C2003/1892, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 530 (10 February 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 5980
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER EAMES

C2003/1892

THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION

and

ESSO AUSTRALIA LIMITED
and ANOTHER

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the
Act of a dispute re sleeping arrangements
for offshore oil workers on Esso's Bass
Strait platforms

MELBOURNE

10.01 AM, FRIDAY, 30 JANUARY 2004

PN1

MR C. WINTER: I appear on behalf of the Australian Workers' Union with MR J. CLARENCE.

PN2

MR B. BUCKLAND: I am from Esso.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: I take it since the last time this matter was listed in the Commission there have been some discussions between the parties. Perhaps you can bring me up to date with what the state of play is, Mr Winter.

PN4

MR WINTER: Thank you, Commissioner, yes. Following a number of conciliation conferences before you, we can report the matter in dispute has been settled and there has been agreement reached in the process that we think will resolve the dispute once and for all. What I wanted to do, today - because I suppose the people change, we might be gone from the union next week and have some different rep from the company - I wanted to put a number of points on transcript so that everyone recognised the resolution and everyone agreed with the resolution that I would read out, and also put a bit of history on transcript in relation to the dispute, if I may.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure, and, in fact, that being the case, what I will do is ensure that the transcript is ordered from today's proceedings.

PN6

MR WINTER: Thank you. I think both parties, Commissioner, recognise that there was a manual handling risk for AWU camp staff members working offshore in making both the top and the bottom beds in the offshore bunks. We had reported, both to you and also the company over a number of years, a number of workplace incidents that had occurred in the past because we believed the current bunk configuration caused or had been a significant contributing factor to workplace injury. A number of catering staff, going back to 1989, had sustained substantial injuries after incidents making those bunks. There was a subsequent Court case heard in 1998 and a further appeal in 2000 where the Supreme Court of Appeal of Victoria found that an appeal by Esso was unsuccessful and the judge commented that:

PN7

The substandard facilities provided for the person contributed to the injury.

PN8

The risks associated with the bunk beds, we believe, were foreseeable and we are glad there has now been an attempt to rectify the problem. We believe it shouldn't have taken this long. Esso was made aware of workers being exposed to accumulative chronic, muscular type injuries in an ergonomic evaluation provided by David Capel and Associates in 1996. Eurest health and safety officers who were - Eurest being the employer at the time, issued a PIN notice dated 28/5/2002 for breaches of sections of the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act. So there had been various injuries occurring dating back to 1989.

PN9

Some 16 camp staff workers have been terminated over the last few years as they were unable to return to their offshore job due to incapacity. This incapacity was caused, we believe, in many ways by the configuration of the beds they were responsible for preparing and making. This matter was referred by the AWU to the Commission, firstly in May last year, and we would thank the Commission for its, I suppose, persistence in conciliation in trying to come up with a resolution to this. I think there has been at least three to four Hearings in regard to it.

PN10

There was, earlier on, an agreed procedure that Esso was to arrange for a manufacturer to create two simulated offshore bedrooms, one with Esso's new bunk design and another with the AWU preferred three single bed concepts per room. We believe that if that had been proceeded with in a more expedient manner and that Esso hadn't been focussed purely on the bunk design, then we could have resolved this matter considerably sooner. In October last year at a further conciliation conference before yourself, Esso reported that they had been unable to source and manufacture to date and they should have a prototype bunk ready for viewing by the end of October. They admitted not discussing the union's preferred single bed concept with the manufacturer.

PN11

The Commissioner recommended, in private, we would note that you recommended that Esso arrange for all parties to meet with the manufacturer by October so the preferred union concept could be discussed. Again there were delays and this did not happen until the bunk prototype was ready in late October. At this viewing the manufacturer informed the union representatives that at no time were they aware of the three single bed concept. Again, we had to pursue that matter via the Commission. We had to then push the company into having further discussions with the manufacturer in regard to that three single bed concept.

PN12

The matter again, as I mentioned, was further heard by yourself on 10 November, where we detailed our concerns that we believed that Esso and ESS were not taking the union's preferred three bed concept seriously. Again, following your recommendations, the parties then met privately and discussed a compromise. Esso representative, John Stenson, advised the union that he was leaving the project and George Humphries would now take over this - Geoff, sorry, Humphries would take over this capacity. Again we thought we would give it another go and we did, at the last concept, because there was a new person coming in and I suppose when new people get involved they come to it with a fresh start and that has managed to break the deadlock and, as a result, we believe we have settlement.

PN13

And that settlement was finalised on the 14th of this month. Parties met at a workshop session. The outcome of the settlement is as follows: that the new bunk bed would provide means by which the top bunk can slide down, the bunk frame to rest and be secured on the bottom of the bunk to enable it to be converted into a single bed configuration. So that clearly is a compromise, I suppose, on both parties. The convertible bunk bed would also be lockable, would be on lockable wheels to allow safe access from all three sides for bed making. A baggage tray would also be attached under the base of the bottom bunk and be free from the floor to allow the safe storage of personal baggage.

PN14

Consideration would also be given to a mounting point to safety secure a TV frame if required. Once the prototype is built both parties have agreed there would be a risk assessment and that would be done by an agreed person, then the six beds would be made and trialed on the Snapper platform, the Flounder platform and the Kingfisher A platform. In order to target a large portion - proportion of the offshore workforce Esso has reached agreement with us to implement the new bunk bed design initially in five rooms on all staffed platforms. Further criteria for complete replacement of all bunk beds offshore will be defined by the parties at a future date.

PN15

With the above agreed position, the parties agree that the three bed concept would no longer be considered so, clearly, there has been some compromise by both parties to try and come up with a resolution. I suppose we made more progress in the last few weeks than we have made in the last six months. Again, I would thank the Commission for assisting the parties in pushing and prodding both sides to get some sort of settlement because I think in these sorts of circumstances that is the only way to come up with a settlement that suits both sides and will make a safe workplace. If the Commission pleases.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Buckland.

PN17

MR BUCKLAND: Commissioner, if it is - if you don't take exception, Geoff Humphries has just attended now.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, certainly.

PN19

MR BUCKLAND: He was caught in traffic, so perhaps he can respond.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I know what it is like today; it is the pits outside. Yes, Mr Humphries.

PN21

MR G. HUMPHRIES: I have, I guess, taken over from John Stenson, who is the prior contract executive for this element of the offshore activities. In relation to this event, I guess, coming in fresh and wanting to understand more about the issues around this over the last period of time I convened a workshop on 14 January and involved some of our workforce and the ESS workforce and basically really did it from a ground up approach.

PN22

I understood the background, I understood the issues and the problems and we wanted to come to an understanding as to what is the right thing to do for Bass Strait in terms of what we can do in the environment we are working in, and also understand - or what we need to put in place that is going to deliver the right manual handling solution as it relates to making beds and the like. So John was certainly involved in that conference in the workshop and as a result of that conference we have come to the compromise as was indicated, and basically, I think, we have got a forward plan to move along on. So I think we are all on the same page now and that is the main thing to move forward.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. Can I congratulate the parties on achieving an agreed outcome; that was always going to be the best result, if it was at all possible. If the Commission has been able to play a facilitative role in achieving that end then that is a good thing and part of the role of the Commission. I wish you well with the construction of the prototypes and hope that all of your aspirations are fulfilled in due course. On that basis I will simply adjourn these proceedings.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.12am]