C2002/5792, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 4279 (4 November 2004)

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
ABN 72 110 028 825

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N 2394
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER DANGERFIELD

C2002/5792

NORTH WESTERN ADELAIDE HEALTH SERVICE

and

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC,
ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND
ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA

Application under section 170LW of the Act
for settlement of a dispute re alleged breach
of subclause 15.2 - refusal to maintain the status
quo whilst in dispute with the employer regarding
classification matters

C2004/5759

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT
OF THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

and

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC,
ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND
ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of an industrial dispute re bans by the CEPU
at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital

ADELAIDE

2.20 PM, TUESDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2004

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: I will just take appearances before making some opening comments. Who have we got?

PN2

MR W. DEAKIN: If the Commission pleases, I appear on behalf of the CEPU Electrical Division.

PN3

MS M. SJOBERG: If the Commission pleases, I appear on behalf of the Queen in Right of the State of South Australia, and with me is A. WATSON and S. KENNEDY.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. I will just indicate for the record that I have two matters before the Commission this afternoon. One is what we might call a "revived matter", I think. It is matter 5792 of 2002 which was an original section 170LW application for settlement of a dispute referred by the North Western Adelaide Health Service to the Commission, and then referred out to me back in December 2002. I think we can call that a revived matter. In looking at that file, that file was never actually closed off and I, perhaps, might make some comment about that later on but there's that matter, and also before the Commission this afternoon is C5759 of 2004, which is a section 99 notification of an industrial dispute involving the same parties, involving - well it is in regard to alleged bans by the CEPU at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

PN5

So we have got these two matters. I guess there's quite a bit of history that has taken place over the last few weeks in particular, but possibly over a longer period. Ms Sjoberg, this is your application. Do you want to speak to it? What I would ask is that both parties put their broad factual scenario, if I could call it that and what they are seeking as a result of this conference, if they could put that on the record now and then, obviously, we will adjourn into conference. I will get the basic details of this whole thing on the record first.

PN6

MS SJOBERG: Thank you, Commissioner. Well, the purpose of the Government's submission today is to seek a recommendation that the employees in the Facility Services Section of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital adhere to the status quo, carry out work as directed in accordance with their full range of duties, and therefore all alleged unprotected industrial action being undertaken by the CEPU members should cease. Secondly, we will seek a recommendation that the CEPU pursues all bargaining for extra claims within the conciliation framework that has been established by the Commission under sections 170MY and 170MX in matters BP2004/4557 and BP2004/4558 in accordance with the Workplace Relations Act.

PN7

In supporting our request for those recommendations, the Government wants to argue that the previous recommendations of the Commission in the earlier matters, as the Commissioner alluded to - this has a long history - that all of those recommendations have been adhered to, and that an agreed reclassification process has been established and pursued in full consultation with the employees and their union, the CEPU. The Government asserts that a fair and reasonable offer has been made to reclassify the identified employees, and to pay them appropriate rates as a result of that reclassification process.

PN8

The CEPU members in the Facility Services Area of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital have expressed dissatisfaction with that offer, and imposed industrial action in the form of a ban on a wide range of duties that are hindering the effective maintenance and running of the hospital. The Government argues that the CEPU should adhere to the previous recommendations issued by Commissioner Simmonds as a result of this dispute, and it was in a matter heard in 2003, that the status quo should be maintained - that is, that clause 23 of the Federal Enterprise Agreement pertaining to these employees, the grievance and dispute settling procedures should be adhered to.

PN9

I know that the Commission has been involved in the history, and I don't want to go over a long and drawn out saga unnecessarily - perhaps just to remind the Commission that the dispute concerns the classification of 18 electrical trades people, mechanical fitters, and refrigeration mechanics who are employed with the Facility Services Section of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Failure to resolve this dispute has created significant difficulties for the management at the hospital, and as obviously the Commission has mentioned, this dispute was the subject of a hearing before yourself in December, 2002.

PN10

The issue in dispute at that time was the method by which any assessment for reclassification may occur. That hearing also took place prior to the certification of the 2002 Federal Enterprise Agreement. The elements of the dispute that was before the Commission at that time was to sort out a particular process. Since that time, an enterprise agreement was certified, the 2002 enterprise agreement, in which, among other things, contained a clause - the South Australian Government Wages Parity Federal Enterprise Agreement (2002). At clause 19, it states:

PN11

A matrix of additional skills - the parties agree that during the life of the agreement a matrix will be developed that will recognise and weight those skills to enable affected employees to be appropriately classified.

PN12

In early 2003, an agreement was reached between the Government and the CEPU that the Mersey tab would be the system that would be used - - -

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: When was that agreement, sorry?

PN14

MS SJOBERG: Early 2003.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN16

MS SJOBERG: It was March, 2003. The system that would be used is called the Mersey tab. You may be aware, Commission, that Mersey tab is a nationally accredited competency assessment system. It has been agreed between employer groups and unions under the auspices of, among others, the National Electrical and Electronics Industry Training Board. At that time, the Government brought out a Mr Tony Paladino from that Industry Training Advisory Board at the request of the CEPU, and it was during these discussions that the agreement to use Mersey tab was made. Again at the request of the CEPU, the process for establishing the Mersey tab system was developed at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital under the auspices of independent advisers and assessors.

PN17

Those advisers and assessors were people, consultants, agreed to by the CEPU. DAIS, the Department of Administrative and Information Services, on behalf of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, engaged a consultant, Mr Alex Frazier, from an organisation called RMIT Training Workforce Solutions, in accordance with the preferences expressed by the CEPU that he was an appropriate and experienced independent assessor. It was as a result of that background that led to another hearing before the AIRC, and that was before Commissioner Simmonds. There were some delays in the reclassification process. A section 99 dispute notification was lodged, and a hearing took place on 8 October 2003. I don't know if the Commission has access to that particular file.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't have that particular file in front of me, no.

PN19

MS SJOBERG: It is C2003/5857 for your reference. It is certainly correct to say that there were delays in the process of getting the Mersey tab up and running. As a result of that hearing, Commissioner Simmonds recommended that the CEPU cease its industrial action that was in place at the time, that the parties - both parties - conduct training courses and undertake assessments to give effect to the reclassification process, recommended that the parties should follow the dispute resolution procedure in the 2002 enterprise agreement, and again, similar to the 2002 situation, Commissioner Simmonds left open the option of either party to relist the matter.

PN20

As a result of that hearing, the CEPU members did cease their industrial action, and the Government facilitated the training and assessment process as required under the Mersey tab system. This is the point which locates the element of disagreement between the Government and the CEPU about whether or not the Government has fulfilled its responsibilities in relation to the reclassification process. The Government argues that it has put in place all of the appropriate mechanisms to fulfil its responsibilities and expectations. Now, I just want to provide the Commission with a brief synopsis of the chronology since that point in time.

PN21

I'm aware that it has been a rather long and drawn out dispute, so I think it will just help the Commission to note the activities that have taken place during the last 12 months. I just want to hand that up.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: So you would say, would you, that up to that particular point in time, the substance of the recommendations or the structure that I recommended back in December, 2002 had actually been fulfilled. Is that what you are saying?

PN23

MS SJOBERG: That is my argument.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, essentially what I said there in the - I mean, in December 2002, the parties couldn't agree whether it was Mersey tab or something else, so I recommended there be a meeting take place, and that an outside expert be called in to explain what Mersey tab is and how it is to be applied, and I said I thought the parties were at cross purposes and so on. The bottom line is that eventually meetings were held and someone was brought in in March 2003, and you got the union to agree with Mersey tab and the process got under way. It took a little while, and because it took a little while, there was more action later that year. That led to an October dispute before Commissioner Simmonds, and he got you back on the rails again, and that is where we pick up the action.

PN25

MS SJOBERG: That is correct. That is where we pick up the unfolding, if you like, so that is a good synopsis. The Government would argue that the decision-making and implementation of the Mersey tab fulfilled those expectations coming out of 2002. What the chronology - do you want to mark the chronology as a - - -

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: If we need to. I suppose at this stage, I'm not sure that we will really need to do that at this point.

PN27

MS SJOBERG: Okay, I take your guidance on that. I won't go to every particular instance of what is contained within the chronology. However, suffice it to say that between - - -

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps we will, just in case it comes - - -

EXHIBIT #QEH1 CHRONOLOGY

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Deakin, you will have an opportunity in a moment to comment on anything that is in - I'm not accepting QEH1 as a statement of fact. I'm just accepting it as a working paper at this point, yes.

PN30

MR DEAKIN: Yes, the chronology.

PN31

MS SJOBERG: I would certain underline that it is not an agreed document. It is something I put together in consultation with the various management people who have been involved in the process. It serves more the purpose to show that a significant number of activities and events have taken place. Between November, 2003 and March, 2004 the employees and managers at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital participated in training presented by RMIT, the consultants engaged for the purposes of conducting the reclassification at the QEH. As a part of that process, the employees compiled their own list of duties based on their existing duties, and in consultation with their local supervisors.

PN32

Assessments were then carried out against the Mersey tab grid system, for want of a better word. The identified employees were active participants and were fully consulted throughout the process. We certainly have documentation to support the outcomes of that process. I won't hand it up. It is a very detailed document. Should the Commission seek us to refer to it later, I'm more than happy to do that. Suffice it to say that all of the duties and functions of each employee was identified and assessed against a consistent bench march, and then an outcome determined from that information.

PN33

It is actually the dissatisfaction with the outcome that is the point of the current dispute. On 1 March 2004, the facilities services manager at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital was advised by a local CEPU workplace delegate that the employees were not happy with the outcome of the assessments on the grounds that they had expected to achieve a higher level, indeed it was a level they called C5. The QEH facilities services manager had further exchanges with the consultant, Alex Fraser, in an attempt to identify other options to resolve the impasse.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: So they had expected C5?

PN35

MS SJOBERG: That is correct.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, right.

PN37

MS SJOBERG: I could provide a synopsis of where they all came out rather than an extended document, should the Commission - - -

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Where were they before?

PN39

MS SJOBERG: The sit currently at a mix between M7, 8 and 9 with one employee at M13. Perhaps if I hand up this. It is a small single page. It just gives an idea of where each category is currently at and then what their outcome was under the Mersey tab.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Again, just for purposes QEH2, that is the document headed, "Health Reclassification TGEH Facility Services Impact of Final Offer and Salary Outcome for 18 effected employees," QEH2.

EXHIBIT #QEH2 SALARY ACT

PN41

MS SJOBERG: So the particular document merely gives an indicator of where each category of employee currently sits and how many there are. For instance, four electricians currently at M8, the proposed classification under Mersey tab takes them to what is called C7. The pay scale would equate to the existing M7 in the award.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: Had they all expected to be C5 or were there various expectations?

PN43

MS SJOBERG: It is my understanding that all employees expected to achieve the C5 level based on their existing duties. As I mentioned, the facilities service manager sought to find some way around the impasse. In discussions with the consultant, at least one other proposal was developed which was to offer to provide some additional training to the electricians in order to assist them to obtain extra modules and to improve their classification outcome to the next level, that is up to C6.

PN44

It would be fair to say that the electricians were possibly the most aggrieved, given that they only came out one level improved. The employees didn't accept that option. Now, I need to note during this period of time that industrial action had been under way at the hospital since February, in fact. However, there was a mix of reasons for that industrial action, not all of it goes to this dispute, as the Commission is aware, a new round of negotiations had commenced for enterprise bargaining. On 16 June, the Government was provided with a notice of authorised protected industrial action from the CEPU and other unions but particularly the CEPU with the members at the QEH.

PN45

So it was just important to have a context that whilst there was a significant matter for industrial action under way, it wasn't all as a direct result of this dispute. In fact, the majority of industrial - well, the industrial action was constituted as protected industrial action under the Act. In July this year, July 2004, whilst all the other matters were under way for the enterprise bargaining negotiations, the CEPU sent a fax to DAAS to the Government to request that the QEH reclassification outcomes be finalised.

PN46

DAAS gave a commitment that efforts would be made to resolve that matter. As a result of that fax, DAAS made contact again with the consultant, Alex Fraser, and clarified the outcomes of the Mersey tab process. DAAS, in consultation with the health management, was satisfied that the assessment process had been conducted thoroughly and that the CEPU members at the QEH have been fully consulted and participated in the process. Mr Fraser himself expressed some surprise to me that the matter had not been finalised, however, was willing to engage in discussion to progress the matter.

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: When you say finalised, you mean people actually reclassified and being paid these new rates?

PN48

MS SJOBERG: That is correct, yes.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: So what was - the problem with that was that they were told that this is the outcome. They said: we don't accept it, all right.

PN50

MS SJOBERG: Yes. So we were caught in a bind, if you like. As a result of having those discussions with the consultant and DAAS and the consultant had an exchange of letters to that effect, on the - - -

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, can I just butt in there also to ask, if I might? When were the original recommendations made? Have you got the actual date of those?

PN52

MS SJOBERG: April, March, 1 March. The outcomes of the Mersey tab.

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, thanks.

PN54

MS SJOBERG: So we then followed that process. In wanting to resolve the matter, we set up a meeting between DAAS and health and in particularly, the QEH managers, with the CEPU that included their local delegates as well as the union organiser. DAAS made a verbal offer consistent with the outcomes of the Mersey tab assessment in an attempt to get things moving on and agreed to provide the employees with their wage increase on the acceptance of that offer. DAAS then put that offer in writing on 27 August. I will provide the Commission with a copy of that letter for the records.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that is a copy of a letter dated 27 August 2004 from The Public Sector Workforce Relations to CEPU and we will mark that as QEH3.

EXHIBIT #QEH3 LETTER FROM PUBLIC SECTOR WORKFORCE RELATIONS TO CEPU DATED 27/07/2004

PN56

MS SJOBERG: So DAAS sent that letter as a result of an assessment that the Mersey tab process had given a fair and reasonable outcome and, in particular, I draw the Commission's attention to a paragraph on page 2. At the top of the page it reiterates the classification level being offered to each group of employees and then just a further paragraph that reinforces that acceptance of the offer includes the acceptance by those employees that they carry out all the duties at that classification level for which they have been assessed.

PN57

That relates back to my earlier comments that employees develop their list of existing duties in consultation with their supervisor and so were assessed for their classification on the basis of all the duties they were undertaking at that point in time. So the point of the offer was not only to reclassify people but to ensure that they carried out all of the duties that are required of them. The CEPU responded the same day stating that the members would accept the reclassification outcome but then went on to list a number of duties for each category of employee that they insisted they would still not agree to undertake. Again I will provide a copy of that to the Commission for information.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. That is a letter from the CEPU to the manager of Public Sector Industrial Relations at DAAS dated 27 August 2004, QEH4.

EXHIBIT #QEH4 LETTER FROM CEPU TO PUBLIC SECTOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DATED 27/04/2004

PN59

MS SJOBERG: As the Commission can see, there are a couple of different sets of motions outlined in that letter. The first motion, two-thirds of the way down on page 1 says that the men will accept the reclassification but then goes on to cite a list of excluded duties for each of the categories of employee. I won't go through them all at this point in time, just to make the Commission aware that that was the response. This certainly caused DAAS and the health management to reassess its position, most keen to resolve the matter but at the same time, wanted to be clear that none of the employees were being asked to work outside the level for which they were going to be paid.

PN60

We again made contact with the consultant, Alex Fraser, and clarified the operation of the Mersey tab system and we discussed the various duties that had been outlined in the CEPU letter and sought some clarification of which duties did and did not go to achieving a particular classification outcome. That discussion affirmed that the proposed classification levels encompassed the duties which are appropriate so that employees were not being asked to carry out work that they would not be paid for.

PN61

In other words, the duties of the CEPU were seeking to exclude did in fact fall within the level that was being proposed for each group of employees. So on 7 September, DAAS wrote again to the CEPU reaffirming that all of the duties at each classification level was being proposed needed to be undertaken in order to ensure the consistency of the system. Then on 10 September, we had a further response from the CEPU. Again I will hand that response up to the Commission for information.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: That is the letter of 10 September from the CEPU to the Public Sector Industrial Relations, DAAS, 10 September, that is QEH5.

EXHIBIT #QEH5 LETTER FROM CEPU TO PUBLIC SECTOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DATED 10/09/2004

PN63

MS SJOBERG: Now, this particular letter caused us some additional concern. The letter again reasserts the CEPU position regarding the Mersey tab system but the letter also - and if I can ask the Commission to turn to page 2 of that letter, the top of the page - the letter also sought to include some extra claims in addition to the reclassification matter. I cite the first two sentences of that letter:

PN64

The solution may be that the hospital pay fitters and refrigeration mechanics (mechanics have two licences) a $55 per week all per person licence allowance as well as the level C6 classification. If the electricians are classified at level C6, then will do high voltage and PLC work and then all that you have to do is increase the electrical licence allowance to $55 also.

PN65

Now, it is the Government's view that this is in fact a bargaining claim and it should be dealt with under the negotiations for the new enterprise agreement and certainly should not be used to hold up the implementation of the reclassification outcomes. As the Commission is aware, claims for additional allowances can, in fact, constitute a part of a log of claims and, in fact, do form the substance of a part of a log of claims that have been made by the CEPU on Government for the new enterprise agreement that is the subject of another matter before the Commission.

PN66

That is the two BP numbers that I cited earlier. The Government and the CEPU have been in dispute in relation to those enterprise bargaining negotiations and have been in dispute in relation to its industrial action. On 1 October 2004, Senior Deputy President O'Callaghan terminated the CEPU bargaining period in relation to the new Federal enterprise agreement. Among other things, this meant that all industrial action being undertaken by the CEPU in relation to those claims should cease.

PN67

I have had a note passed to me, Commissioner, that as of 2.30 today, all industrial action at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital has, in fact, been lifted in relation to the reclassification process.

PN68

MR DEAKIN: Actually it was 2.10.

PN69

MS SJOBERG: So perhaps that changes the recommendations and the issue of unprotected action being taken at the hospital. Nonetheless, the Government maintains its position that it is willing to implement the assessment outcomes of the Mersey tab reclassification process which we believe provides a fair and reasonable outcome, including wage increases of up to $80 per week for those employees being reclassified. The Government is, however, very careful to maintain the integrity of the assessment process which is also being used across other public sector agencies.

PN70

It would certainly be inappropriate for employees to be reclassified and compensated at a higher level without undertaking the full range of the duties that have contributed to that reclassification under the Mersey tab system. That appears to us to be what the CEPU is asking for. Similarly, the Government maintains that any additional claims for extra allowances, whether they be licence allowances or in any other form, should be dealt with under the auspices of the enterprise bargaining conciliation conferences currently being convened by SDP O'Callaghan.

PN71

So I would just like to return to my opening statement and the recommendations that the Government was seeking. On the basis that I have been advised that industrial action has been lifted, it would appear that the Government no longer needs to seek assistance from the Commission on that matter. However, the recommendation that the CEPU pursue all its bargaining for extra claims within the conciliation framework, I would still seek some recommendation from the Commission to that effect. Thank you.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, just one moment. Right, Mr Deakin?

PN73

MR DEAKIN: Well, sir, what Ms Sjoberg has stated as of 2.10 today as a sign of good faith, the employees at QEH lifted their bans on the classification from the grounds that I will be seeking your assistance on finalising this reclassification. The problem that we have found that we have seen all the matters associated with reclassification is the Government has a tendency just to hear what it wants to hear and does not hear all aspects of training.

PN74

I spent 4 years of setting up training in late '89, '93 as a National representative from the employee's union to sort of talk about and set up training that would be put forward to TAFE through the MIT to Antra ANSA - sorry, ANTA and the seven site working parties. So the background knowledge and understanding I had was quite considerable. Having said all that, when I first went down - and as I said previously in the opening cases that we had in December 2002 and 2003 - is that the Government didn't understand what has been said to me.

PN75

Since then we have had a number of teams that have been associated with this training to a point where it becomes repetitious, to say the least, to go back and re-educate the same people that were supposed to be trying to get a solution. So having said all that, we would seek to have your assistance in this matter right until the final documentation is signed off and agreed to. The reason we say that is because as we, in 2002 and early 2003, I remember you saying that we believe that this matter should be sorted out by June 2003 and we can't see any reason why it shouldn't.

PN76

Following on from that, we did lift our bans and we did agree to 1 September 2002 as a date of back payment for the guys at QEH. Also, following on from that, we had discussions about bringing the individuals in, the independent people then from either New South Wales or Victoria. We chose to have people that had no - was carrying no baggage, no locals, nothing like that, so we don't know the people. I had no problems with people bringing in people that, at that point in time, was from the MIT in Victoria which I thought was a good selection.

PN77

We brought them in. We had them across. They came and did an assessment for us. We then had a considerable delay and we just couldn't understand why it is, as I was ringing Government as why we have got this delay. They were giving us information to say that the people in Victoria, that we have all agreed to, couldn't get across because they were busy and they were finding it hard to jiggle their time to get across to South Australia.

PN78

Well, the frustrations felt by our people, our members down there, were just irate. They got to a point where they said, to hell with this, we will pout the ban back on because nothing is moving. I sent a letter - of course I have got them all here, I don't know whether - - -

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: Was this prior to getting Mr Fraser's recommendations?

PN80

MR DEAKIN: Pardon?

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: Was this prior to getting Mr Fraser's recommendations?

PN82

MR DEAKIN: Commissioner Simmonds recommendations. It was after your recommendations and then it - - -

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: When did Mr Fraser first become involved in coming over to have a look at things?

PN84

MR DEAKIN: He came over around about, just prior to June I think it was, that he came across, I think late May, early June that he came across.

PN85

THE COMMISSIONER: He finally reported on what he thought the outcome should be in the New Year, didn't he?

PN86

MR DEAKIN: Yes. Right. So following on from that, because we brought them across to do the preliminary meetings with people to tell them how it was going to work and prepare the paperwork and prepare the assessments, that seemed to be close to 2 months before they report back. I sent the letter out of sheer frustration to Mr Fraser and complained about the fact that the parties had made a great effort to get him involved and that we received his commitment that he would be back in South Australia doing the assessments very quickly.

PN87

Here we are, 7 weeks later and we haven't heard a word form him. That was from the instruction that I had from Bob Green, that he had contacted them and they couldn't make it. I then sent a letter really damming Mr Fraser for his actions. He then sent me back a letter saying: hold on, we told them we would be back within 2 weeks and we are already a number of days. However, we did go back in 2 weeks and we notified them.

PN88

I then followed that. I had to send another letter back to apologise to Mr Fraser, but there again, late October, we were - the Government, because the bans went back on, brought the matter on again. Instead of using the same number and calling you back on, sir, they didn't. They called Commissioner Simmonds. I objected and I sent the letter - and it is all down here, like you can see piles of it. I sent a letter to Commissioner Simmonds to say that it was in the hands of Commissioner Dangerfield and that Commissioner Dangerfield had made recommendation for the parties to comply with at a point in time.

PN89

I think I might have preferred to have it going back there. The response I got, I think that you were on annual leave or something, you were on some holidays or what it was. So he took it and Mr Green, Bob Green, stood up to the Commission and said: well, it is not our problem. It was Victoria as well, Commissioner Simmonds, Mr Green didn't know I had already sent that copy of that letter I had received from Mr Alex Fraser to Commissioner Simmonds and said: look, this is what is going on.

PN90

So Commissioner Simmonds had a real bite at Mr Green, Bob Green, and said he expected this all to be sorted out by 12 December. If it was not sorted out by December 12, he wants to know why. There was a commitment again given by Government that we would have it all sorted out and we would do Transport SA, Trans Adelaide I should say, and the QEH first and then we will finish off all the 10 employees within a short period of time. To back that statement up, in the wage parity agreement in 2002, there was a position put by Dunstan J who was acting on behalf of the Government that it is within the wage parity agreement that within an application going in, for any Government employee, within 3 months of the application going in, had to be acted upon.

PN91

But she also gave us a letter - and I can pull all things out of the files, they are all in there - I would like to just say that they will guarantee that all employees, Government employees, of the departments will be reclassified within 16 weeks of the date of certification of the 2002 agreement. Well, nothing has happened. They are still here. So following on from that, we have - bans have been going on, bans have been coming off. We have been having these assessments done and to a great frustration from our side, as I said originally, that this Mersey tab system only applies to one industry, and that is the Metal industry.

PN92

It does not apply to electrical industry, the plumbing industry or the building industry. It only applies to them and it has got some shortcomings as far it puts two artificial barriers in place that would hinder the Government's ability with its skills workforce right now, the implementation of that Mersey tab. However, we agreed to do it. We agreed to go along with them, do anything to get this thing going. Following on from that, we have met with Pat Crowley who sits here today, right from day one, right from an early stage.

PN93

I drew it on a work blackboard or the whiteboard of what you can do and what you can't do and how you can make things apply and how things will stop for you. The other thing is we made it quite clear that from all meetings we had, even when we had Tony Baladino from the NEIUTAB tab, is the National Electronic Industry Training Advisory Board. He said, this does not apply to electricians. Although he sits on the board of the Mersey tab, it does not involve electrical industry.

PN94

He said that - and I raised an issue of you have got two artificial barriers in this system that would oppose and hinder a good outcome for everybody. He agreed with me on that point but also a person sitting there from Mersey tab, who is on the board of Mersey tab, the National Mersey tab, Ian Perry, from the Metal Workers Union, made it quite clear when the question was asked is, what happens if - I already knew the answer but I raised it for the information to be provided with the Government representatives, that if a person falls between two levels, the number of hours of training associated between those two levels, if he does not get paid that next level up, what happens.

PN95

Ian Perry said, well, they don't do the work. I then pointed out to Government that there was a decision handed down by Senior Deputy President Williams that an issue with the CPEU electrical division in Victoria and United KG, United KG was arguing that the people, their workers, wanted special class of electricians and they didn't do the work for a significant amount of time, like it was stated in the old award.

PN96

Senior Deputy President Williams said that no longer applies. What applies now is if you call upon a person to do the job, that is 1 week, once a day, once a week, once a year, you are paying for it. If you don't pay, you don't get the work done and that was coming out of the Senior Deputy President Williams' decision and I've got copies of that in here. I've said to them quite clearly, there is two issues. When you talk about reclassification, there is two issues you are conscious of.

PN97

One is the training and the other is the industrial. The industrial says that if you don't pay for it, you can't - they don't do the work.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just stop you there? Are you saying in effect that some of these employees here, in your view, actually fall somewhere between the classifications?

PN99

MR DEAKIN: That is right.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: They fall between the cracks?

PN101

MR DEAKIN: Yes.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: If they fall between the C5 and C6, then you are saying, well, if you don't pay the C5, the higher rate, well, they are not going to - - -

PN103

MR DEAKIN: That is right, they don't do that work that is identified in C5, in between C6 and C6. That is the problem that we have got, and if I can just jump back in there at that point. So those are the issues I've actually stressed time and time again that you can't pick and chose on this. If you are going to have it as a package, you have got to treat it as a package. You can't play around with it. You can't put out what you don't like. If you don't like it, you just can't pull it out.

PN104

So following on from those discussions, we have had a problem because for the refrigeration mechanics and fitters, they had 117 points left over. Now, when you consider 177 points, it is quite a bit. Now, prior to all this starting and identified quickly by Mr Pat Crowley sitting here, I said: I will bet your guys will fit around about level 6 and you will have all these points left over. If you do, you would sit down and do the deal now. What we will do is, 1000 points are credited, we will get the guys to do it as a bank consistent for you, as a gift from us.

PN105

Mr Crowley rejected that. He preferred to - what has happened is the people came over from Victoria, they assessed the guys at level 6 and there are 117 points left over. Now, I assessed that without even going through what they went through. So what has happened, we have got 117 points left over. What I said to them is if you are not careful, the Industrial Relations Act and the decision handed down by Senior Deputy President Williams makes it quite clear, is if you don't pay for those skills and you have been informed by Ian Perry from the Board at Mersey tab, if you don't pay for those skills, then you don't do them.

PN106

Now, you have got a problem. Now, you have created a problem. So as far as electricians are concerned, they sit comfortably at level 7 where they have got points towards level 6 and there are just a few points short of level 6. Now, to make up level 6 would be to do with the high voltage work. Mr Alex Fraser has spoken to me and he has spoken to Pat Crowley and he has spoken to a number of other people and said: look, there is a simple answer to this, quite easy, just go and do an in-house course at TAFE - - -

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: Do the training, yes.

PN108

MR DEAKIN: Just to do the training, a short little course, in-house stuff, no problem whatsoever. So we said, okay, fair enough. Now, then let us overcome the problem we have got with the fitters, the boiler attendants work. Now, then here is where they don't understand.

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: What has happened with that training? Have you agreed to do that training?

PN110

MR DEAKIN: Well, we have agreed to do it, right, there is not a problem with that one.

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: But that has not been done yet?

PN112

MR DEAKIN: But that has not been done and the Government has withdrawn the pre-condition of level 6. They have pulled it back to level 7. So we have said, okay, high voltage work, PLC's are not going to be done, high voltage work and something else that we won't be doing which is a major part for QEH. Following on from that, we then said, you have got another problem because one is that Mersey tab assesses can only assess to level 5, right. They are not allowed to assess to level 3.

PN113

However, we have one refrigeration mechanic who works to an advanced certificate which is level 3 and he does some work, so don't reinvent the wheel, classify him at level 3. QEH wanted to put some extra duties on top, and I said to him, "No, you can't do that. You can't play around with it." He gets that level 3 assessment as per the requirements under the training. The Associate Diploma is a level 3 and he is doing that work, so that is his classification. They can, but the training authorities don't allow them to assess to level 3. They only allow them to make recommendations to go to level 3, so I said to him, "Well look, put him at level 3, no problems, okay?" but we come down to the fitters. Now, the fitters went off and did a 340 hour licence course for boiler attendants.

PN114

I have said to them quite clearly: you are going to make a mistake with this one because if you try to play around with this one, Mersey tab does not cover it. They said to me, "We've got the assessments down" and I've checked with Alex Frazier as at late last week, and I sent him a letter to say: Alex, I know the answer but please could you put it in writing whether or not the boiler attendants' work can be identified under Mersey tab? I now that hand skills can, but please confirm to me your belief whether the licences are. Now, when we talk about this boiler, we are talking about them going to do a specific course for licence.

PN115

It is a 340 hour course to obtain a licence, right? The Mersey tab comes along and can assess the hand skills but they can't include the 340 hours of training associated with the licence. In fact, I've got the responses here by Mr Frazier and I will just read out the one clause which he refers to.

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: Who does the assessment then?

PN117

MR DEAKIN: Pardon?

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: If Mersey tab can't do it, who does the assessment?

PN119

MR DEAKIN: No, no. What I'm saying to you is this. Mersey tab comes along and assesses the hand skills for doing the boiler work. That is cool, but the boiler work is not the licence. The licence is that you have to go and do a 340 hour course to obtain a licence.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: Does the mere fact that you get a licence mean you go up to 3 or whatever?

PN121

MR DEAKIN: Yes, so what it says here - I asked him a number of questions associated with licence, and he puts down:

PN122

As you correctly state, licence issues are NOT part of the competency standards. Rather, they are jurisdictions of State or Territory legislators. See Mersey tab statements. All work carried out, State and Territory, occ health legislation, standards and codes of practice.

PN123

So what I've said to him quite clearly is if you want to absorb these people, then you are going to have to go and do some lateral thinking because what you are proposing you can't do. You can't now say: these people have done a 340 hour course, okay. We have assessed their skills - because what has happened, Mersey tab is allowing you to absorb certain skills that you have already obtained which does not happen anywhere else. In other words, it discounts from what you have already learned.

PN124

I said, "You can't do that with your licence." That is a separate kettle of fish. Now you are going to have to come up with a licence allowance. If you come up with a licence allowance, that will solve your problem. One, you have got level 6 for the skills whatever, but your licence on your boilers, you could come up with a licence allowance because if these guys choose not to use their licence, you are stuffed. You have got no room to move because they are saying: We've got level 6 our of our skills. Whether we use our licence or not, that is up to us because you are not paying for it.

PN125

I have tried to get this through to them, that if you don't do some lateral thinking on this, you are dead in the water, and because you have stuffed these guys around now since 7 May 2001, they are in no mood to play around with you. Following on from the classifications outcomes, I would like to present this one anyhow, sir, as a submission just to let you see - - -

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: Did your members know beforehand that Mersey tab couldn't go beyond C5? Did they know that? Was that explained in the beginning? I mean, what was their expectation - - -

PN127

MR DEAKIN: At the very beginning, no. I mean, as we went along - see, this is the artificial barriers that were in place. It is that we recognised there was a barrier level 8 for cross-skilling, which I said to you right from the beginning: that is the deadly one. That is going to stop a lot of work being done by these guys if you put a barrier at level 8 simply because a lot of their cross-skilling goes a lot higher than level 8. So the guys have had a lot of points taken away from them because they are saying: well, that is cross-skilling. You can't claim that so we said: If you are not going to claim it, you have got to be careful.

PN128

If you say: they are not going to pay me for that, they can say: well, sorry, we're not doing it, so be careful how you treat this issue. So we had problems with the Mersey tab. I tried to talk to a number of people, including ..... on these issues. They don't take much notice, so we had a problem. Then when we started to identify, we knew at level 5 that there is a difference with a level 5. What it says with level 5, which is a bit of a bone of contention as far as I'm concerned, they are saying two artificial barriers.

PN129

It does not happen anywhere else, only in Mersey tab. The first one is at cross-skilling at level 8. The next one drops in at level 5, but the one at level 5 says: if Mr Deakin here has got extra skills associated with boilermaking, although I'm an electrician doing boilermaking, sorry, I can't be paid that. Why? Because I can only get paid for skills identified between level 6 and level 5 towards Associate Diploma within their own industry. In other words, it is career streaming straight in your own career path as an electrician. You can only get identified. So if I got, say, three modules - and I will go back to the hours of training - three competencies, out of those three competencies, I have got two towards the level 5, I can get paid level 5, but if I've got two in there - one in there but two in, say, Advanced Certificate in Welding, sorry, I can't go to level 5 although the company issues more skills.

PN130

I have said to them, "You have created a problem. You are walking into a minefield here with this approach that you are trying to take." So from those, we have said: look, you have got a boiler ticket. It is 340 hours. 340 hours in the old terminology for training is very close to special class which is 15 per cent. Why don't we set up a licence allowance for them, so they will get the classification at level 6 and they also obtain a licence allowance for doing that work? That could solve the problem. The answer was, "No." I said, "The same now applies with your refrigeration mechanics. You have got refrigeration mechanics doing some of this work." They have two licences.

PN131

They have restricted B licence, electrical licence, and they also have a CFC licence: why don't we look at setting up a licence for both those areas. That would then sort out all your problems for reclassification. You have got your guys up to level 6, they are all sorted. You have got your leading hands at level 5. These guys over here now will continue to do all the work. Why? Because the extra 117 points that we have now identified, we say: okay, we will let that go and we will drop that into that classification and we will pick up a licence allowance over here. That will help to resolve the problems. I can't get past first base.

PN132

I have sat down with Pat Crowley on a number of occasions and mentioned this, sat down with ....., can't get past first base. We said to them: what we can do is with the electrical licence allowance, we can bring it up to say - instead of just saying electrical licence allowance, we can say we have in the wage parity agreement - sorry, on the Government Instrumentalities Award also identifies occupation licensing - that is, refrigeration licence, boiler licence, electrical licence. So we can say: okay, let us just talk about licence - electrical, boiler attendant ticket, and refrigeration and CFC licences.

PN133

We could do it that way and you have got the problem solved. Can't get past first base. Now, we have a situation where the guys have got 117 points that the Government is not willing to pay for, and are not willing to give them another classification out of it, and the guys are saying: well, under the industrial side, if we are not getting paid, you can't force us to do it. What the Government want us to do now, the Government wants us to say: okay, you can load all that in and we are saying: no, we have done that for too long in the past. We are not going to do it now.

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: Is your argument that you are being legally underpaid?

PN135

MR DEAKIN: Yes.

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: Is this an underpayment issue?

PN137

MR DEAKIN: Yes.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: If this continues - - -

PN139

MR DEAKIN: It is on the classification and underpaid for those classifications. In other words - - -

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, legally underpaid. That is what you are saying?

PN141

MR DEAKIN: Well, I say - well, if you are not on that classification - I mean, if you can't obtain a classification, then it is not really underpaid.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: This is an interesting issue, isn't it, with all these things. Could you, if the Government continues to say: well, they should be doing all this work and at level 6 or whatever it is, and you say: no, well they should be at level something higher than that, could you run a claim before a Magistrate for underpayment?

PN143

MR DEAKIN: No, sir, it is a sham because the Mersey tab system has a blockage. It has got a tab and it turns it off.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: The question is how a Magistrate is going to work out what the classification level is. I mean, you need a PhD to resolve it in these industries, I'm afraid, but still.

PN145

MR DEAKIN: The thing is because you have the Mersey tab system which has a cutout point at level 6, to get to level 5, there is no way you can get to level 5. There's no way you can get classification at a level 6 because - unless you are going towards Associate Diploma, and if you have got, say, two competencies out of a package of three, then you can probably get paid the full level 5. So the system cuts you out. It does not let you move forward. It does not resolve the issues. It creates more problems for us, so the only other way we can do it - what we have said is: okay, the guys go to level 6, there's 117 points over there.

PN146

They all have licences which they are not getting paid for. How about we create a licence allowance for these guys. We will give them a level 6 and pay for a licence allowance. That can resolve the issue. I can't get past first base. Now, I've spoken to Alex Frazier and he said, "You are right about your licences. It has got nothing to do with Mersey tab." So how do we overcome this problem? The guys have made it quite clear that they are not going to concede the points again like they have always done in the past. They have always done things to help things get resolved because it goes on for too long.

PN147

Just in this case, they are saying, "No", and for the fact that the Government has gone hard-nosed, and the agreement that we had originally as at 1 September, 2002 is now - they took it back to 1 May, 2003 because we put the bans back on because they weren't working, because they weren't trying to resolve the issue. Our guys were getting frustrated. Then in March of this year, we have taken industrial action associated with the Wage Parity Agreement. So we have had a number of cases where we have had a bit of confusion there. Ms Melanie Sjoberg likes to confuse the two. We have kept the two completely separate, all those issues.

PN148

THE COMMISSIONER: At the moment, the agreement in place is the 2002 approved agreement?

PN149

MR DEAKIN: Yes.

PN150

THE COMMISSIONER: When did that nominally expire?

PN151

MR DEAKIN: In November last year.

PN152

THE COMMISSIONER: February?

PN153

MS SJOBERG: 2004.

PN154

MR DEAKIN: Sorry, yes, February.

PN155

THE COMMISSIONER: So that is when it nominally expired, and the situation is there has been bargaining since for a replacement agreement.

PN156

MR DEAKIN: Yes.

PN157

THE COMMISSIONER: That all led to bargaining periods and action, and goodness knows what. SDP O'Callaghan pulled the plug on that.

PN158

MR DEAKIN: Yes.

PN159

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN160

MR DEAKIN: We still had the bans because we identified - one of our bans in the workplace - the Wage Parity Agreements that we included, we will not work outside our classifications. I approached them to say: listen, if we sit down, work out our classifications, that ban in that Wage Parity Agreement, we can fix. That no longer becomes a ground. It becomes irrelevant because you are going to be doing all the work because you are going to be in your classification. The answer was: not even going to bother.

PN161

THE COMMISSIONER: Is this claim for the licence allowance that you were talking about, is that, in effect, a new claim in regard to the proposed new agreement?

PN162

MR DEAKIN: Well, it is just an option being put forward to us to solve a dispute that we have with Government because I can't see us getting past the classifications. If you use the Mersey tab to its correct formula, then we've got a problem. We are not going to fix the problem.

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN164

MR DEAKIN: So I proposed that, not so much as an extra claim to Government, but as a position to resolve a problem.

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, how do you see the way forward, Mr Deakin? What would you like to see the Commission recommend?

PN166

MR DEAKIN: Well, a couple of things I would like to recommend, sir, is you saying that all the back pay is to go back to 1 September, 2001 which would, in our way, take a lot of the heat and angst out of the position of the guys; that we look at, with your help, ways of resolving the issue; to finalise the classification; and to - there is now another issue because of the way the Parity Agreement, which refers back to - as of November, 2002 - that all classifications given to employees will be finalised within 16 weeks of certification of that agreement. That has not applied.

PN167

So we would be seeking - everyone that gets reclassified in all Government departments now, we are back to the date of that commitment given by the Government and I have got it in writing.

PN168

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, what was that commitment again? Just go through that again?

PN169

MR DEAKIN: I will give you a copy of it, sir, so you can see it. There we go.

PN170

THE COMMISSIONER: When did you say you wanted the payment back to? It has been offered from March of this year. You wanted it from - sorry, from March '03, I think it has been offered, hasn't it?

PN171

MR DEAKIN: Yes.

PN172

THE COMMISSIONER: You wanted it to go back to September, 2002?

PN173

MR DEAKIN: That is right. For the QEH people only, that they go back to the original offer which was 1 September, 2002.

PN174

MS SJOBERG: Sorry, which year?

PN175

MR DEAKIN: Pardon?

PN176

MS SJOBERG: Which year? I'm sorry, I think you keep changing your year. I'm trying to be clear on what - - -

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: The union, I think, is saying 1 September, 2002.

PN178

MS SJOBERG: 2002.

PN179

MR DEAKIN: Look, I will hand up a document. I will hand up a copy of the - I've got the draft one for the Wage Parity for 2001, but it is basically the same as the new one, sir.

PN180

THE COMMISSIONER: I would just like to have a look at it.

PN181

MR DEAKIN: It is a letter of - I've got attached a letter at the back of it which I have attached to keep - I've lost it. There's a letter here, and I will just hand up the letter. It is a commitment given by Jenny Dunstan to the union.

PN182

THE COMMISSIONER: This is a letter of 17 September, 2002?

PN183

MR DEAKIN: Yes, here it is.

PN184

THE COMMISSIONER: And what is the thing you want to highlight in here?

PN185

MR DEAKIN: It is on the commitment by the Government, I hear a meeting this morning involving the representatives of CEPU Department of Human Resources office, blah, blah, blah - is often a condition that propose - commenced at the Queen Elizabeth hospital tomorrow and it goes on to say - and in the next page is without prejudice:

PN186

The employees covered by the Metal Trades (SA) Government Departments and Instrumentalities Award 1995.

PN187

And it goes on to say:

PN188

Agency is to continue to develop the agencies specific skills matrix using, where applicable, the work on defining ...(reads)... trades persons concerned determined by 1 December 2002.

PN189

None of that applied. We then lifted our bans but the commitment that is - through the discussions that we had with Jenny Dunstan was that all government people would be reclassified by that date. It didn't even get off the ground. And there is a commitment that from the wage parity, if you look at 15(1) it says then:

PN190

Within 12 weeks of a person applying for reclassification, they must be reclassified be assessed within the 12 weeks.

PN191

So - - -

PN192

THE COMMISSIONER: Getting back then to what you are seeking from the commission here, you are looking at back pay, 1 September 2002 for the QEH people - - -

PN193

MR DEAKIN: That is so.

PN194

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - in regard - that is the original offer.

PN195

MR DEAKIN: Yes.

PN196

THE COMMISSIONER: You are looking at, with commission's assistance, to work forward on ways of resolving the issue of the - what I call, the licence allowance claim you have made.

PN197

MR DEAKIN: Yes.

PN198

THE COMMISSIONER: And what else?

PN199

MR DEAKIN: And the other commitment given to it by government that the government will comply with its commitment given to us concerning all government employees which was given to Commissioner Simmonds and ourselves that we would do all within the period of time. They suggested, in front of Commissioner Simmonds, that the people at QEH and Trans Adelaide would be dealt with in - 12 December. The next would be done by March of the next year which never happened.

PN200

But we would be seeking that the back pay for all government employees to be assessed within the next couple of months and then the back pay be associated with the commitment given to us concerning the letter sent to us on 17 September 2002.

PN201

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Now, this is not a copy for me, is it?

PN202

MR DEAKIN: That is a copy for you, sir.

PN203

THE COMMISSIONER: It is a copy.

PN204

MR DEAKIN: Yes.

PN205

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps if I just mark that, which is 17 September 2002 letter, CPU1, so we know what we are talking about.

EXHIBIT #CPU1 17 SEPTEMBER 2002 LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT TO THE CPU

PN206

THE COMMISSIONER: And I note also, of course, these are without prejudice. We will mark it CPU1, but I note that they are without prejudice documents. I mean, just for the sake of identifying what we are talking about.

PN207

MR DEAKIN: Yes, sir. We complied with that, the conditions of that offer.

PN208

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN209

MR DEAKIN: It was never then brought into question.

PN210

THE COMMISSIONER: Anything further, Mr Deakin?

PN211

MR DEAKIN: Only that we seek your assistance until this is all finalised, sir, because every time we step out - or the commission steps out of this situation, we don't seem to move forward because the government has a position and it all seems to be contrary to ours and we seek that the classification - or we sit down to resolve the issue on the classifications. I could go on and say, look, the licences away round result in the classification problems.

PN212

We'd seek for the electricians to get back the same offer that was provided to them when Mr Alex Frazier was here which was level 6. They did this small Mickey Mouse push - no problem with that, the guys accepted that. But then that was withdrawn from - and so on. I think that was in retaliation because the CPU electrical division was seen to be a stickler as far as classifications and assessments are concerned.

PN213

Sir, we have never - I have never played around with assessments or training simply because I spent too much time on it. However, the government sees me as - they can't believe me because I am a union official.

PN214

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, thank you.

PN215

MR DEAKIN: Thank you, sir.

PN216

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Sjoberg, anything that you want to particularly just comment on for the record before we adjourn into conference?

PN217

MS SJOBERG: Just for the record, Commissioner, I do believe there is a significant amount of detail that is probably best suited to discussing in conference. However for the record. as Mr Deakin has particularly raised the question of the licences yet again, there are already provisions within the award, as I am sure the commission is aware, for the provision of licence allowances. And, as I have stated earlier, these are a matter for the current enterprise bargaining negotiations and constitute a significant component of the CEPU's log of claims that have been discussed in that arena.

PN218

And so I would want to reinforce that the government is seeking that that is the appropriate arena to discuss those matters. Mr Deakin has also put a - - -

PN219

THE COMMISSIONER: Could I just interpose there. What is the current state of play with those negotiations? The bargaining period has been terminated and what - - -

PN220

MR DEAKIN: We are miles away from each other, sir.

PN221

THE COMMISSIONER: Are there still discussions going on?

PN222

MS SJOBERG: Thank you, commissioner. SDP O'Callaghan is convening conciliation conferences. We have another one scheduled Wednesday of this week pending a decision on his part as to whether or not he refers it to a 170MX arbitration or whether we have some scope to reach an in principle agreement.

PN223

THE COMMISSIONER: And you are saying that the issue of licence allowances and so on is part of those - from your perspective, it is part of those current negotiations?

PN224

MS SJOBERG: They certainly are and, as I say, they constitute an element of the CEPU's log of claims as early as yesterday.

PN225

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN226

MS SJOBERG: The other matter Mr Deakin put on the table was to raise the question of the operative day of effect. I believe Mr Deakin is saying 1 September 2002. Whilst that - I would comment that that is not the position the government would support. I think it is a date we could consider - have some considerable discussion in relation to and it may be we can reach some agreement broadly in that arena.

PN227

MR DEAKIN: Sir, if I may. The problem I have - I have difficulty with what has just been said which is that whether we throw up about the licence allowance for frigies or the boiler attendants is neither here nor there. We have got a plan. Our position in front of SDP Matthew O'Callaghan is going for $60 a week licence allowance. That is our industry standards.

PN228

Whether we achieve that or not is not going to solve the problem - two separate issues. Whether this was on the board of wasn't, we would still be going for that licence allowance. What we are saying is that, okay, we can see there is a way around solving the problem. Now, you talk about a licence allowance, we're all saying we're going to go for this licence allowance - and that has always been part of log of claims.

PN229

We don't care whether you do it that way - it is up to you. If you choose to say, well, we can't do a licence allowance, we'll give them another classification - so be it. But you can't do it if you're going to us Mersey tab because Mersey tab doesn't allow you because they've been a stickler for standing by the Mersey tab system. And as such - you've got problems with this. Now, you want to go for another classification, we'll agree with that.

PN230

But if you can't go through with Mersey tab and your are caught in Mersey tab all the time, it won't get you pass the barrier then there is an alternative - do that. But whether you do that or not, we're still as electricians have gone over this way, it has got nothing to do with that licence allowance. We are giving you an out, we are giving you an idea of lateral thinking. We are going for this over here and we don't care, come hell or high water - this issue in front of Matthew O'Callaghan, it is only electricians, it is not the metal trades, it is not the plumbers, it is not ..... it is just us and we have got our log of claims on the table.

PN231

And so it makes no difference to us whether they agree to that or not. We've made it quite clear.

PN232

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, look, let us see if we can go off the record, thanks.

OFF THE RECORD

NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #QEH1 CHRONOLOGY PN29
EXHIBIT #QEH2 SALARY ACT PN41
EXHIBIT #QEH3 LETTER FROM PUBLIC SECTOR WORKFORCE RELATIONS TO CEPU DATED 27/07/2004 PN56
EXHIBIT #QEH4 LETTER FROM CEPU TO PUBLIC SECTOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DATED 27/04/2004 PN59
EXHIBIT #QEH5 LETTER FROM CEPU TO PUBLIC SECTOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DATED 10/09/2004 PN63
EXHIBIT #CPU1 17 SEPTEMBER 2002 LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT TO THE CPU PN206