C2004/6551, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 4581 (25 November 2004)

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
ABN 72 110 028 825

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 11200
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER BLAIR

C2004/6551

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS,
ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND
KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION

and

HAYMAN REESE (DIVISION OF
TRIMAS)

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of a dispute re alleged failure to pay crane
driver allowance

MELBOURNE

9.32 AM, TUESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2004

PN1

MR I. THOMAS: I seek leave to appear on behalf of the AMWU.

PN2

MR D. SULLIVAN: I appear on behalf of Hayman Reese. With me is MR P. THOMPSON and MR C. ITHIER from company.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Thomas, why are you seeking leave? Are you an employee of the organisation, AMWU?

PN4

MR THOMAS: Yes.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: You appear as of right, you don't need to seek leave. It is only if you are an agent or a counsel or solicitor or something. Okay?

PN6

MR THOMAS: Thank you.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Thomas?

PN8

MR THOMAS: I am sorry but the two delegates who I was going to have here haven't arrived yet. I presume they are running late in traffic.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN10

MR THOMAS: But the - - -

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: They might get hurt if they are running in traffic. Are they coming in by car?

PN12

MR THOMAS: I am not sure how they are getting in, sir. Train or car. So - - -

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Thomas.

PN14

MR THOMAS: So the matter of it is, is we previously had a crane drivers at Hayman Reese who received extra payment for doing that job.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN16

MR THOMAS: We have been having discussions with Hayman Reese about the suitability of some people to do this job and the payment that we were asking to be made. We haven't managed to receive - to get anywhere with talks with the company so we have brought it to you for the section 99 for conciliation. We are saying that is is a new skill. It is not part of their agreed - the members' agreed skill mix and this job as it is - there is some dispute as to the - if there is any qualifications needed to do this job. The DLI Inspector has told the delegates that it should really be a dogman who is slinging the loads on the back of this truck - on the back of the trucks to unload them even though it is a pendant crane that is used to lift the loads.

PN17

These loads are quite often long loads and they swing a fair bit which there has been an accident there before with this and a lot of the members will just never be able to have the confidence or competence to do this. So we have been asking that a small number of people do it on a regular basis. And as it is - if I could put forward the agreement that covers Hayman Reese, clause 19 with implementation of work flexibility. I say that it is - and the employees say that it is not within their agreed skill mix. They have never agreed to do this and they say it is a new skill that they will have to learn and it is a responsibility that is very seriously taken and they are asking for an allowance to be provided for those people who do drive the crane.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN19

MR THOMAS: And that it be only a very limited number of people so people can keep their skills up in this and do it on a regular basis. Thank you.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Sullivan?

PN21

MR SULLIVAN: Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner, I think it has been fairly well outlined. This is really - the company is only asking employees to unload materials from trucks and place them in racks and then moving them from racks on to the job. There are a number of employees on the same classification that are currently doing it. They have been for a number of years. As a result of a recent discussion with WorkSafe, WorkSafe recommended that we re-assess the skill requirement in all the operating equipment, which they did. It was then also agreed that they should really broaden the scope for the people who do it, to have more, in case people aren't there, so people working in that area can all work it.

PN22

The slinging and so forth of the crane is done by the truck driver. The person with the truck does all that. The employees are only asked to move it with the crane. The company has trained all the employees in the skill and the training - there has been a number of training sessions, between two and four hours, to - they did one basic one and they have done two or three refreshers. The training was also done to a higher level than was expected by WorkSafe. They took it to the next level just so the employees would be totally competent and would be confident that they would be able to do it.

PN23

The company's submission, Commissioner, is that this is another competency the employees will acquire so they can fulfil their position description. If we look at the EBA, under, preparation one, these employees - it says:

PN24

They will be able to operate a number of tasks. Of them is unloading materials, stores procedures, receiving, despatching, rack loading.

PN25

I think that is quite - - -

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: What clause are you looking at?

PN27

MR SULLIVAN: Clause 25 in the classifications structure.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN29

MR SULLIVAN: And that is written into their agreement. As well as that if you look at the EBA, if you look at when the award restructured, crane chasing and those sort of levels, were brought into level 12. These employees are not tradesmen; certainly below that. They are paid $165 more than C11 rate. So there is no issue about the payment, that that is all encompassing. There is only some employees who are refusing to unload the trucks. It is the company's submission that those employees are breaching their agreement, both with not obeying a lawful instruction, they have been trained and they are competent to do it because they have been trained and passed the training. It is in accordance with WorkSafe and a recognised training organisation. And if you read the - - -

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: What classification do they currently fall under

PN31

MR SULLIVAN: Mechanical machine operation, level 1. It is the first one in your classification structure.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN33

MR SULLIVAN: If you read through the whole agreement, the whole agreement is about for what the significant pay increases were for, it is about continuous improvement, flexibility, elimination of demarcation and really working in a team environment to reduce costs and really make the organisation safe and make it more profitable and work together to achieve those. And that is how it is all written, as was reflected in the pay; the pay levels are fairly high for the area plus the industry they are in. Commissioner, we think this is just a straight union claim for additional allowance.

PN34

It is a pay claim for a skill that is currently being used by employees. It has just been extended to other employees to bring them up all to the same level to make it a more efficient organisation. So as far as the company is concerned it is just - it is an extra claim over and above what the agreement was. We just don't see that it is warranted. It is in their classification structure. The flavour of the agreement says they ought to be doing it. The Metal Industry Award talks about competencies, it doesn't talk about - allowances are a thing of the past.

PN35

The claim by the union about people were paid a crane chaser allowance - it is six or seven years ago. There is - nothing has happened since. And it is - appears to me if they are worried about doing it you shouldn't be asking for an allowance. You should be trying to have different training and make it safe for people to give them the confidence to do it.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Where do you say - it is, preparation one, mechanical machine operator, is that right?

PN37

MR SULLIVAN: Yes, that is correct, Commissioner. In the fourth line it talks about, "Tube bending, unloading materials." It is just not specific. Further down, it talks about:

PN38

Buffing, stores procedure, receiving and despatching procedures, rack loading.

PN39

Technically, they unload the materials from the truck, they put it in the racks and they unload the racks and put it to where they are going to work on their equipment. And it is something that has happened that four or five people do it now on a couple of shifts and they have been doing it for a number of years. And all that has happened now is we have broadened the scope to have better coverage instead of two being on the shift, we say, well, why not, we should have all the people who are working in that area that use the equipment, to learn it.

PN40

And as I have already stated, Commissioner, that was because of the WorkSafe visit and discussion. And they have assured the company that it doesn't need to be licensed. They have looked at the training they have done; they are happy with the training.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Who is they?

PN42

MR SULLIVAN: WorkSafe.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN44

MR SULLIVAN: And we see that the reason they broadened them was because of that because they have only got two people and if there is people away, anyone in that area should be able to do it and if they haven't been trained to do it they are not allowed to. It is not safe to do so they wouldn't do it.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: Those two that have been doing it for some time, have they had any allowance or anything like that for it?

PN46

MR SULLIVAN: No, Commissioner, they get paid exactly the same as the people not doing it and that is our argument. We are only upskilling the other people to the same level, paid the same money and the same classification. And it is - there is no real reason why they didn't train other people, it was just convenience, only two were doing.

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: How long has this structure been in place?

PN48

MR THOMPSON: The EBA was agreed to in September '03. It mirrors the previous EBA that was ..... Prior to that the classification structure was written into the previous EBA as well. So all up that is three years plus another four years.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Right and that was negotiated?

PN50

MR THOMPSON: Yes, Commissioner.

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: Right and as part of those negotiations, if I understood correctly, prior to this structure there was crane operators who received some amounts?

PN52

MR THOMPSON: Some years ago, Commissioner. I wasn't at the business but six to eight years ago, something like that, there was - - -

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN54

MR THOMPSON: - - - apparently a person who was paid an allowance.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Right,.

PN56

MR THOMPSON: Prior to the EBA.

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: And is anybody here that actually took part in those EBA negotiations?

PN58

MR THOMPSON: Yes, I took part in the most recent negotiations last year.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. But this structure has been in place for a while?

PN60

MR THOMPSON: It has been in place in the previous EBA as well.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Does anybody know whether during those negotiations that put in place this structure, that the intent was to be broader in terms of requiring people to obtain additional skills and knowledge but within that band and as part of that there was the appropriate remuneration. Do you know whether that was the intent?

PN62

MR THOMPSON: The intent, as I understand, was for people to become flexible - - -

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN64

MR THOMPSON: - - - in performing new tasks with no specific allowance and get paid as per the rates that were agreed in the classifications.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN66

MR SULLIVAN: There is one bit in this I have read before, Commissioner - - -

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN68

MR SULLIVAN: - - - that says - I think:

PN69

Commitment to participate in a minimum of 20 hours personal development per employee per annum.

PN70

If that doesn't suggest more skills, I don't know what it suggests, Commissioner.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: What clause were you looking at, Mr Sullivan?

PN72

MR SULLIVAN: That is on clause 6. I think the whole agreement I have read all talks about continuous improvement. Continuous improvement suggests to me that there has got to be additional training otherwise you just don't achieve your outcomes. It is under the rates of pay clause. It is on - I think that certainly suggests there is going to be on-going training.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: What do you say, Mr Thomas? Thanks, Mr Sullivan.

PN74

MR THOMAS: We say that it isn't within their agreed skill mix agreed with the employees. The sections for unloading and loading were mainly to do with the machines that they operate and the putting of parts into racks. From the delegates explaining it to me, it was never meant to be taken as far as unloading the trucks.

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: How long have they been unloading the trucks?

PN76

MR THOMAS: Well, there has been disputes over unloading the trucks ever since there was no truck driver. If I had the - I don't know where the delegates are but I am hoping they will arrive soon, because it has been an ongoing dispute since then. Certain people within the factory will never have the confidence to actually do this work. It is work that is - people don't feel confident or safe to do and that is why we are asking for a set number of people per shift to be trained in this to keep their skills up and their confidence up.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: But those that may not be confident to do it, is that because they haven't been trained to do it?

PN78

MR THOMAS: I am not sure of all the reasons, sir, I believe though it is in the person's nature. Some of these people are 50 year old Asian women. Some of these people, when we - I have yet to bring them in. They just haven't got the confidence to do it. They are scared of hurting someone.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that may go to the issue of training. If they haven't been trained to do it then obviously there is some apprehension. I can understand that on the part of anybody - - -

PN80

MR THOMAS: Yes.

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - to do or be asked to perform a function that they haven't been trained in. It is a question then, I suppose, if training is provided whether they meet the competencies of that training to then perform the function. And some people may not - even despite the training - be able, not because they lack the confidence, they simply may not be competent enough to do it. What is the effect if someone goes through the training and is deemed not to be competent to do the job?

PN82

MR THOMPSON: If someone is not competent to do the job then what we will do is find suitable employment for them that they are competent in.

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: But that may mean, what, moving them out of the area?

PN84

MR THOMPSON: Possibly, yes.

PN85

THE COMMISSIONER: I must say I have some difficulty with that. If they are competent enough to do the job and have been working in the area for some time and you require some additional training in order for them to operate a crane which is not required to have a licence, and for some reason or other they fail that, then they may be moved out, I must say the Commission has got some difficulties with it.

PN86

MR THOMPSON: Commissioner, the employees who are using the lifting device or the crane, as it is called, to load their machines from the racks have been provided with the ..... training - identification training that was demonstrated to WorkSafe which is the same training that is for unloading the trucks.

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: So these people might be competent to move the material from the racks to their workstation but they may not be competent enough to move it off the truck and because of that they may be moved out?

PN88

MR THOMPSON: What the business needs is flexibility, Commissioner, so that we have more than a small number of people that are unloading trucks to load the machines. If people - those small number are away or somebody is sick or on annual leave, then we can't - if we haven't got suitable replacements to unload the trucks then that becomes a risk to the business.

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but what about the risk to the employee? I mean, if they are good enough to be working in an area now and have sufficient competencies to move material from the racks to their workstation - and moving material off a truck is slightly different, I have got to say. If they are not competent enough to do that but still competent enough to do their functions that they have been doing for some time, why would they be penalised and moved?

PN90

MR THOMPSON: Commissioner - - -

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean, how many people in the area are we talking about?

PN92

MR THOMPSON: We are talking, on day shift, there is approximately 10 - 12 people in the area.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: Right and how many might be - and I know it is a bit of a guess, but, how many may not be ultimately competent?

PN94

MR THOMPSON: I would be guessing, four or five.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, so that leave you about seven - seven or eight? Is that right?

PN96

MR THOMPSON: That is correct.

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: And you have been operating with, what, two?

PN98

MR THOMPSON: Yes.

PN99

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, unless you have got a mass problem with sickness or something, I think your needs would be covered. I would have great difficulty, I have got to say to you, that if there were four or five people, for whatever reason, were not competent enough to unload material off a truck but were still competent enough to do their basic functions, I would have real difficulty in you moving them. That is, penalising them, unnecessarily, I have got to say. I hear what - thanks, Mr Thompson, you can sit down. I hear what the company says about flexibility and so forth.

PN100

And there might be an argument that it fits within the broad scope of the classification structure. If one is looking at, say, six years or so or more, where there was somebody who did operate the crane and did receive an allowance, but there has been negotiations regarding a new classification structure. It is important to understand, I suppose, the intent of that classification structure to provide for the broad banding process and the multi-skilling of people. So I don't have a difficulty with that. And I suppose the requirements six years or so ago were greater or different to the requirements now.

PN101

I mean, I find it absolutely amazing where some years ago to operate a back hoe you had to be licensed. Now, anyone can go into a hire company, show them their licence and drive out with a back hoe and dig up a bloody trench and rip out electrical cables as they go and some plumbing as well. I find that amazing. So the requirements, I would assume now, in terms of unloading and loading and use of this equipment are different to what they would have been, I would assume, six years ago or more. Is that about right, I think?

PN102

MR THOMAS: Could I ask - - -

PN103

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Thomas.

PN104

MR THOMAS: - - - for a small break please just to fill the delegates in on what has happened so far and so they can provide some useful information to the Commissioner.

PN105

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, sure, how long do you want?

PN106

MR THOMAS: Five minutes - five or 10 minutes.

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, we will reconvene then at about 10 o'clock or so. Okay, thank you.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [9.54am]

RESUMED [10.00am]

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Thomas.

PN109

MR THOMAS: First of all, we would like to say that we would challenge that it has been six years since the crane drivers left. We believe it has been three years since the crane driver left. Also, we have got the occupational health and safety representative here, who is in that area and I would just like to get him to explain the difference between, number one, the truck drivers and their level of skill and their use of lifting apparatus and also about the accidents that have occurred since the crane drivers have left.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you, yes?

PN111

MR IOANNOU: Hi, your Honour.

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: Just call me Commissioner, that is fine.

PN113

MR IOANNOU: Commissioner, sorry. First time in the - - -

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't get paid as an Honour.

PN115

MR IOANNOU: Yes, the level of skills on the truck - unloading the truck, some of the truck drivers don't have an idea of how to sling the actual slings.

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN117

MR IOANNOU: They don't feel comfortable with it. They keep asking us why doesn't the company insist having these slings whereas they can get the magnets which are much easier because at times when the trucks come in the bundles of steel are bundled very close together and to separate the steel there is a - quite an amount of work the truck driver has to do into separating the steel and getting the crane operator to drive it.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN119

MR IOANNOU: And, at times, there has been a couple of accidents that I know and I was there, the truck driver has been hurt, hit by the chains and slings by the crane - the actual crane.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: The crane is operated, by control from the ground, is it? It is one of those?

PN121

MR IOANNOU: Yes.

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. So the crane driver that you say - that left about three years ago, was he a licensed crane driver, do you know?

PN123

MR IOANNOU: Yes, he was licensed, yes. He had a crane ticket.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: Crane ticket.

PN125

MR IOANNOU: It was an actual - I have got one here with me, if you want me to show you.

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: And was the previous person?

PN127

MR IOANNOU: That is me.

PN128

THE COMMISSIONER: That is you?

PN129

MR IOANNOU: That is me.

PN130

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Okay. So you got that in 2000?

PN131

MR IOANNOU: That was as a refresher - we have done quite a few refresher courses - - -

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN133

MR IOANNOU: - - - in this - there is one here from '99.

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN135

MR IOANNOU: There is - also I have done the forklift in '95, that is when I first got the forklift ticket and I have done a refresher course after that in 2000.

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: The company says to operate the current crane you don't need to be licensed.

PN137

MR IOANNOU: I am not well known to those laws.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN139

MR IOANNOU: I am only the OH&S.

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN141

MR IOANNOU: I don't know the whole lot of laws there. But from what I have been told from the inspector - the health inspector - Workcover, sorry, yes, Workcover. If you are judging the crane and using judgments on the sling, you do need a special license.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Okay, thank you. Mr Sullivan?

PN143

MR SULLIVAN: Commissioner, the company has taken advice from Worksafe. Worksafe told them what they had to do. They got the training done. They showed them the training course, showed them certificates after the course. Worksafe haven't got an issue with what - how the operation works out there. There is two things I would like to raise, Commissioner. One is the - I had a discussion with the company. The company is of view with - people who can't be confident and have got some personal issues about doing it, they should talk to the company.

PN144

The company will work with them and the trainer at Worksafe to try and make them confident, If they can't be they will find another way around the situation. But I think, to be quite straight with it, the company is saying that they would expect that that is the exception and not the bulk of the people. There is - the union raised before one person - there is one woman on afternoon shift, that it is not the bulk of the people and they basically take a little bit of exception to the OH&S rep who is refusing to load the trucks, yet tells them that it is very unsafe for others to do it, he has got a licence. Seems to be not very smart to do that sort of stuff if you are worried about people's safety.

PN145

It is just straight to us to claim saying it is dangerous, pay us for it and it is not dangerous. It is a way to get a wage increase for people who should be doing it as part of the job. I see no difference to that to the issue where there used to forklift allowances, there used to be 30 forklift people driving around factories, loading stuff for people. Now operators do it. That is just - - -

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: As long as they are licensed. As long as they are licensed.

PN147

MR SULLIVAN: As long as they are licensed. Yes, exactly.

PN148

THE COMMISSIONER: The OH&S rep raising the issue of truck drivers - some truck drivers who they query about their competency to sling a load and some injuries that have occurred because of that. And there is - reference was made to some form of magnetics to - not magnetics, sorry, magnets. It is the same as saying - referring to Mobil and it is mobile, isn't it? That could be used which would be less hazardous because you don't have to, in some instances, try and move a load to get the sling around it properly, the way the truck is stacked. What do you say about that?

PN149

MR SULLIVAN: I would have to ask the company about that.

PN150

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Thompson or Mr Ithier?

PN151

MR ITHIER: Commissioner, I have spent a bit of time looking into magnet that ..... but there is still a lot of work to be done to got to magnet for the type of work that we do down there. Because if we convert the crane to a magnet crane and after that to lift up single tube, it would be very, very difficult to do so. So I am still investigating, I am still looking into it. I have visited OneSteel which is one of the biggest company in steel lately - - -

PN152

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN153

MR IOANNOU: - - - to have a bit of more advice on if we can adapt a magnetised crane to the existing one we have today. But there is still a lot of work to do down there to find out if that will work in the company.

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: What has been done about those drivers where there is some doubt as to whether they are capable of slinging the load properly? Is there a requirement that they are actually trained before they come onto the company premises to be able to sling a load?

PN155

MR ITHIER: Yes. We have asked all the companies - we deal with two companies that deliver steel to us and we have asked for the company to send to us virtually the same driver day in and day out - - -

PN156

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN157

MR ITHIER: - - - which we are getting these days is the same driver. And they are experienced driver that has been in the trade for a long time.

PN158

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Mr Thomas what do you say? Thank you.

PN159

MR THOMAS: After just looking at the OH&S delegate here, we don't believe that - he does not believe that it is the same driver coming all the time. We are getting different drivers. And we just continue that it is outside their agreed skill mix and it is - some people will - and it is more than what the company says, will never be able to do it. There is only a limited number of people who are going to have the confidence to do it and the ability to use that skill regularly to maintain it. So - yes, and we would still doubt the competency of all the truck drivers and it is the crane driver who actually lists the load who is responsible for what happens anyway. So with the crane driver being responsible and - we say it is an extra skill that they are having to learn to do their job.

PN160

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Right. I have to say that reading the definition of the classification structure, the Commission is not satisfied that it is an additional skill. It sees it as part of their work requirement. The Commission does have some difficulty, and it has already aired that, if some people for some reason or another were not competent enough to operate a crane to unload a truck but were competent enough to move material from racks to their work station then they should not be penalised because they are not competent enough to unload a truck.

PN161

But, if there are safety issues, and I - the Commission does appreciate that there might be some concerns about the slinging of loads. What the Commission would recommend is that the company contact Worksafe and ask that they monitor, over a period of a week or a couple of weeks, the abilities of those truck drivers that do deliver to the company to see whether or not they are competent in the slinging process. If there is some issue regarding the competency of some drivers then the Commission would also recommend that Hayman Reese advise their suppliers that they will not accept any driver on site that has not gone through a proper accredited training program in slinging material.

PN162

And it would further recommend that, in assessing whether or not a magnetic crane is appropriate for the work that you do, that that be done in consultation with Worksafe. And I am not sure if you are already doing that but it should be done in consultation with Worksafe and most certainly I would think that the union would be consulted about that as well in representing the employees. So I am satisfied that the work required is within the skills required. I think possibly the claim by the union is outside the No Extra Claims clause and therefore you are not entitled to pursue it.

PN163

But hopefully the recommendation that the Commission has given would assist in overcoming the safety issues that you have raised. Now, if there are people who are refusing to do the work and those people have been trained to do it and have been recognised by Worksafe as being qualified to do it, then they are to do it. Okay? If they refuse to do it, then I think they leave themselves open for some form of disciplinary process which I would have to say the Commission hopes does not happen. Okay? Commission will stand adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.13am]