cardiff site that do the CTIs, apart from yourselves?---I think there's a door CTI that is carried out by two RPE1s, yes.
PN375
What area do they work in?---They work in the area where the windows are fitted. I think they call it the window fit-out area.
**** BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON RXN MR MAHER
PN376
Mr Gordon was asking questions about applications for RPT positions. Why do you stay in F11?---Why do stay there?
PN377
Yes?---As I said, I have applied for other jobs within the company. I've been unsuccessful with them, and I've - I am happy doing the work I'm doing, but also I would l would like to advance if the opportunity came forward.
PN378
I have no further questions.
PN379
PN380
THE COMMISSIONER: Have you got any more witnesses, Mr Gordon?
PN381
MR MAHER: No, no more witnesses.
PN382
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Gordon, before we start your witnesses, we might just take a five minute break. The Commission stands adjourned.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [12.21pm]
RESUMED [12.33pm]
PN383
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Gordon, your first witness.
PN384
PN385
MR GORDON: Mr Richens, could you please for the record state your name and residential address again?---Simon Allan Richens (address supplied).
PN386
Could you please explain what your position is and how long you've been employed with EDI?---My current position is of that of a group leader, out in the testing commissioning section. I've currently been with the company, EDI Rail, coming up for 10 years in October.
PN387
I understand you've prepared a statement to read into evidence today?---I have indeed.
PN388
Could you read that statement please?---
PN389
My name is Simon Allan Richens. I've been with the company coming up to 10 years in October '04, transferring from our Kooragang facility to Cardiff in January 2000. My current position is that of a group leader for the testing and commissioning department.
PN390
My role is to coordinate test activities and ensure timely submission of PC documentation. My responsibilities are: functional analysis for optimum supply equipment performance; coordinate equipment purchase and calibration; ensure relevant production of paperwork is received prior to trains entering test; coordinate test instructions, process to ensure timely submission of complete CTI/CTRs to engineering and SRA; coordinate testing operations, rosters and staff control; coordinate with local area control, track positions and STNs; coordinate supplier site commissioning; coordinate re-work activities it the test bay; conduct type testing in Sydney as required; assist in analysing test results and writing of test reports; maintain test bay security; liaise with maintenance reliability crews at the EMC facility.
**** SIMON ALLAN RICHENS XN MR GORDON
PN391
My work is mainly conducted in a test bay. At different points in time I am asked to look at various problems throughout the workshop and I liaise with the manufacturing office staff. I was asked some time ago to make a list of all tasks that an RPT undertakes, more specific the fitters as F11 were making a claim in that they were conducting tasks that required working to Clyde Test Instructions (CTIs) and also signing them off as complete, so therefore were entitled to the same rate of pay as an RPT. I was aware that the cae went to the Commission and it was decided to have a facility visit to determine the feasibility. Unfortunately I was not present for this on Thursday, 5 August 2004.
PN392
I see an RPT specifically mechanically based conduct work in the following areas. Each car is to be coupled into a pair arrangement CTI00432. Each pair is to be coupled into a four car set arrangement CTI00432. Each pair is to have a functional test of door and release cable operation CTI00405. Each pair is to have a functional test conducted on a pantograph and air compressor, all encompassed by general commissioning tasks of CTI00435. Each pair is to be air leak tested in accordance to CTI00438. Each pair is to have a functional brake test performed to CTI00492.
PN393
Each set is to be air leak tested in accordance with CTI00438. Each set is to have a functional brake test performed to CTI00437. Each set is to be dynamically tested on the main line in accordance with CTI00424. Each set is to be inspected before, during and after each track trial in accordance with the dynamic failures that are reported.
PN394
Each car is to have additional air fittings and hoses installed to conduct all facets of air leak and brake functional testing. After all such testing the fittings will be removed, as are the hoses and the car set to be left in a fully commissioned state. Each pair or set is to be tested with constant 120 volts DC and 415 volt AC.
**** SIMON ALLAN RICHENS XN MR GORDON
PN395
Each pair, set is tested with 1500 volt DC which requires self-propelled movements under a restricted length of busbar and also self-propelled movements on the down siding, all conducted in conjunction with our supplier, Alstom. Being available to help conduct specific type test CTIs, both here and at EMC.
PN396
Whereas I see a RPE Level 1 specific to F11 conduct work in the following areas. Bogie each car of the build process. Each car is then weighed and packed according to CTI00396. Each car is then verified through a gauge test according to CTI00399. Each car then has the coupler heights measured according to CTI00422. Each car is then air tested to the main res and brake piping. Each car has its pressure switches set to CWI11345.120. If any problems occur the F11 crew then take matters to the group leader or the manufacturing manager for a resolution.
PN397
In regard to the RPT classification, all functional brake testing conducted on both a laptop and TOS DDU together with a digital pressure gauge to verify bogie pressures to software pressures. Functional brake testing of a set includes TOS interface for Vigilance, Deadman, Trip Cock operation, simulated burst air bag, tare and crush conditions. These functions are required to be tested with TOS and TOS does not get loaded until after the cars are handed over to test.
PN398
During the initial function testing there are always brake faults to interrogate via BCU or laptop that need to be cleared. This can involve reading electrical schematics and also fixing crossed wires in plugs. It could also be a BCU card that is faulty or a phone link-up with the supplier to conduct specific tasks to verify the origin of the fault. All activities conducted are under the guidance of the test engineer and group leader.
PN399
Thank you Mr Richens, I just take you back to one of those points, TOS and the DDU, just for the purpose of the record could you explain what TOS and DDU are?---TOS is our train operating system, it's just shortened for our operating system and that combines four packages of software into the one and our DDU is a drivers digital unit, display unit sorry.
**** SIMON ALLAN RICHENS XN MR GORDON
PN400
Is there any other explanation required on those two points, does that cover it?---You need TOS on the train to read it through the DDU, sorry I'm just a bit nervous.
PN401
Also just for completeness you reference in the second last paragraph the BCU, can you explain to the Commission what BCU is?---BCU is a brake control unit.
PN402
Mr Richens, who do you report to?---Testing Commissioning Manager.
PN403
Who do you supervise?---I supervise a crew leader technician and nine rolling stock production technicians.
PN404
Do you supervise anyone else?---No I don't. I'm sorry, I rephrase, I supervise the suppliers that come on site to commission their work.
PN405
They are effectively visitors to the site?---As such.
PN406
At paragraph 5 you identify what RPTs, is that what they are primarily involved in?---They are primarily involved in those areas, that is part of our process that we go through to commission a train, by the time it leaves us out of the test bay the car has to be in a four car functional state and from us then it leaves to go to State Rail Authority for revenue service.
PN407
Could you just briefly explain the difference between the words, test and commission?---Test and commission, test and commission encompasses fault finding as well as reading test instructions to get us to a particular point where we can sign off those instructions. Testing commissioning covers all areas, for example if you do have a fault we have to go through and fault find that problem until we come up with a solution, if we don't we can't continue on with the CTI and pass it on as a complete unit.
**** SIMON ALLAN RICHENS XN MR GORDON
PN408
So am I correct in saying that commissioning is actually testing the functional operation of the lift?---That's correct, once we get Alstam to load our software then it becomes an integrated system where you've got different types of software being managed by the TOS and yes, the integrated system that we have to get up and function.
PN409
At paragraph 5 of the RPTs, how do you see this as being different to the RPE level 1 again?---Basically we're working predominantly with CTIs, that is our work and there is a bit more involved with constantly working with voltage on the cars, our integrated systems and our fault finding and the buck stops with us, if it doesn't get fixed there well it can't go out to our customer.
PN410
What kind of testing do the RP level 1s do?---They do some verification of the production bill process.
PN411
In paragraph 6 you refer to RP level 1 and CTIs, could you just explain to the Commission what a CTI is?---CTI is a document to record information that is set out in that document, it's similar, it's an instruction to tell you how to go through, get your recordings and where you need to put them in each table and whether you've got a pass or a fail and then once you get the pass or fail determines what your action is, where you go from there.
PN412
Is there a difference between the CTIs at the RPE level 1 and the CTIs at the RPT classification level?---I believe they are, I believe the RPTs is more functional based, whereas the RPEs is more a verification of the production bill process to get it to a certain stage, they do do tests on the car, they are more static tests than anything else but that's the difference I can see.
**** SIMON ALLAN RICHENS XN MR GORDON
PN413
What do RPTs do when they come across a non conformance with a CTI?---Well for example, specifically looking at the mechanical base the fitters will come in and either notify myself or Michael Bruce, the Manager, say in this example the brake valves are low they will go out, they will come in and advise us that the brake valves are low, okay, what can we do, the guys go out there, adjust all the brake valves up to meet the pressures, whether that's a difference between the pressures that they're reading on TOS or off the BCU, whether there's a difference in there we don't know at this point in time, they go out and they make some adjustments, that still hasn't worked, then they will come in and we will get on the phone to our supplier that supplies our brake control units which is Wabco and we will sit down with a phone call with those guys and discuss what the problem is at the time, we will then ask for any ideas from those guys from our supplier as to which way we could be going because our train is piped with many pipes and many fittings, so we will have a phone conference, the guys will get a bit more of a direction and they go out, hopefully find the problem with that, if not then we will organise for the supplier to come on site and be on site to conduct more testing. More times than not we have that phone call and the problem is found and we fix the problem, then the non compliance is there for the CTI and we can keep going with our work.
PN414
In effect you're saying that you can't release the vehicle until such time as that commissioning is complete and the vehicle is fully operational?---That's correct.
PN415
In paragraph 8 of your statement, that's the second last paragraph on page 3, you say this can involve reading electrical schematics and also fixing crossed wires in plugs. Can you just please explain how that works?---How that works, when the guys couple as a pair they go through and do an air leak test and once they do an air leak test and the electricians are finished their particular task to lead into big picture we then plug in the BCUs, apply power to them and then there is usually two or three faults on each BCU, whether it be a pipe that's piped the wrong way or a vent cock vented the wrong way, piped the wrong way I should say, there might be a BCU card, it's all software related, so there may be some sort of interfacing with a lap top to have a look at the BCU to find any faults so they can do that and also they do at times get out the
**** SIMON ALLAN RICHENS XN MR GORDON
electrical schematics to look at transducers or how the park brake transducers are wired up and that can all be, they come and see me or the crew leader at the time and I say, we've found the problem, we need the train switched off so we can get to it, so we go switch the train off and they then can swap the wires over.
PN416
Do all RPTs get involved in that process?---All RPTs get in that process, whether they're mechanical or electrical based.
PN417
I have no further questions.
PN418
PN419
MR MAHER: Thank you Commissioner.
PN420
Mr Richens, what trade background are you?---I'm electrical.
PN421
And who do you report to directly?---To the testing commissioning manager.
PN422
Is that another term for the test engineer? I will ask it my way, what's that fellow's name or person's name?---Michael Bruce.
PN423
So if I was to ask the question, could you tell me who the test engineer could you name that person?---Well myself personally would still call Michael Bruce the test engineer, his official title I believe personally is the manager, testing commissioning manager.
PN424
You say that there are seven electrical based technicians and two mechanical based technicians, they are all equally skilled?---No, they are not. Because again you've got electrical and mechanical. The mechanical guys can't do some of the tasks that the electrical guys do of course.
**** SIMON ALLAN RICHENS XXN MR MAHER
PN425
Could you just go through where the major differences are?---Well I could not see that the mechanical guys would be able to fault find with our suppliers or particularly complex areas in our schematic.
PN426
If we could just go to the pneumatic braking system on a four car set powered up and doing your functional brake testing, what role do the mechanical based technicians have in that area?---They complete all of the functional brake testing. We have an electrical guy that sits there and gives them a hand. It involves moving the master controller, getting pressures from around the train to make sure that we are getting the right pressures from the VCU to our TOS and I believe that's it.
PN427
Okay if a technician was required to talk to the suppliers and web car would that be a mechanical technician be talking to that- - -?---Yes it would be.
PN428
It would be, in regard to the braking system?---That's correct.
PN429
If I could just you take you to page three of your statement Mr Richens, where you have the paragraph starting:
PN430
Whereas I see an RPE level ...
PN431
and so on, you list there the work that you see an RPE level one would be responsible for in the F11 area?---That's correct.
PN432
Is that the total scope of work, particularly in regard to CTIs?---As far as I'm aware because they are ones that I look at, have to go through verify, and then at the end of the day I'm part of a sign off for that to see that the process is.
PN433
Can I just ask you some questions then?---Sure.
**** SIMON ALLAN RICHENS XXN MR MAHER
PN434
Are you aware that they also do a swing test which is CTI00414?---I am. I may have missed something.
PN435
The preliminary air leak down test CTI00458, are you aware that they do that as well?---Well I've got in there:
PN436
Each car is then air tested to the Main Res and Brake Pipe piping.
PN437
I wasn't sure at the time. These are my own words. I didn't know at the time what the CTI was, that's why I left that off.
PN438
Okay, the complete car water test, CTI00412?---Yes they do do that.
PN439
And the CP00276 LN40 car body twist test and levelling, do you understand that they carry that out?---I always thought that was part of the gauge test.
PN440
Okay, all right, fair enough. Could I just take you to a couple of paragraphs down:
PN441
During the initial functional testing there are always brake faults to interrogate via BCU or lap top that need to be cleared. This can involve reading electrical schematics and also fixing cross wires and plugs. It could also be a BCU card that is faulty or a phone link up with the supplier to conduct specific tasks to verify origin of the fault.
PN442
That would apply to mechanical fitters are you saying?---Yes it does.
PN443
I have no further questions.
**** SIMON ALLAN RICHENS XXN MR MAHER
PN444
PN445
THE COMMISSIONER: Anything in redirect Mr Gordon.
PN446
MR GORDON: No I have no further questions.
PN447
PN448
THE COMMISSIONER: It's ten to one Mr Gordon, I don't like leaving a witness in the box while we have the luncheon adjournment.
PN449
MR GORDON: Particularly not a company witness.
PN450
THE COMMISSIONER: Definitely not. I propose to adjourn till 2.00 o'clock gentlemen. I'll see you at 2.00 o'clock. The Commission stands adjourned.
LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.57pm]
RESUMED [2.09pm]
PN451
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Gordon, your next witness is?
PN452
PN453
MR GORDON: Mr White, for the record again, could you please state your name and residential address?---Jonathon White, 5 Quayle Court, Edgeworth.
PN454
Mr White, could you please identify what your position is and how long you've been employed with EDI Rail?---I'm the Group Leader for fit out on the 4GT project at Cardiff and I've been with EDI Rail for ten years.
PN455
I understand you've prepared a witness statement in regard to today's proceedings?---Yes.
PN456
Could you commence reading that statement?---Yes.
PN457
My name is Jonathon White. I am the Group Leader for fit out on the 4GT project at Cardiff. I'm a plant mechanic by trade and I have been in the rail industry for 14 years. I started my employment with EDI/Clyde engineering ten years ago as a locomotive maintainer at Kooragang Island. I then transferred to Cardiff as a crew leader when EDI won the 4GT contract five years ago. During this period I have worked on numerous other projects within the facility including locomotive maintenance, locomotive repairs and modifications.
PN458
In my role as a Group Leader fit out I am responsible for the performance of the fit out teams. I am responsible to ensure the teams have the parts and manufacturing support to complete their tasks in a timely and safe manner. I will also organise the priorities and skills within the teams to ensure production requirements are met.
PN459
I currently work out of the manufacturing office situation within the workshop. Within this office there are other group leaders and production staff who I liaise with. This production team makes recommendations to the Production Manager.
**** JONATHON WHITE XN MR GORDON
PN460
I became aware of the F11 reclassification claim on 21 January 2004. Stuart Morris, the Production Manager, told me of the claim and we spoke of the repercussions of the upgrade of the F11 crew. I was at a meeting with the company and the union on the 22nd. We spoke in this meeting why F11 thought their claim was warranted and the company spoke of their objections to the claim. I have since this date compiled a paper outlining F11s scope of work for management.
PN461
As part of the production cell F11, the RPEs in this crew are expected to perform the following roles and responsibilities. To complete the scope of work included within their works order packs on a car-by-car basis. This includes levelling and fitting Bogies to cars, fitting seats, fitting battery box doors, completion of the preliminary pneumatic system leak test, gauge test, swing test, coupler height test, water test and a weigh test. In performing their duties RPEs in F11 are expected to record data collected in conducting these tests. The data is recorded on CTIs and CWIs. The tools used in collecting this data include measuring equipment, tapes, spirit levels, air gauges and scales. The RPEs in F11 are under the direct supervision of a crew leader.
PN462
The RPTs in the test bay are required to test the function of all parts associated with the commissioning of the 4GT. This involves the commissioning of individual items and complete systems. These systems are then incorporated into the train operating system. During the commissioning process RPTs record data collected from laptop computers, gauges and by interrogating the train operating systems. This data is recorded in CTIs and is reported to the Test Engineer. The RPT is required to commission the train's operating system on live train sets. They must have the knowledge and skills to fault find and to rectify systems and they require the knowledge of how the systems interrelate with one another.
PN463
The main differences as I see them between the RPE and RPT classifications are the RPEs in F11 verify the production processes, for example, the gauge test is to check the outer profile of a car. The preliminary air test is to qualify the integrity of the air system. This testing does not involve powering up items or operating the system in conjunction with other parts of the car's system.
**** JONATHON WHITE XN MR GORDON
PN464
The RPTs in test bay are required to work on systems in a live situation. The train is under power and the various operating systems alive. Often the train is on track trials. The RPTs are required to interrogate the operating system via laptop computers and the on board train computers.
PN465
The RPE verifies the production process on a single static vehicle. The RPT verifies the production process and vendor supplied items for functionality. This is no limited to individual items. It involves complete system testing and the various system interfaces. This is conducted on a live train set in a dynamic situation.
PN466
Thank you, Mr White. I'll just ask you again, who do you report to?---The Production Manager, Stuart Morris.
PN467
Is he the test engineer?---No.
PN468
Who do you supervise?---I supervise the crew leaders in the fit out area, their staff and if engineering come on site or vendors or other people come on site, I supervise them.
PN469
I will just refer you to paragraph 5, that's the last paragraph on page 1 of your statement, you refer to "the RPE role and responsibilities", is that what they are primarily involved in?---Yes, that's their - primarily they're involved in that work, yes.
PN470
In paragraph 5, you refer to CTIs and CWIs, that's over the page on page 2. Just for the Commission's record, what is your understanding of a CWI?---The CWI, it's a work instruction. It's not related to a test instruction at all.
PN471
What is a CTI?---A CTI is a product verification document. It's used to record data throughout the build process.
**** JONATHON WHITE XN MR GORDON
PN472
How are the CTIs done in regard to the F11 bay area that you're responsible for?---The F11 crew do CTIs on static trains. It's static testing of the finished product.
PN473
And the purpose of that testing?---Is to verify the building, the build process. We've got things right size.
PN474
What problem solving or fault finding do RPEs do?---The RPEs in F11 don't primarily do fault finding. If they do, it would be during, for instance, an air test, the air leak down test and it would be faulty valves or something not working and they'd change it, or leaking.
PN475
Is that like confirming to manufactured standard?---Yes.
PN476
Are the RPE classification employees that you supervise required to do any of the activities you refer to in paragraph 6, that's the second paragraph on page 2?---Are they, sorry?
PN477
The question is again: Are the RPE classification employees that you supervise required to do any of the activities you referred to in paragraph 6, that's the second paragraph on page 2 of your statement?---No, the RPTs they perform their testing on a dynamic vehicle live, it's powered up. The RPEs perform their testing on a dead car.
PN478
I have no further questions.
PN479
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Maher?
PN480
**** JONATHON WHITE XXN MR MAHER
PN481
MR MAHER: Mr White, you say that to the - well, these are my words, not yours, I'm paraphrasing, to the best of your knowledge, the RPEs in F11 don't do much fault finding. Is that - - -?---Yes, that's right.
PN482
Would it surprise you to know that leaving aside the brake systems where they have to do some fault finding and I think you mentioned that, that there are a quite a number of other areas allied to their work that isn't right when the car comes to them and it involves sometimes a complicated system of fault finding. Would you concede that?---Not a complicated - no, not really, no, not a complicated process of fault finding, no.
PN483
What about the issue of the car not being square if you like?---That is relayed back to myself or Stuart Morris. In the cases that we've had, for example, the gauge, failing gauge tests, it's referred back to Stuart, myself. We go out and witness the test. If it fails again we'll contact engineering and get a resolution through that or I'll raise a concession for the fault and that will go through engineering and they'll provide us with a concession on a fault on a car.
PN484
Just taking you to another area, the rolling stock production technician, one of the roles and responsibilities is that the rolling stock production technician performs work primarily involving the testing of all aspects of rolling stock?---Yes.
PN485
Do you agree with that, the RPT and the test bay would test all aspects of rolling stock?---They'd test all aspects of the live car yeah in test. They test and commission the car.
PN486
I've no further questions.
PN487
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Gordon?
**** JONATHON WHITE XXN MR MAHER
PN488
MR GORDON: No re-direct.
PN489
PN490
THE COMMISSIONER: Your next witness, Mr Gordon.
PN491
PN492
MR GORDON: For the record again, Mr Morris, could you please state your name and residential address?---Yes, my name is Stuart Morris. I live at 7 Purcell Place, Clarence Town.
PN493
I understand you've prepared a statement for today's proceedings?---Yes, I have.
PN494
Could you commence to read into evidence that statement please?---Certainly.
PN495
My name is Stuart Morris. I am the Production Manager at EDI Rail Cardiff. I have been with EDI at Cardiff for just over two years. I am directly responsible for all manufacturing production activities at Cardiff.
PN496
In the two years that I've been at EDI Rail I see that our EBA is appropriate for the Cardiff site. The EBA has a skills based classification structure that uses broad descriptions with an emphasis on what the guys on site are mainly required to do. This is also supported in the EBA by multi-skilling between classifications where applicable. It is clear in the EBA that the main function of the RPE1s is to manufacture the product that we're producing and then verify the quality of the product whereas the main function of the RPTs is to test and commission the product and confirm the operation of the product to the required specification. This distinction between the RPE1s and the RPT follows through the management structure of the Cardiff organisation chart as the RPE1s report through myself to the facility manager at Cardiff whereas the technicians or RPTs report through to the test and commissioning manager who then reports directly to the project rather than through to Cardiff.
**** STUART MORRIS XN MR GORDON
PN497
From my overall view of the production work the manufacturing works at Cardiff I do not see that the primary work done by the crew or guys in F11 is significantly different from work done by other RPE1s throughout the workshop. That is production work and verification of production work. As per the EBA the RPE1 is expected to use measuring equipment of all kinds in the quantitative verification of work quality having received instruction in the use of such equipment as required.
PN498
Some examples of where I believe the work is similar is throughout the whole workshop. In the fabrication section critical dimensions are verified and recorded by the RPE1s. They have to work to critical dimensions to ensure that the product is built correctly. That happens from head stock fabrication through to end unit assembly through to shell assembly. There are check lists that the RPE1s complete that are part of the works orders. They also perform a water leak test when they install the equipment tray in the roof, a soapy water test.
PN499
The RPE1s in the F1/F2 bays in conjunction with the quality control guys they test and operate the doors on the cars. They open and shut them to make sure that they function correctly. Again documentation which is provided by the supplier of the doors is completed and forms part of the works orders.
PN500
RPE1s from the sub assembly area through to fitout complete point to point testing, checking their work and others work. Again documentation is completed for this work. RPE1s complete Hi-Pot testing where they're checking for integrity of insulation, looking for breakdowns to ground. Again a CTI is completed for this activity by RPE1s.
PN501
RPE1s also complete functional testing of lights, doors, air conditioning etcetera to ensure the correct build of the vehicle prior to handover of the vehicle to test and commissioning.
**** STUART MORRIS XN MR GORDON
PN502
There's critical dimensions, recordings, readings that are made all throughout the build process by RPE1s to verify the quality of the manufacture. They're generally recorded on the works orders and these works orders form part of the build documentation that supports the manufacture of the vehicles. This documentation is accessible to the client and has been referred to and audited by the client in the past.
PN503
Finally, I would like to say something. That I do appreciate the work that Richard and Brian and the boys do in the F11 crew and we have a good relationship and I want that relationship to continue.
PN504
Thank you. Mr Morris, I just ask who do you report to in your role?---I report to the facility manager of Cardiff.
PN505
Who reports to you?---I have several people who report to me. I have a production manager in charge of electrical that reports to me. There's three group leaders. One is a fabrication guy. One is a fitout guy. Another is a rework maintenance type person. I also have a welding supervisor that reports to me and a project coordinator.
PN506
In the enterprise agreement it makes reference to a test engineer. Are you the test engineer?---No, I am not.
PN507
Who is the test engineer?---That's Michael Brushe, the test and commissioning manager.
PN508
When did you start your employment with EDI Rail?---It was 19 August 2002.
PN509
When was the EBA certified?---It was signed off in October 2002.
**** STUART MORRIS XN MR GORDON
PN510
What were the F11 crew doing when you started at EDI?---They're doing exactly the same things that they're doing now. There's been no significant change to their work scope.
PN511
So in effect they were performing the same role now prior to agreeing to the certified agreement?---Yes.
PN512
How would you describe the classification system under the EBA?---It's a - as I said in the statement it's a skills based classification and there's you know broad definitions.
PN513
Are those broad definitions exhaustive? Do they provide a complete list of everything people do?---No, no it's not - it's not specific by any means.
PN514
How do you deal with the areas of crossover or overlap between classifications?---They're handled by the multi-skilling clause in the EBA.
PN515
Does that occur on a daily basis?---It's regular.
PN516
Who has the responsibility for the classification of employees?---I am responsible for the production employees in conjunction with the facility manager. I am not responsible for the technicians in test and commissioning.
PN517
So you're responsible for the classification of people in your area?---Yep, yep, production employees, yeah.
PN518
How do you assess whether a person is in the right classification?---I look at what they mainly do in their works area and then compare and contrast that to the classification structure in the EBA.
**** STUART MORRIS XN MR GORDON
PN519
When you said a moment ago what they mainly do what do you mean by "what they mainly do"?---That would be their principal purpose of employment, what they are engaged - what they are employed to mainly do.
PN520
Do you mean on a time basis, how much time they spend?---No, it would be talking about the nature of the work and the frequency. The guys in test and commissioning, the RPTs do test and commissioning work, the RPE1s do production work and verification of that production work.
PN521
As production manager having responsibility for production plant wide what ramifications would be caused by a decision to reclassify the F11 group employees as RPT as is their claim?---I believe that it would have a fairly negative, detrimental effect for the Cardiff site. It would certainly have a negative effect on the employee and employer relationship that we have at the moment. I would see further claims following on from that. You know, I know guys in the workshop now are waiting to see what happens. I would see a further claim then coming from the RPTs as well so there'd be follow on, leapfrogging effect of claims. The options to resolve it would basically - would mean either removing those activities from the RPEs scope of work or reclassifying them all to technicians which is obviously unacceptable. I believe that would, you know, destroy the whole concept of multiskilling through the EBA.
PN522
I have no further questions.
PN523
PN524
MR MAHER: Mr Morris, as part of the senior management group on the site it's true that the major concern initially held by management, and that's prior to Mr Collison's arrival when Mr Bray - sorry?---It might have been Mr Whitworth or - - -
**** STUART MORRIS XXN MR MAHER
PN525
No, prior to Mr Whitworth?---Okay.
PN526
When Lawrence Bray was in the site manager's job that's when the claim first arose; do you recall that?---It would've been roundabout that time, yeah.
PN527
Would it be true to say that your major concern was the possibility of flow on to other areas?---Yes, that was one of my concerns.
PN528
Was it your major concern?---I don't know whether it was a major concern, it would be very high up on the list there. It was certainly from the guys themselves on the shop floor I believe that that would happen, you know, almost immediately if this reclassification was to occur.
PN529
But they could only have a legitimate claim if their claim was substantiated; that's correct isn't it?---Yep.
PN530
You mentioned that one of the concerns was that the test bay technicians may put in a claim; how could they do that? There's no other classification in the agreement that would allow that to happen?---Yeah, that's right, I'm sure they would put a claim through to say that they were being unjustly treated, that they - their work that they do is above the level of the production work guys that they do in the facility in the production side of things.
PN531
So your major concerns were flow on to other RPE level 1s and the possibility of some further claim by the technicians?---Yeah, they were some of the concerns.
PN532
I don't think I've got anything else, Commissioner.
PN533
**** STUART MORRIS RXN MR GORDON
PN534
MR GORDON: In regard to the point you made about flow on, you said that that was high up there, indicating to me that there must be other concerns could you give me an indication of what other concerns you would have in regard to reclassifying the F11 employees to RPTs?---I - I don't believe it's entitled. I don't believe that the work that they do is classified as RPT work under the EBA. Clearly, the primary principal work scope that the guys do in F11 is production work and verification of production work, verification of the quality.
PN535
Thank you.
PN536
PN537
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Maher, are you ready to make your final submissions?
PN538
MR MAHER: Yes, sir. Mr Gordon in his submissions and during his questioning of his witnesses has made a bit of the timing of the claim. I don't think that has any relevance to the matter. The application made by the union and what we're seeking is the reclassification of a group of people at F11 from level 1 people to technicians.
PN539
Whether that claim is a long-standing claim or a recent claim I don't think that has any relevance whatsoever. In particular, Mr Gordon was making a fair bit of the fact that EBA negotiations had gone on whilst the F11 crew were carrying on the same sort of work. It's generally not the practice of using EBA negotiations to look at reclassifying individuals.
PN540
The issue of the work value changes raised by Mr Gordon have no relevance insofar as the award was varied in its original form - the agreement was varied in its original form by consent between the parties to have the rolling stock production technician inserted so it was done by agreement, it met all the relevant tests and standards required under the work value changes principles so we see that as no barrier to have these people reclassified.
PN541
We heard just a moment ago from Mr Morris that one of the major concerns was for flow on and we've given the company commitments that, as a result of reclassification, there will be no general claim nor are we aware of any claims only rumours that there may be claims forthcoming if this was to be granted but the major concern is unfounded. There is no other classification for current technicians to go into apart from into the supervisory area of crew leader or group leader so we think that is an unfounded concern by the company.
PN542
Evidence given by both Mr Winney and Mr Jackson from our point of view quite clearly demonstrates that the F11 employees do substantially different and higher skilled work than the general run-of-the-mill, if I may put it that way, level 1 mechanical fitter. We submit that the test is not so much the direct comparison between the work carried out by technicians in the test bay and the F11 crew but, rather, the test, from our point of view, is the relationship between the work done by the F11 crew to the rolling responsibilities and the requirements of the classification, particularly that as outlined in the agreement. It is fair to say that Mr Gordon was honing in on the part of the role and responsibility of a technician 1.1A and that is to perform work primarily involving the testing of all aspects of railway rolling stock.
PN543
Now of course that is not possible with the F11 crew because they haven't the capacity or the ability to have live power put through the car, so they are limited in regard to doing all aspects of railway rolling stock testing but from our point of view it is unchallenged that the evidence given by Mr Winney and Mr Jackson clearly goes to the extensive testing and to an extent from our point of view a level of commissioning that the people in F11 are called on to carry out.
PN544
I believe that in particular the evidence of Mr Jackson when he was referring to the tender document M1 remains a valid form of evidence insofar as from our point of view Mr Gordon was only able to get some sort of purchase in regard to 1.1A again and that's relying, putting a lot of reliance on the wording of 1.1A and that is testing of all aspects of railway rolling stock.
PN545
Our submission is that the F11 employees have proved on the balance of probabilities that they are meeting the requirements and the role and responsibilities of the rolling stock production technician level and without being hindered by the company's concerns of flow on to other areas we believe that they deserve to be reclassified from their existing RPE level 1 to the rolling stock production technician classification and we further submit that the work value changes, the 2004 safety net adjustment rules do not prevent the Commission from granting that application.
PN546
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Maher. Mr Gordon?
PN547
MR GORDON: Thank you. Commissioner, at the first instance I would like to indicate very clearly a position from the company in regard to this matter. We do appreciate the proper and professional way in which the employees in the F11 crew have conducted this claim, they have not sought to take protected industrial action, sorry, sought to take any form of industrial action and they have conducted themselves quite well in terms of clearly articulating what their claim is and the justification for it.
PN548
Unfortunately we do have a situation where even though the company has given some quite substantial attention to this matter we have not been able to find that we can justify the claim. That of course has led us to this situation which is involved an arbitration. It must be said I think that all parties would prefer to avoid this process if possible, however from time to time these things do become necessary. We make our submissions essentially along five lines and we believe the evidence that has been put forward today by the witnesses in the form of Mr Richens, Mr White and Mr Morris support these key points.
PN549
The first of those is that reclassification must take into consideration what the classification and description say and also the nature of the work undertaken and most importantly look at where a person spends a major or substantial period of employment or what's the principal purpose of their employment or another term that's commonly used is mainly engaged and I reference, and this was identified through the evidence led by the witnesses, that in regard to the classification structures it talks about people who are primarily involved in the testing of all railway rolling stock. Primarily involved was a matter that all three witnesses that I led evidence from for the company identified clearly that the RPEs are not primarily involved in the testing of all aspects of railway rolling stock.
PN550
They certainly do testing, we acknowledge that testing and we appreciate the sincerity of the employees claim as I said in that they see that testing as some way giving them a ground for reclassification to the RPT and they seek to look mostly at the work they do and the wording in the EBA but seek to play down or avoid looking too much at the work that's actually undertaken by people in the RPT classification which we believe has to be taken into consideration. It's not only the work that they do, it's the work that's undertaken by RPT people in the context of the work environment.
PN551
The second matter we identify is in regard to reclassification, must take into consideration the nature and frequency of the work undertaken and in regard to the RPT, it is in effect a technician's role, its primary purpose is really for test and importantly commissioning of the operating equipment and that involves a significant amount of fault finding and most importantly, and we see this as a critical element to this process, that it has to involve a situation where those cars operate as a system, they're coupled up, they're powered up and those testing arrangements can be undertaken and the commissioning arrangements can be undertaken and I believe in regard to the evidence in cross-examination of Mr Winney and Mr Jackson it was made very clear that they in fact don't undertake work in that area and they certainly consent to that.
PN552
In regard to reclassification, we also say that must take into consideration that multi-skilling has been provided for in the enterprise agreement, in fact it specifically identifies this at a clause, clause 11 if I'm correct, just bear with me for a moment while I identify the exhibit. At clause 11 it identifies very clearly:
PN553
That it is agreed that employees who undertake duties from time to time in the course of their employment which falls within some or all of the abovementioned classification streams shall undertake this work without receiving an increase or reduction in salary.
PN554
In fact all employees acknowledge that they were doing this work prior to this enterprise agreement coming into play, they understood the classification system and how it worked and they understood they were accepting a negotiated arrangements of wages and conditions for a period of time, that did provide for multi-skilling and we believe that whilst the duties that are undertaken do involve a degree of multi-skilling they certainly don't involve a degree of working at a higher skill level that's above and beyond the multi-skilling activities that can reasonably be identified as operating between the classification structures.
PN555
Effectively Mr Maher has indicated that in regard to the issue of powered up vehicles to use his language, that I wasn't able to get much purchase in the evidence in regard to that matter. He identified that the classification structure has an actual limit in the sense that those employees aren't given the opportunity to perform that work because they don't work on powdered up cars.
PN556
In fact all of the classifications have a natural limit. At the end of the day there is a limit to each classification and that's a clear distinguishing feature in regard to the classification of rolling stock production technician. A key distinguishing feature is that they do undertake that work in a powered up environment. This is particularly identified in points 1.1(a) of the classification definition for RPT and also 1.3 of the classification definition and I think these points were very clearly borne out in the evidence today that the RPT technicians undertake all testing and commissioning and clearly the RPE level one in the F11 bay area do undertake some testing, but not all testing. It is questionable as to what, if any, commissioning they actually undertake.
PN557
I'd also identify that the Commission must guard against the concepts of wage leap frogging arising out of changes in relative position and this goes to the issues of the wage fixing principles and how that is relevant to this matter is by virtue of the fact that we have a broad based classification structure, skill based classification structure with broad definitions. It's not a classification structure that is exhaustive in identifying every task that people undertake and effectively Mr Maher says he has given the company an undertaking that he, or the union wouldn't support any wage leap frogging claims, however he also notes that a claim can only go forward where it is substantiated.
PN558
The concern that we have in this matter is that there is not a significant difference between what the F11 crew does relative to the rest of the REP level one employees and therefore by moving down the path of granting a reclassification to the F11 bay leaves the door very wide open for the rest of the REP level one employees to make claims in regard to RPT and from what they would perceive to be a bona fide base rather than just a spurious claim and we are of the view, and I think that has been borne out in evidence, in particular by Mr Morris who has responsibility for the whole production area, that that way's leap frogging concern would come to the fore.
PN559
Also the Commission must guard against contrived classifications and again that's relevant through the work value principles. Because we have a skilled based classification structure with broad definitions it could be inadvertently construed in such a way as an employee's role was over-classified in that system. This enterprise agreement has operated very effectively from the day it started. We acknowledge that this issue about the men in F11 bay feeling aggrieved in some way about how this dispute may have been handled initially, and in particular that they had a claim based on their understanding of the CTIs, but we certainly believe that the evidence that has been brought forward today through witnesses, that in fact they don't undertake all the testing and commissioning duties.
PN560
I just harp back for a minute to how those principles come forward and go to my submissions earlier today in regard to when in a decision involving Air Freight v Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, the Ansett Air Freight decision, we identified very clearly that classification of employees should be on the basis of what is considered to be their major or substantial employment. I think we've drawn that out in evidence that RPE level one, their major and substantial employment is in fact in the production process, not in the technician's role.
PN561
In regard to the work value principle, again the Ansett decision cites an earlier decision of the Commission involving CEPU and Telstra, that where there is a broad based skill based classification structure wage fixing principles and the work value principles definitely do come into consideration and the Commission needs to have regard to those matters.
PN562
We would conclude our submissions by saying it is our submission that in fact the union has not been able to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the F11 crew employees met the requirements in terms of what they do and in terms of the descriptions in the EBA for the RTP classification and we believe their claim should be based on that.
PN563
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Any rebuttal Mr Maher?
PN564
MR MAHER: Only to say that Mr Gordon on behalf of the company has brought multi-skilling as a question. Our submission is it is not a question of a multi-skilling issue. The duties that are carried out by the F11 employees on an hour to hour, day to day, basis are their full time duties. It is not a matter of a bit of overlap between the RPE one classification and a little bit of work here and there in the technician level. Our evidence and our submissions are that it's a day in day out range of duties well over and above that of the REP one and what's being carried out on site and simply again we just support our submission that it does fall in the technician level.
PN565
Again, I just say there are no issues in regard to the work value principles because we believe that our claim, our application, doesn't offend any of those principles.
PN566
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Maher.
PN567
When I was with the parties earlier this month I indicated to the parties for a number of reasons that I would be prepared to give a decision on transcript in respect of this matter and I propose to do so. I have read all the material which has been on the file and this matter has been before me on several occasions and I have had inspections of the plant on one occasion. It is an application by the Australian Workers Union to have its members employed as Rolling Stock Production employees level one in the F11 department reclassified to Rolling Stock Production Technicians.
PN568
The application has been supported by the union in written submissions and by the calling of witnesses. Mr Gordon for the company today also has provided witnesses and witness statement. He has also given to me a number of references of various cases, five in all, that I must take account of.
PN569
Those cases pertain to disputes over classifications in award matters, and the principles outlined in those cases, whilst they are difficult for a party to reach, apply to arguments where classifications are in an award, and in respect of this matter, these classifications are in a certified agreement, an agreement with which the Commission had played no role in other than to certify. The only power given to the Commission to deal with anything in a certified agreement is the power that that agreement gives the Commission, itself. In this particular case, the grievance procedure does give the power to the Commission to arbitrate or conciliate a matter in dispute and both parties have asked me to do this.
PN570
However, the Federal Court has also placed limitations upon the Commission in dealing with such a matter. That is, that the Commission cannot rewrite an enterprise agreement which has been entered into by the parties through negotiations. The Commission only has the right to interpret an ambiguity within that agreement, and it is with those restrictions I make the following findings in respect of this matter.
PN571
The first finding I would make is that I consider, from what I have heard in respect of this matter, that the parties perhaps at their next round of negotiations for a new enterprise agreement, ought to be re-examining the classification structure of this agreement, because I am not convinced that the F11 employees fall within either of the two classifications that are before me today. It would appear to me that on the reading of the classifications, they are somewhere inbetween, but that would be for the parties to determine in those negotiations that they will soon be entering into.
PN572
In relation to the simple fact that what I have before me today, I can only go on the reading of the documentation which the parties have agreed to, and I am entitled to read down those classifications but I must get over the first hurdle and both Mr Winney and Mr Jackson giving honest evidence and they answered all questions and never tried to duck any of the questions from the employer both - except for the fact that they do not work under the supervision of a test engineer, and that is the first hurdle that must be overcome.
PN573
There is no test engineer involved in the directions to the F11 people, and if we cannot get over that first clause in the agreement then I cannot read it down, and I am satisfied, therefore, that the F11 people do not meet the standard, as required in their agreement, for rolling stock production technician and I dismiss the application. The Commission stands adjourned.
ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [3.03pm]
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
EXHIBIT #G1 BUNDLE OF CITATIONS PN29
RICHARD JOHN WINNEY, SWORN PN51
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MAHER PN51
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GORDON PN113
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MAHER PN182
WITNESS WITHDREW PN202
BRIAN LESLIE JACKSON, SWORN PN204
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MAHER PN204
EXHIBIT #M1 COPY REPORT PN208
EXHIBIT #G2 EDI RAIL RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM PN214
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GORDON PN276
EXHIBIT #3 CLYDE TEST INSTRUCTION CT100399 PN282
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MAHER PN374
WITNESS WITHDREW PN380
SIMON ALLAN RICHENS, AFFIRMED PN385
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GORDON PN385
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAHER PN419
EXHIBIT #G4 MR RICHEN'S STATEMENT PN445
WITNESS WITHDREW PN448
JONATHON WHITE, SWORN PN453
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GORDON PN453
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAHER PN481
EXHIBIT #G5 STATEMENT OF J. WHITE PN490
WITNESS WITHDREW PN490
STUART MORRIS, SWORN PN492
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GORDON PN492
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAHER PN524
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GORDON PN534
WITNESS WITHDREW PN537
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2004/3510.html