C0084/699, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 397 (3 February 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 7, ANZ House 13 Grenfell St ADELAIDE SA 5000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N F1304

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN

C No 00846 of 1999

RAILWAYS SALARIED OFFICERS
INTERIM AWARD 1995

Review under Item 51 Part 2 Schedule 5
Transitional WROLA Act 1996 re award
simplification

ADELAIDE

2.15 PM, TUESDAY, 20 JANUARY 2004

THIS HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BY VIDEO LINK

PN1

MR S. MAJEKS: I appear for the Public Transport Authority of Western Australia. Appearing with me is MS J. BISHOP.

PN2

MR S. BIBBY: I appear on behalf of the Australian Services Union.

PN3

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will perhaps start off by wishing you both a good New Year. The purpose of this hearing was fundamentally set out in a letter that I sent to the parties on 12 December. At that stage we were looking at a hearing to be held on 17 December. That hearing didn't occur and is instead occurring today.

PN4

I regard the purpose of today's hearing as fundamentally one of clarifying the issues that I identified to the parties relative to 9 July 2003 document in my letter of 12 December. Is there any issue with that as a purpose? In that I don't fundamentally regard this as the opportunity to present detailed submissions in response to those questions, but rather to clarify those questions and work out how we are going to proceed from there. Do you agree with that, Mr Majeks?

PN5

MR MAJEKS: I do agree with that, Senior Deputy President.

PN6

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Bibby, are you happy with that approach?

PN7

MR BIBBY: Yes, I am.

PN8

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. Who wants to start then?

PN9

MR MAJEKS: Yes. Look, I guess I may as well commence with the proceeding. As at the last constitutional conference that we appeared before you in last year, I guess we left with the direction that we ought to go out and develop the classification structure that we wanted for the - with respect of the award and equally come up with the weight structure that we wanted to insert in the award equally. I guess what we were then supposed to do was to, I guess, impress upon you the structures with the definition and equally give you where the entry point for the graduates is, as well as what we have determined to be the - well, the invest of our relativity to what our awards were like, and that you were going to, I guess, do the sums with your computer, or PC or software you've got and then spit out the figures for us. So essentially, what we - - -

PN10

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We've had a debate of this nature before, Mr Majeks. I'm looking at the 9 July 2003 document that the parties have sent to me. I'm understanding that to be an agreed proposition.

PN11

MR MAJEKS: Yes.

PN12

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In my 12 December 2003 correspondence, I've set out some five issues about which I seek clarification.

PN13

MR MAJEKS: That is for the Senior Deputy President, but following on from that conference that we had where we were supposed to present you with the operational definition of all the structures that we had or was already in the award and equally come up with a classification level that we deem to be the entry point for a graduates level, which we have done and I guess what you are supposed to do following on from that constitutional conference was that you were going to apply the formula that you had ..... the minimum in respect of MRE for the classification structure and be able to work out the ..... relativities for us. Now, what we - - -

PN14

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think, once again, I need to stress. I think there's some misunderstanding there that the spreadsheet to which you are referring simply allows me to look at an existing set of classifications and the rates of pay to determine having set a set of - no, a key classification on the basis of a comparison with a metal trades person's rate - - -

PN15

MR MAJEKS: Yes.

PN16

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - what the properly fixed minimum rates of pay are.

PN17

MR MAJEKS: Yes. Look at this - yes. The exercise that I took for your direction was to look at the structure on what we allowed and what we come up was man levels, plus before ..... classification which you should have before you.

PN18

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I do. What I'm looking at - - -

PN19

MR MAJEKS: That is four documents.

PN20

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - is the document entitled: Rates of pay. It is number 12 or clause 12 presumably, and it is in the correspondence sent on 9 July. That is, the correspondence that I mislaid late last year. Is that correct?

PN21

MR BIBBY: Yes, sir.

PN22

MR MAJEKS: Yes, that is true, a number one.

PN23

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It commences with a number of level one junior classifications.

PN24

MR MAJEKS: That is correct but you shouldn't have any figures for ..... rate, the LRE and the - - -

PN25

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, the document that I have - - -

PN26

MR MAJEKS: - - - got a copy of that.

PN27

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The document that I have has, if I look at level one and the adult rates, it has an amount of $21,569 for the 21 year or first year of adult service rate. It then has an amount of $5530 for the arbitrated safety net adjustment per annum.

PN28

MR MAJEKS: Yes, look ..... yes.

PN29

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A total minimum rates per annum of 27,099, a residual of 299 and a total salary per annum of 27,398.

PN30

MR MAJEKS: Yes, look. Can I just address that. Obviously, you are not supposed to go on. I wasn't meant to send you a copy of that, Senior Deputy President. Basically, the figure that we were supposed to present you with was just an indicative level in respect of the classification structure. With what we propose to put in the award in terms of what the percentage relativities were for the Level 1, and equally what the percentage a month was for ..... employee.

PN31

I guess, it is - those are the things that should be discarded, Senior Deputy President, because obviously, I was just trying to, when I did these sums, was trying to figure the exercise. To try and work the exercise, and I think, following on from when we met with yourself during the conciliation process. You did indicate that once we give you the classification structure and those two percentage relativities, that you will be able to be in a better position, given that you have got any software, to spit out the sums, in terms of what are the minimum rates and the residual component. So you will probably find the figures that I've given you there, which shouldn't have come to you, are probably inaccurate.

PN32

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. So that if I'm understanding you correctly, and we will come back to the software package again in a moment that doesn't do what it is we are proposing that it does, but if I look at this proposed clause 12, and disregard for a moment the junior rates of pay.

PN33

MR MAJEKS: Yes.

PN34

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What you are saying to me there is that I should regard level one which is defined a little later on in the document, on the basis of an assessment by the parties of 87.4 per cent of the C12 rate, but that there should be no rates of pay built in to that proposed schedule at this stage.

PN35

MR MAJEKS: Senior Deputy President, that was - those figures that you have got there were a working document that we had in arriving at figures that we had. Essentially, what the proposed structure should reflect is, Level 1, should be 95 per cent.

PN36

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 95 per cent of what?

PN37

MR MAJEKS: Per cent of the C10 for magistrates.

PN38

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, then if I look at the document that I have and the first page of clause 12 it talks about 87.4 per cent of C12. What - - -

PN39

MR MAJEKS: Correct. That is what I obviously tried to indicate to you that that was just a working document, when we are looking at comparative - doing a comparative assessment we put our awards on that and that was solely indicative, but what we propose, as I said to you in the email of 9 July was that in Level 1, will be 95 per cent of the C10.

PN40

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN41

MR MAJEKS: And that - - -

PN42

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So that - let me go from there. Do you propose to retain the 9 years, or 9 increments in level one?

PN43

MR MAJEKS: No, Senior Deputy President. You will recall from our discussion with you at the constitutional conference that we did indicate that we would dispense with those service-based increments. The proposal is just to have junior rigs up to 21, adult service. 21 year of age, if you want to call it that, which is consistent with what you have got in your proposal - proposed order. Which is just like the old Level 1, representative of under 17, up to 21 year old, and then dispense with the rest - up to 29 year, adult services.

PN44

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. So that, in effect, what you are saying to me, is that notwithstanding the document that we are both looking at, level one should not have, first of all any reference to 87.4 per cent, but should have a reference to 95 per cent. Presumably 95 per cent of the metal trades tradesperson classification?

PN45

MR MAJEKS: That is correct, Senior Deputy President.

PN46

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not 95 per cent of level two, but it is 95 per cent of the C10 tradesperson.

PN47

MR MAJEKS: That is correct.

PN48

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. You were saying to me, notwithstanding the various figures included in this document, those figures all ought to be disregarded and instead an amount of 95 per cent of the metal trades classification, which would amount to something of the order of - if you bear with me for one moment - $515.10 or thereabouts per week.

PN49

MR MAJEKS: That is what it - - -

PN50

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would reflect the weekly amount payable for a Level 1 employee. Is that - - -

PN51

MR MAJEKS: Correct.

PN52

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then notwithstanding the various annual increments contained in that document, they all ought to be disregarded so there would only be - - -

PN53

MR MAJEKS: That is - - -

PN54

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - one amount for a Level 1 employee. Is that correct?

PN55

MR BIBBY: Sorry, sir. I think, the confusion comes about with the - I'm just trying to understand, in terms of what you just put to us, does that therefore mean that the junior rates have disappeared, or not?

PN56

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. I haven't looked at junior rates at all yet. I've parked them to one side for the present time. I will come back to the junior rates if I can. If I then understand what Mr Majeks is saying to me, and look at the second page of that proposed new clause, the level two through to level six classifications ought to have percentages which commence from the premise of 118 per cent of the metal trades C10 classification, but otherwise preserve the existing relativities, that is those relativities that are contained in the current award.

PN57

MR MAJEKS: Senior Deputy President, the - what we are saying is that it shouldn't be 118. It should be 115 per cent. 115.

PN58

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. It is just that I'm looking here at - - -

PN59

MR MAJEKS: As I said earlier, those figures that you quote in your - before you are inaccurate. They are incorrect. They shouldn't be the figures that you should have.

PN60

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN61

MR MAJEKS: So it should be the figure, in effect, should read 115 per cent rather than 118.

PN62

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Is this all set out in another document that I don't have, Mr Majeks, or are you still working on the document that I've referred to?

PN63

MR MAJEKS: I don't believe you have got the right document in your presence, Senior Deputy President.

PN64

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Has it been sent to me or have you got it?

PN65

MR MAJEKS: It should be part of the document that was sent to you earlier in the things.

PN66

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm looking forward a few pages to the document that I have. I have another document which has a wages table. It commences with junior rates but the first junior rate is $11,082.

PN67

MR MAJEKS: That is correct, Senior Deputy Present.

PN68

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Now, if we once again park our junior rates - - -

PN69

MR MAJEKS: Yes.

PN70

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - to one side for the moment, what you are saying there is that the 95 per cent, the Level 1 classification, should equate to 95 per cent.

PN71

MR MAJEKS: That is correct.

PN72

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Should I have any regard to that amount of 21,569?

PN73

MR MAJEKS: That reads as current rate of the existing rates in the award, sir.

PN74

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. So it wouldn't necessarily relate to 95 per cent of the metal trades C10 classification?

PN75

MR MAJEKS: No. That would just be used in terms of determining the - what the decision will be between the metal trades and the - - -

PN76

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The 95 per cent figure is, if I understand the logic correctly, drawn from reliance on the extent to which the Level 1 definition contained in the document two pages forward from the page we have just been looking at, is - - -

PN77

MR MAJEKS: That is correct.

PN78

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - comparable with the level two definition contained in the Local Government Officers Award which attracted 95 per cent of the metal trades C10 classification. Is that correct?

PN79

MR MAJEKS: That is correct.

PN80

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. All right. I'm saying, just saying, all right, in that I now understand the logic.

PN81

MR BIBBY: Okay. Sorry, sir. You have just made reference to the Local Government Officers Award.

PN82

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN83

MR BIBBY: Made a reference to the fact that Level 1 in that award is set at 95 per cent.

PN84

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know whether it is, off the top of my head, Mr Bibby. That is what I'm trying to clarify with the parties. There's another way of putting the question. Upon what basis is the 95 per cent proposed for adoption for Level 1?

PN85

MR MAJEKS: 95 per cent in essence will be related to the metal trades by C10.

PN86

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. What determined why the parties chose 95 per cent as distinct from 95.3 per cent?

PN87

MR MAJEKS: I guess effectively equates to 95 - sorry, equates to the Level 2 in the Local Government Officers Award.

PN88

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, which you say attracts the 95 per cent?

PN89

MR MAJEKS: Yes, 95 per cent, correct.

PN90

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. Okay, then, now once again you shouldn't take any comments I make here as anything other than my understanding the position that has been put to me. Now, if I look further down at the Level 2, which the parties say to me is the graduate entry level, there are two percentage figures specified there. One is 115 per cent which, if I understand it correctly, is intended to be 115 per cent of the C10 Metal Trades Classification?

PN91

MR MAJEKS: That is correct, sir.

PN92

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Underneath that is an amount of 118 per cent. How should I understand that?

PN93

MR MAJEKS: No, just disregard that - - -

PN94

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that an error?

PN95

MR MAJEKS: Yes, that is an error.

PN96

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Now, if we then look at Levels 3 through to 9, if I understand the position of the parties, you would propose that the final award adopt relativities based on the existing relativity between Levels 3 to 9 and Level 2, but obviously based on the new rate for the Level 2, is that correct?

PN97

MR MAJEKS: That is correct, sir.

PN98

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In terms of that Level 2, you proposed to me that the logic behind the adoption of 115 per cent is based on, what?

PN99

MR MAJEKS: Well, I guess, it is on 115 per cent of the C10.

PN100

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but what determined 115 per cent, as distinct from a different percentage?

PN101

MR MAJEKS: That is the graduate entry level, sir.

PN102

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is the graduate entry level in which award? What I'm trying to understand here is, the parties have proposed that I define Level 2 as the graduate entry and effectively use that as the key classification, drawing on a relativity with the Metal Tradesperson C10 classification of 115 per cent. What I'm trying to fathom here is, what determined that quantum of 115 per cent?

PN103

MR MAJEKS: Senior Deputy President, I thought the key classification was established at Level 1, which is at 95 per cent.

PN104

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, so you are saying that having established the 95 per cent at the Level 1, the Level 2 is 115 per cent of the Level 1?

PN105

MR MAJEKS: That is right.

PN106

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Not 115 per cent of the Metal Trades - - -

PN107

MR MAJEKS: 115 per cent of the C10.

PN108

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Majeks - - -

PN109

MR MAJEKS: Is that not - - -

PN110

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm suffering from a disadvantage here in that I've had another 2½ hours in my day, other than that which you've had and I'm grappling with the proposition. Let me put it to you this way. Level 1, you say is 95 per cent of the C10 rate and that logic is underpinned by the extent to which Level 1 is comparable with the Level 2 definition in the Local Government Officers Award?

PN111

MR MAJEKS: That is correct.

PN112

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are saying then Level 2 is the graduate entry level and the amount there should be determined by the relativity in the existing award, that is the pre-simplified award, between Level 2 and Level 1?

PN113

MR BIBBY: Sorry, sir, could you just say that again?

PN114

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If Level 1 is the key classification, is the Level 2 amount to be determined by relying on the existing relativity between Level 2 and Level 1?

PN115

MR MAJEKS: Sorry, Commissioner, can we just take a few minutes?

PN116

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Majeks. I will let you know when it is my tea time, but keep going until I let you know. Mr Majeks, if it is easier, there should be a mute button on the microphone on your desk, if you want to push that, you won't need to whisper so much. I can't hear you now, so feel free to talk until your heart is content. Mr Majeks, can you hear me? I'm only interrupting now - - -

PN117

MR MAJEKS: Yes.

PN118

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - because it appeared to me as an interested observer in this process that you are all sitting pondering a number of different sheets of paper. Have you reached a point wherein the problem - the question I have asked is unanswerable, or do you have an answer for me?

PN119

MR MAJEKS: Yes, we have an answer, Senior Deputy President, and I guess you know just going back, Level 1 as you said earlier ..... key classification and is 95 per cent of the ..... and Metal Trades - - -

PN120

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, and that is based on the extent to which your Level 1 definition, you say, is comparable with that of a Level 2 employee under the Local Government Award?

PN121

MR MAJEKS: That is correct, Senior Deputy President.

PN122

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN123

MR MAJEKS: Then, I guess, it would be graduate level, which is Level 2.

PN124

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN125

MR MAJEKS: We saying it should be 115 per cent of the Level 1, which is the 95 per cent.

PN126

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, so it is not 115 per cent of the C10?

PN127

MR MAJEKS: No, it is not that - - -

PN128

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is 115 per cent of the Level 1?

PN129

MR MAJEKS: That is correct, sir.

PN130

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm still correct in understanding then that the reference in the documentation before me from the parties to "118 per cent" is wrong?

PN131

MR MAJEKS: That is correct, Senior Deputy President. It should be deleted.

PN132

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. In terms of Levels 3 through to 9, you were saying then I should calculate them on the basis of the existing relativity between those levels and the Level 1?

PN133

MR MAJEKS: That is correct, Senior Deputy President.

PN134

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In relation to the Classes 1 to 4, are you saying that I should calculate those two on the basis of the existing relativity between those classes and the Level 1?

PN135

MR MAJEKS: Correct, Senior Deputy President.

PN136

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. All right, and is that what both of parties are telling me?

PN137

MR MAJEKS: That is what - sorry, on our part, yes.

PN138

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Bibby is looking particularly excited.

PN139

MR BIBBY: No, sir. I have to say, sir, it wasn't the case it really needs to be decided.

PN140

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, Mr Bibby, you are now the last award that I've yet to complete, so if I'm looking excited by this process it is with the spectre of completion of my designated batch of awards.

PN141

MR BIBBY: Yes, sir. My comment was in no way in - designed to curtail your excitement.

PN142

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Bibby. It is unbridled.

PN143

MR BIBBY: I wanted to do that now, sir. Sir, I'm happy to file the submission on the employer in this matter. I can assist in - probably not in this proceedings - but could do by a written submission in terms of justifying the higher entry levels and, in particular, I think the parties have had discussions around graduate entry point and as it stands what Mr Majeks has put we notice you will concur with and at this point we will not need to make any further comment.

PN144

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Now, can I just take you to a number of other issues of clarification? The definitions proposed to me by the parties commence some two pages further on from the schedule that we have been discussing, am I to understand that they are agreed definitions?

PN145

MR MAJEKS: That is correct, Senior Deputy President.

PN146

MR BIBBY: Certainly that is.

PN147

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I just ensure that I'm looking at the same document and ask you to go a long way forward into the document to the class 4 definition? Mine is marked as page 34, do you have that document?

PN148

MR BIBBY: Sorry, sir. It was class 4?

PN149

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Class 4. The class 4 it is marked as 15.8.13.

PN150

MR BIBBY: Sorry, sir, mine starts on page 32.

PN151

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN152

MR BIBBY: Yes, sir, got class 4 in front of me now.

PN153

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, 15.8.13 commences at the bottom of that page, if I turn the page the typescript for the following is entirely different, if I turn that page it reverts to the earlier typescript, are we talking of the same document?

PN154

MR BIBBY: Sir, if I can find it in there? My reading at the top of page 33 of my document - - -

PN155

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, bear in mind my numbers don't correspond with yours.

PN156

MR BIBBY: Okay, this is under the heading of: Characteristics of the Level 15.8.13(a), it starts:

PN157

At this level employees direct and exercise a managerial responsibility for setting department activities, strategic direction...

PN158

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That corresponds, can I ask you to read then the next dot point or the first part of it?

PN159

MR BIBBY: I'm assuming by - it is not a dot point that it is the next paragraph and says:

PN160

General features of this level require the employees involvement in formulation, development and implementation of strategic programs.

PN161

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Although is actually marked as a dot point.

PN162

MR BIBBY: Right.

PN163

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And I have - - -

PN164

MR MAJEKS: Sorry, Senior Deputy President, I think mine and yours are probably the same. Mr Bibby's does not have the dot points on his. I guess.

PN165

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, there are various references - I will assume then that the different typescript does not imply an error in the document unless you come back to me, Mr Majeks, and advise me of that in the very near future.

PN166

MR MAJEKS: Senior Deputy President, the typescript on ours is the same.

PN167

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, and I can assure that I haven't typed up a new page.

PN168

MR MAJEKS: I'm not computer literate, Senior Deputy President, but our typescript is the same.

PN169

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN170

MR MAJEKS: Will you prefer that I fax to you a copy?

PN171

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that might be logical. Leave aside for a moment, the fact that I could observe there are an extraordinary number of people within the former Western Australian Government Railways Commission who are operating at a higher of level ability and providing work environments that motivate in power and develop the best talents of people, but there are a number of references in these classification definitions to the establishment control and organisation of ongoing plans and programs for Department/Western Australia Railways Commission, what do the parties intend to refer by use of the word, "department?" If you want such definition it just happens to be one that I'm looking at now. It is the class 3 definition 15.8.12(c) and it is the sixth, last point. There are numerous of these references.

PN172

MR MAJEKS: Senior Deputy President, can I just clarify what page you are looking at?

PN173

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, simply put I've got no idea of, Mr Majeks, because my page numbers don't seem to correspond.

PN174

MR MAJEKS: It is from the top of - from the bottom of the sixth last, so it is - - -

PN175

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think it might be page 37.

PN176

MR BIBBY: It is actually from - - -

PN177

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Or you could be looking at page 34.

PN178

MR MAJEKS: Commissioner, I would like to do some amendments to definition that you have currently got before you. As the sixth, the agency or the department, if you want to call it that, is no longer referred to as the ..... Railways Commission. We are now an authority and that is the definition in terms of, what are we called, and it is the authority, or Commission, or Department is kind of dealt with on that ..... or Management Act. So in essence, with respect to ourselves as a department or as an authority or an agency of the State Government. Sir, I'm not sure why you would have an issue or concern with that - - -

PN179

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm just trying clarify the situation but if I understand you correctly, you are proposing then that the parties would change the reference to "department" where it occurs and the references to the Western Australia Government Railways Commission to such that it was then the Public Transport Authority?

PN180

MR MAJEKS: That is correct, Senior Deputy President.

PN181

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Now, on the basis of the information provided to me, what I propose to do is to consider the document once again. I think it might be best if I then set out to the parties my understanding of what it is they are proposing to me, together with the views I have on that proposition, so that you can both consider that and depending on your responses we will then either need to schedule another hearing or I can proceed to finalise the matter. I would hope to be able to provide that information to you within the next week and half. I would ask for a rapid turnaround time so that I would hope to receive a response from you within 7 days, is that approach an appropriate one from your point of view, Mr Majeks?

PN182

MR MAJEKS: Yes, that is quite - able to do that, Senior Deputy President.

PN183

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, you see, whilst I've heard you today I'm not altogether certain I properly understood it and I'm anxious that I do so. Mr Bibby, are you happy with that approach?

PN184

MR BIBBY: Sir, the only constraint that I have is that next week I will be on leave for 1 week but I return on 2 February and I think with what you are suggesting is that will be about the time we would receive the documents, is that - - -

PN185

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I would hope to have the documents to you, bear with me for one moment, yes, I would expect to have the documents to you by the 30th and I would be looking for a response to them by the 6th. That time frame may change marginally but it shouldn't change a great deal.

PN186

MR BIBBY: I don't have a problem with that, as I said, I will be back in the office on 2 February and that week would be sufficient for me to respond to any issues that you are likely to raise.

PN187

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, thank you for your assistance in that matter and I will adjourn the proceedings accordingly.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.10pm]