C2003/6447, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 562 (13 February 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 6, 114-120 Castlereagh St SYDNEY NSW 2000
PO Box A2405 SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N 9044

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER SMITH

C2003/6447

ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AWARD

Application pursuant to Section 111(1)(b) of the Act
by the CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
for making of an interim award

SYDNEY

2.35 PM, MONDAY, 2 FEBRUARY 2004

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll take the appearances please?

PN2

MS L. ANDELMAN: If the Commissioner pleases, I am appearing for the Community and Public Sector Union.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Andelman, thank you.

PN4

MS J. STREIMER: For the Australian Industry Group in representing a number of companies in this matter today.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Streimer. Yes, Ms Andelman?

PN6

MS ANDELMAN: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. This is a roping-in application for the Telecommunication Service Industry Award 2002 based on a record of findings made by the Commission as constituted on 13 November 2003 with a number of labour hiring companies in the telecommunications industry. Now, the CPSU made the roping-in application on 14 November 2003. All those said companies that are included in the appendix to the record of findings are today pressing for that award to be made. The award is a proper minimum rates award and is appropriate and suitable for the companies we seek for it to cover. We propose that the companies be included in schedule C of the Award as they provide services to Telstra and Telstra subsidiaries.

PN7

In regard to one of these companies, Commissioner - that is, IPA Personnel - we don't press for that company to be roped-in today based on information we have received from the Australian Industry Group and that is that IPA Personnel provide services to a company called Primus and they are one of a number of labour hire companies. The other two haven't yet been - a dispute hasn't been found against them. In fact the CPSU has lodged an application for a dispute finding and a roping-in application on 22 January 2004 in the Registry but we haven't, as yet, received a date for that. So what we would propose would be to leave this company until that matter has been determined and those other two labour hire companies have been roped-in, so that the three companies go into the award together.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN9

MS ANDELMAN: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Streimer?

PN11

MS STREIMER: Thank you, Commissioner. I wish to bring to your attention a couple of issues. In relation to the dispute finding, that the Commission found on 13 November, there are two companies where an error has occurred. The companies in question are Direct Personnel and Williams Alexander. These two companies, they are their trading names and as such we wish to vary the finding of dispute to rather reflect Workforce Automation Technologies Limited.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: What does that replace, Direct Personnel, does it?

PN13

MS STREIMER: And Williams Alexander trading as Direct Personnel and Williams Alexander. Neither Direct nor Williams Alexander are action the direct employer of employees, but rather it's their trading name for advertising purposes, et cetera.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Just a moment please. What do you say the proper name is?

PN15

MS STREIMER: Workforce Automation Technologies.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Pty Limited?

PN17

MS STREIMER: Limited. No, just Limited, Commissioner, trading as Direct Personnel and Williams Alexander. Neither of those companies are Pty Ltd organisations.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. The Workforce Automation Technologies have no objection to the varying of the finding of dispute and also no objection to the roping-in occurring today but, for purposes of keeping the award as simple as possible in terms of correct roping-in, that change should be made on the record.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, so the schedule should also - well, the schedule just needs to be Workforce Automation Technologies Limited, doesn't it, and delete Direct Personnel and Williams Alexander?

PN20

MS STREIMER: Concern though, Commissioner, that you'll notice that both Williams Alexander and Direct Personnel have exactly the same address and by having them as separate parties that they don't actually employ any people so whether it would be accurate to keep all three organisations - - -

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, I was just saying one.

PN22

MS STREIMER: Just one?

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Workforce Automation Technology Limited as the respondent.

PN24

MS STREIMER: There are other entities that fall under Workforce Automation Technologies but they don't operate within telecommunications. That's fine.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well, the dispute finding only covers what it covers.

PN26

MS STREIMER: That's fine, so, yes, just Workforce Automation Technologies Limited. Yes, so that's in relation to that matter.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the finding of dispute only needs to be varied in so far as it deletes Pty, doesn't it, in that sense, because you've got Workforce Automation Technologies Pty Limited in the finding. We delete the word Pty and just have Limited.

PN28

MS STREIMER: The copy of the dispute finding that I have doesn't contain Workforce Automation Technologies.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Doesn't it? Have you got one signed by me?

PN30

MS STREIMER: Yes.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: Have you?

PN32

MS STREIMER: Yes, an original.

PN33

MS ANDELMAN: Yes, Commissioner, I have the same copy. I think CPSUs draft dispute finding had Workforce Automation Technologies Limited and we too were confused about the right name of the company to log but settled on trading names.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: I see, all right. Yes, very well, we'll amend it accordingly.

PN35

MS STREIMER: Further, Commissioner, there are a number of companies that appear on the list today, namely, Workforce Automation Technologies, as well as Team Recruitment and Premium Personnel, who are all companies that fall under the banner of Australian Personnel Consortium. These companies - just to confuse the matter further - were involved in the earlier matter settled in June before the Commission involving Roping-in Award Number 3 and, as such, would request that the roping-in award that was settled on in Roping-in Number 3 would apply in identical terms to these companies as they all fall under the same umbrella organisation.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Are they different companies?

PN37

MS STREIMER: They are different companies controlled by a central consortium.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: But they are Team Recruitment Services Pty Limited and Premium Personnel Pty Limited?

PN39

MS STREIMER: That's right.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: They are separate companies employing persons under that company name?

PN41

MS STREIMER: They're separate, yes.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: What are you asking; that they go into the other roping-in award?

PN43

MS STREIMER: No, no, sorry. Australian Personnel Consortium is the umbrella organisation that included organisations such as Choice HR and Regent Personnel that we dealt with in June.

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN45

MS STREIMER: The matters that we settled in June in relation to appropriate coverage contained within the award and also the savings clause, that they would ask that all of their companies fall under the same umbrella organisation known as Australian Personnel Consortium, have an identical roping-in award.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: Instrument.

PN47

MS STREIMER: Instrument for ease of operation. I've gone through and had a look at the draft order that Ms Andelman has presented to me today and there are a few changes that need to take place, namely, in relation to correct coverage of the Clerical, Administrative and Customer Contact Stream and also the savings clause that appeared in the Roping-in Number 3 Award. I've got a copy of that to hand up, if the Commission pleases.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN49

MS STREIMER: So the matters would appear at clauses 2.2, 2.3 and also 3.5 of the Number 3 Roping-in.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: 2.2?

PN51

MS STREIMER: 2.3 and 3.5. The rest would seem to be superfluous to the companies listed today.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN53

MS STREIMER: So the rest of the Award Number 3 would seem to be superfluous but this Roping-in Number 4 should emulate the same agreed terms as what is in Number 3.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: So, we ought to have 2.2, 2.3 and 3.5 in this roping-in?

PN55

MS STREIMER: That's right.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: I follow. Good thank you. Ms Andelman?

PN57

MS ANDELMAN: Commissioner, we don't object to that and based on that we would seek to provide you with a further draft.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, if you would confer with Ms Streimer and produce another draft?

PN59

MS ANDELMAN: Yes, Commissioner.

PN60

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, we will vary the finding of dispute to delete the word Pty and can you, when you submit another draft, put the proper employer in place of Direct Personnel and Williams Alexander, and we need to make sure when I find these disputes that we've actually grabbed hold of the right person because it makes us look as if we've made a mistake if we issue a correction order and that's something we don't like to do.

PN61

Now, having heard both parties, this is an application to create a roping-in award to be known as the Telecommunication Services Industry Roping-in Award Number 4. The application is not opposed in its amended form. I am satisfied that the award, which it is to be roped-in to, is an award which complies with section 89A of the Act together with sections 88A and 88B.

PN62

Accordingly, I will make the award. The award will apply from the first full pay period to commence on or after today and shall remain in force for a period of six weeks. Anything else?

PN63

MS ANDELMAN: No, Commissioner.

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much. The matter is adjourned sine die.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.47pm]