|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220
Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
Tel:(03) 9672-5608 Fax:(03) 9670-8883
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
O/N 6226
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER SMITH
C2004/2096
CPSU, THE COMMUNITY AND
PUBLIC SECTOR UNION
and
STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED
Application under section 170LW of the Act
for settlement of dispute re alleged failure
to consult with respect to restructure in
the workplace
MELBOURNE
3.05 PM, TUESDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 2004
PN1
MR M. PERICA: I appear with my friend MR D. CHEESEMAN for the CPSU.
PN2
MR L. BUNTMAN: I am from the OI Group on behalf of the State Trustees Limited.
PN3
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I won't rule on your application for appearance yet. Mr Buntman contacted my office and said he wasn't able to get anybody immediately from his client to attend at 3 but would be able to attend at 4. But I thought what we might do was to hear from you, Mr Perica, as to what the issue is. I must say I am a little bemused. I thought I had suspended the operation of that clause.
PN4
MR PERICA: Commissioner, perhaps my colleague, Mr Cheeseman, might be able to fill you in on what has been happening.
PN5
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Cheeseman.
PN6
MR CHEESEMAN: Thank you, Commissioner. As you would be aware, State Trustees and the CPSU have been consulting with respect to a restructure that was proposed in the estate planning team. We were working through a process, which I thought was quite amenable to getting some sort of decision making. As late as yesterday we last met with State Trustees to discuss a position that the union had formed on the proposed restructure and there was a number, I guess, unanswered questions which we were hoping that State Trustees might be able to go away and further explore and then get back to us with a position.
PN7
This morning, management from State Trustees called for a staff meeting. That staff meeting announced - or at that staff meeting an announcement was made that the restructure that has been subject to a dispute would be going ahead, that the solicitors within that unit would have until 1 March to express an interest in a position that they might wish to fill within the new structure, and that those employees who did express an interest would be employed on a common law contract, which would clearly take them out of the jurisdiction of the Commission and was also against the wants of the employees.
PN8
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, a common law contract wouldn't take them out but a contract formed in accordance with that provision that is suspended might do it. That is the sort of thing that they were talking about, was it?
PN9
MR CHEESEMAN: Yes. Correct. An e-mail went out this morning at 11.41, which essentially confirms what I have just said with respect to the restructure - or the consultation period had been completed, that the employees would have until 1 March, essentially, to express an interest in a position and, effectively, that there positions were, on receipt of the e-mail, redundant, that they would continue to perform their duties until such time as they expressed an interest and go through those sorts of processes.
PN10
THE COMMISSIONER: How many people are involved? Eight or nine, wasn't there?
PN11
MR CHEESEMAN: Well, we have got - there is four members from the CPSU. I understand that there is another - - -
PN12
THE COMMISSIONER: How many people involved?
PN13
MR CHEESEMAN: - - - there is another, I think, five or six employees that are affected as well.
PN14
THE COMMISSIONER: About 10 people.
PN15
MR CHEESEMAN: About 10 or 12 people, I think, yes. That is my understanding, that those others aren't, as far as I am aware, members of the union.
PN16
THE COMMISSIONER: That is all right. Yes.
PN17
MR CHEESEMAN: I am happy to table for the Commission, if the Commission pleases, a without prejudice document that, I guess, forms the basis of the position that the union had formed to date with our discussions with State Trustees. State Trustees actually have a copy of that document which we gave them after the conclusion of the hearing last week and I also have a copy of an e-mail that was sent to all staff which notified the whole of State Trustees with respect to the proposed restructure.
PN18
THE COMMISSIONER: I will give you back your without prejudice document. I won't look at it just yet.
PN19
MR CHEESEMAN: Sure.
PN20
THE COMMISSIONER: But what did you want to give me now?
PN21
MR CHEESEMAN: It is an e-mail that was sent out to all staff and also a document that was presented to the staff this morning - - -
PN22
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Very well.
PN23
PN24
MR CHEESEMAN: Sir, look, that is where the matter lies at the moment. On hearing of management's pre-emptive move, we obviously notified the Commission of the existence of the dispute and, obviously, also notified the fact that it is a continuation of matters that have been dispute, and we would be looking to go into conciliation and, if necessary, arbitration on this matter.
PN25
THE COMMISSIONER: Now, they say in their e-mail they have been consulting over the last 20 days. Is that right?
PN26
MR CHEESEMAN: That is partially correct. It is partially correct, especially with respect to the occupational health and safety matters where there has, in fact, been quite a number of meetings to discuss, both with WorkCover and also a consultant that had been employed. We have had two meetings specifically with respect to the restructure. The first one was to, I guess, be informed in terms of the decision making that had gone in behind what State Trustees were proposing to do, and then the second one was our opportunity, I guess, to some extent, respond back with respect to that restructure, and that is where we presented the CPSU position.
PN27
There was a number of unanswered questions that management really needed to go away and seek further direction from more senior management with respect to this. We still haven't been provided, as per the enterprise agreement, the rationale behind them knocking back the position in which the union had formed which we believe is spelt out under clause 8 of the agreement. Yes, that is right. It was only - Mr Perica is just reminding me that it was, in fact, only last Friday in which we gave the organisation our position with respect to what they were proposing to do and, as I say, there was a number of unanswered questions that we fleshed out to some extent yesterday and which did require, as I understand, more work.
PN28
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Perica.
PN29
MR PERICA: If I can interpolate there, as you - do you have a copy of the certified agreement there?
PN30
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN31
MR PERICA: If you go to clause 8, there is three paragraphs in the consultation provision. I will take you to the last paragraph, and this is the obligations of the CPSU in relation to the consultation, where there is:
PN32
...an obligation on us to submit alternative proposals which will meet the indicated rationale and benefits of the proposal. Such alternative proposal must be submitted in a timely manner and no unreasonable delay.
PN33
And it says:
PN34
If such a proposal is made, the employer must give just cause to the CPSU if the employer does not accept its proposal. Any dispute concerning the parties obligations...
PN35
Now, our alternative was submitted on Friday. Tuesday morning our members are informed that the spill and fill is going ahead. It is the perennial problem - when I was before you last time in this matter. There has been an abject failure to consult in terms of the agreement. Now, we would try to deal with that matter by way of conciliation.
PN36
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN37
MR PERICA: If that is not possible, I think we are at the ultimate stage in the dispute settlement procedure we would be requesting that you exercise your powers under LW to arbitrate that issue - but I won't make any submissions about that matter now - should we fail to resolve it by way of conciliation.
PN38
THE COMMISSIONER: What, to say that the proper application of the agreement is that the employer must give just cause?
PN39
MR PERICA: Well, that they haven't - well, first, a positive finding that we would say is justified, the conciliation under clause 8 having been made.
PN40
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN41
MR PERICA: Orders to compel the employer to consult properly and that the status quo continue whilst that takes place.
PN42
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I follow. All right. Thank you. Well, Mr Buntman, you have got sufficient information to consult with your client and return at 4 o'clock.
PN43
MR BUNTMAN: Thank you, Commissioner. As you can probably see, I don't have particular carriage of this matter. I am not informed of the circumstances. I don't instructions. As you are well aware, Steve Peters of our office is. I have been - I need to contact him to pull them out of their current conferences to get them here at 4.
PN44
THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. I understand that. Well, we will adjourn until 4 o'clock.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [3.17pm]
RESUMED [4.09pm]
PN45
THE COMMISSIONER: Now, Mr Peters, you seek leave to appear for State Trustees?
PN46
MR S. PETERS: Yes, please, Commissioner.
PN47
THE COMMISSIONER: Any objection to the application for leave?
PN48
MR PERICA: No objection.
PN49
THE COMMISSIONER: Leave is granted. Now, have you been briefed, Mr Peters, on the issue that has been raised?
PN50
MR PETERS: I have had two minutes, Commissioner, but I think I have probably got my head around most of it.
PN51
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. So what do you say about the issue that has been raised? The union has asked me to see whether or not I can conciliate some form of resolution to this matter and, in the event that conciliation is not possible, to then proceed to arbitrate the matter.
PN52
MR PETERS: Commissioner, of course, you are privy to the previous hearings before you.
PN53
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN54
MR PETERS: Can I begin by saying that I am aware that Mr Cheeseman - I hope I am not putting words in his mouth - has handed two documents up which I have certainly not seen at this stage. I don't believe we got a - we have a copy. I appreciate they are probably documents - - -
PN55
THE COMMISSIONER: No, he has handed two documents. One was an e-mail, which you may or may not have seen; the other document you have seen, which is the State Trustees Limited Estate Planning Wills Restructure document.
PN56
MR PETERS: I have seen that Commissioner; you are quite correct. I have not seen the e-mail. I am not suggesting it is - - -
PN57
THE COMMISSIONER: No, no.
PN58
MR PETERS: - - - but if I have a quick look at it, at least I am referring to - - -
PN59
MR CHEESEMAN: If you could hand it back.
PN60
MR PETERS: Certainly. All right, I have looked at that document. I may refer to it again, if I need to. I just hadn't seen it, Commissioner, so I thought - - -
PN61
THE COMMISSIONER: That is all right.
PN62
MR PETERS: Commissioner, as you are aware, there has been an ongoing dispute in this particular matter with regards to a restructure. The company has indicated directly to the Commission that the restructure is imperative in terms of it meeting its requirements as per its shareholders. There are, in fact - I have been provided with a series of consultation dates that have occurred over the past 20 days in relation to a proposed restructure and briefly - I am happy to talk to any of these in more detail - that commenced on 4.2.2004. Again, there was a 6th of the 2nd Commission hearing, including a conference, of course, in the room down the corridor on this floor, the 10th of the 2nd, the 11th of the 2nd, the 17th of the 2nd, 19th of the 2nd, 20th of the 2nd, 23rd of the 2nd and today, of course, the 24th of the 2nd.
PN63
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. The issue that the union raised was under clause 8 of the certified agreement that says in the last paragraph:
PN64
In accordance with this clause, the CPSU may submit alternative proposals -
PN65
And Mr Cheeseman sought to hand that up but I declined to accept it in open hearing at this stage.
PN66
MR PETERS: Yes.
PN67
THE COMMISSIONER:
PN68
which will meet the indicated rationale and benefits of the proposal. Such alternative proposals must be submitted in a timely manner so as not to lead to an unreasonable delay in the introduction of any contemplated change. If such...
PN69
And this is the area that was highlighted:
PN70
If such a proposal is made, the employer must give just cause to the CPSU if the employer does not accept its proposal.
PN71
And it says it hasn't received that information.
PN72
MR PETERS: Commissioner, today attempts were made in relation to individual meetings, given that the restructure involves a number of employees, including the employees that I think are all present at the back of the room. Individuals meetings were made with a number of other employees, who all attended. The employees at the back of the room, of course, can and have the right to have the CPSU present during those meetings but they have all refused to meet with - - -
PN73
THE COMMISSIONER: You misunderstand. You have a duty under the agreement and the CPSU were asking have you complied with that duty, that is all.
PN74
MR PETERS: Yes. And the CPSU provided a document without prejudice that indicated a different view in terms of the proposed restructure, and that is unworkable. It is not being handed up. It is without prejudice. It is difficult to speak to the point at this moment, of course, because it is a without prejudice document but the CPSU proposed a different format of those discussions. In any event, I am informed, of course - I might just ask when this occurred - yesterday there was a meeting with the CPSU in regardS to the document that I have just referred to, the without prejudice document, and the changes in terms of the old and the proposed position - situation were put in quite enormous depth to the CPSU. So, in terms of clause 8, as the Commissioner has referred me, the employer says that it has given just cause to the CPSU - I am reading from the agreement, of course - - -
PN75
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN76
MR PETERS: - - - that the employer does not and, in fact, cannot accept the proposal that the CPSU has put forward.
PN77
THE COMMISSIONER: I see. I follow. All right. So it did that yesterday in a meeting, did it?
PN78
MR PETERS: That is right. And, Commissioner, we refer simply to the fact that - and I believe it may have even come from previous hearings here - that at the end of the day the employer has a duty and, of course, a right to run its business, of course, according to the rules of the agreement and the various rules of industrial and employment law, etcetera, but it has made the decisions and it has attempted to get through the process. It still offers an opportunity for the employees to be employed. And document - in fact, I think it is the e-mail document - - -
PN79
THE COMMISSIONER: Can we go to that. That is something that has aroused my interest. The union alleged that people have to apply for positions in the new structure, a type of spill and fill process. Is that what is occurring?
PN80
MR PETERS: Yes, it is.
PN81
THE COMMISSIONER: On what basis is spill and fill used for the determination of redundancies?
PN82
MR PETERS: Well, Commissioner, they are applying where they meet the essential criteria, if they do, of course. The positions are vastly different between the old and the proposed position. Of course, you refer to a document. I am sorry, I don't know the number of that now but a document that was handed up again, today, and - - -
PN83
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN84
MR PETERS: - - - and I am referring, although I have not handed it up, the notes of the CPSU and the management in terms of the proposed other solution that the CPSU has made in this particular circumstance.
PN85
THE COMMISSIONER: How are they vastly different?
PN86
MR PETERS: Well, Commissioner, I think - with respect, I think that is something probably, at least, for arbitration. It would be a much more complex document for me to address - - -
PN87
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I follow.
PN88
MR PETERS: - - - by the seat of my pants, so to speak, at this moment in time.
PN89
THE COMMISSIONER: It just seems to me that - and this is what I would be interested in doing and there is no point in me beating around the bush. I have seen a lot of public sector activity and spill and fill simpliciter seems to me to be designed to relieve management from assessing skill and competence for new roles. The spill and fill approach is an old approach within the public sector approach and it is designed to place upon the employees' shoulders the responsibility for success or failure of applying for a position, rather than the employer bearing the responsibility and properly selecting somebody for redundancy. If the spill and fill is used for that process, simply to blame an employee for being unsuccessful in a job, if that is the strategy, and I am not saying that it is and it would probably take some evidence, that approach will be stopped. It will be stopped dead in its tracks.
PN90
MR PETERS: Commissioner, I should hasten to add that the spill and fill question that you asked me before refers to words used by the union - - -
PN91
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I know.
PN92
MR PETERS: In terms of what you say, of course that is proper, and I understand that but - - -
PN93
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you are asking these people to apply for jobs, aren't you?
PN94
MR PETERS: No - it is important, of course, in a part of the redundancy situation - - -
PN95
THE COMMISSIONER: Have you declared the positions redundant?
PN96
MR PETERS: I believe so.
PN97
THE COMMISSIONER: You have declared all existing positions redundant?
PN98
MR PETERS: Yes.
PN99
MR PERICA: Yes, but not as of today.
PN100
MR PETERS: As of today?
PN101
MR PERICA: No, not as of today.
PN102
MR PETERS: No - as of? Your e-mail says it, I think.
PN103
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN104
MR PETERS: If I could have that e-mail again perhaps I could refer to the part that - - -
PN105
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, of course.
PN106
MR PETERS: But I would hasten to add, Commissioner, that - as I say, the spill and fill is a terminology that my friends on the other side of the table want to use and that - - -
PN107
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, no, I wasn't drawing any conclusions. I was just - - -
PN108
MR PETERS: No, no, I appreciate you are not.
PN109
THE COMMISSIONER: - - - telling you that - - -
PN110
MR PETERS: I guess I am suggesting strongly that, in fact, it is obviously the employer's duty also to mitigate changes, if possible - - -
PN111
THE COMMISSIONER: Of course, the effects of redundancy.
PN112
MR PETERS: That is right.
PN113
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN114
MR PETERS: And in terms of - - -
PN115
THE COMMISSIONER: Now, if these persons don't apply for the position, is the employer then mitigating the effects of redundancy?
PN116
MR PETERS: Well, they are not mitigating the effects, clearly, Commissioner - - -
PN117
THE COMMISSIONER: No.
PN118
MR PETERS: - - - but this is a part of the process of mitigation. And it should be said that that does not remove - these people are not resigning their position in terms of an application to another job somewhere in the ether. There is a severance. There is a redundancy. There is a restructure. We say, of course, and would like to say at length, that there are changes to the positions that are vastly different, that some of these employees may have the skill basis to get to those positions but - - -
PN119
THE COMMISSIONER: But others don't?
PN120
MR PETERS: Perhaps.
PN121
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I see. Now, will it be a condition of employment that the persons must go on I think what is known as a total employment cost contract or something, is it?
PN122
MR PETERS: Well, Commissioner - - -
PN123
THE COMMISSIONER: Total employment cost contract, yes.
PN124
MR PETERS: Well, rather than use the total employment cost contract concept, because that provides difficulties under the award, clearly, and the suspension that is there at this stage, I did say to the Commissioner - it is in transcript - that, in fact, in terms of the redundancy, the total employment cost contract issue does not reflect upon these employees. They are all - you might recall, Commissioner, are employees.
PN125
THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, I am sorry if you misunderstood. Persons who are applying for positions in the new structure, will that be conditional upon acceptance of a total employment cost contract?
PN126
MR PETERS: It will be something - it couldn't be under the award, Commissioner, because that is suspended - - -
PN127
THE COMMISSIONER: No, not as yet. That has been suspended.
PN128
MR PETERS: That is right. So the answer is no in terms of the award. The agreement allows for - I would need to seek full instructions but the agreement does allow for I and T proposals and if that is a total employment cost contract - it is late in the day - - -
PN129
THE COMMISSIONER: Where does it allow for that? Can you help me?
PN130
MR PETERS: Parties bound, by memory, Commissioner, clause 3, I think or so. Clause - I did refer you to this last time - - -
PN131
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you did. Clause 3.
PN132
MR PETERS: I appreciate you have a number of - parties bound on clause - - -
PN133
THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. Except for those employees who are in bands I and T, that is right.
PN134
MR PETERS: Yes.
PN135
THE COMMISSIONER: So, therefore, you put them into those bands, that goes back to the award and then they are covered by the award, aren't they?
PN136
MR PETERS: Commissioner, I - it would be an interesting point. I would like to perhaps argue in a full submission, but if I take you to 5, operation of agreement, it gives a date, as you would expect, which means - which states 30 June 2004.
PN137
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN138
MR PETERS: But immediately on - well, certainly on my next page - I don't know if it is yours, but the next paragraph:
PN139
This agreement operates in conjunction with the State Trustees Award.
PN140
As you would expect, of course.
PN141
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, indeed.
PN142
MR PETERS:
PN143
However, the terms of this agreement shall prevail over the award to the extent of any inconsistency.
PN144
THE COMMISSIONER: Correct.
PN145
MR PETERS: So, I am happy for some immediate guidance but we would argue that I and T are therefore directly outside of the award and must be. I mean, it is the argument we made last time, Commissioner - - -
PN146
THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, directly outside the agreement, not the award.
PN147
MR PETERS: Yes, I am sorry. I am sorry.
PN148
THE COMMISSIONER: Directly outside the agreement.
PN149
MR PETERS: It is a long day. I apologise.
PN150
THE COMMISSIONER: That is all right.
PN151
MR PETERS: I am not trying to mislead. Exactly.
PN152
THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. I am just wanting to be content with this: you have got a group of staff who seem to be concerned they are being asked to apply for their own jobs in one guise or another. They seem to be also suggesting to me that State Trustees have made a decision to change and that a precondition to applying for these jobs will be an individual contract position. Now - - -
PN153
MR PETERS: Can I speak to that, Commissioner?
PN154
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, please.
PN155
MR PETERS: It doesn't necessarily mean that. It is possible, of course, to provide for an award contract position.
PN156
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN157
MR PETERS: And just write the contract up so that the flexibility that arises out of an I and T contract, if I could put it that way - - -
PN158
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN159
MR PETERS: - - - is contained within the award provisions in terms of the entitlements, etcetera, that are in there.
PN160
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that is - you can't contract out of the award.
PN161
MR PETERS: No.
PN162
THE COMMISSIONER: And you can't purport to contract in any way inconsistent with the award. So the award will either apply or the agreement applies.
PN163
MR PETERS: Yes, that is right but I am saying, the other alternative - one alternative is to go I, T under agreement, clearly.
PN164
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that takes them out of the agreement.
PN165
MR PETERS: Certainly.
PN166
THE COMMISSIONER: So if you put people in bands I and T, they are no longer covered by the agreement.
PN167
MR PETERS: That is correct, if that was the proposal. But the second proposal is to - - -
PN168
THE COMMISSIONER: And then they are covered by the award, aren't they?
PN169
MR PETERS: If it is an all, employees you are quite correct, actually, Commissioner, I have just realised. At 4 o'clock the penny drops eventually, believe me.
PN170
THE COMMISSIONER: All right.
PN171
MR PETERS: So if it is an all - thank you, Commissioner. Yes, it is an all employees, it is a relatively strange award from that respect, if it is all employees. So, yes, that is correct. So the alternative then - - -
PN172
THE COMMISSIONER: At the moment you haven't got access to individual contracts.
PN173
MR PETERS: That is right.
PN174
THE COMMISSIONER: That is right.
PN175
MR PETERS: So it is a matter of writing a contract, if you like, that provides for, if I could put it so simply as a remuneration and entitlement base that relates directly to the award.
PN176
THE COMMISSIONER: Correct.
PN177
MR PETERS: Now, I am aware, of course, that - and I am not sure if you are, Commissioner, that paperwork - in fact, it was handed to me five minutes before this but paperwork has been put before the Commission, at the very least, that seeks to - - -
PN178
THE COMMISSIONER: Delete the clause.
PN179
MR PETERS: - - - delete the clause; remove from suspension to deletion. I assume that will be set at a date.
PN180
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, at the moment it is not urgent - - -
PN181
MR PETERS: No.
PN182
THE COMMISSIONER: - - - because the clause doesn't exist in the award.
PN183
MR PETERS: Exactly, and I - that is why I bring it up, that there is - I am being somewhat selfish. I just know what my next few days are like, but - and certainly my next week - but it doesn't affect the situation.
PN184
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, there is no urgency in the matter because the clause doesn't apply at this stage. Well, it is just that I would be concerned if your client was travelling along making a decision to change a structure where there is a fundamental flaw in the capacity to do so, if there is reliance upon the total employment contracts.
PN185
MR PETERS: Commissioner, I would suggest that, to some extent, this - I appreciate what you are saying and, of course, what you are saying is quite correct and we agree but I would suggest to you that that gives you some indication of the importance - or some more indication of the importance that the employer places on this restructure.
PN186
THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.
PN187
MR PETERS: Whilst it would prefer, for the ease of flexibility, to set up total employment cost contracts, it is placed in a position where it must provide for a restructure and, as a result, it would do so under the - within the boundaries of the award.
PN188
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. You see, restructures don't commonly lead to - well, I am sorry, I take that back. I was going to say in the private sector that is the case but in the public sector it is often - and you will have to forgive me but I have seen it used too often - it is often a device to spill and fill, to use the term, and to change attitudes by making people apply for their own jobs, which is an horrendous practice, work practice. It is simply wrong in principle. It is an employer trying to absolve themselves from the responsibility of taking the hard decision as to who goes and why. But if this is not that case, then I am comforted. If it is that case, then all this is going to take a very long time.
PN189
MR PETERS: We say it is not that case and I am sure Mark will have something to say on that particular proposal. But the alternative is, as the Commissioner said last time, consultation should not be perfunctory. Of course it shouldn't.
PN190
THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.
PN191
MR PETERS: We have attempted and attempted - - -
PN192
THE COMMISSIONER: I also said they shouldn't consult you to death.
PN193
MR PETERS: Most definitely. And I think you also used, finally, words that it is not a shared decision making exercise.
PN194
THE COMMISSIONER: No.
PN195
MR PETERS: And at a point of time this organisation is placed in a position where it must act. It has reached that stage. The alternative - and I appreciate the Commissioner was not specifically slurring, if I could be so bold, at State Trustees, but I understand what the Commission is saying in terms of general comments for spill and fill - the alternative comment that could be made to the other side is that we never get an alternative solution that we can work towards because it just never comes from, in this case, the union.
PN196
Now, I don't want to ruffle too many feathers there, but we don't get anything else that we can work with and, at a point of time, and I have referred the Commission many times to the enormous pressure being placed on the organisation in terms of 1 March in a number of other areas, things have to change and we say that those positions are very different. But we attempt to offer mitigation, although we understand the Commissioner's point that just offering it is not mitigation, but it is certainly a step towards the process.
PN197
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, telling a person they can apply for a job is not taking steps to - - -
PN198
MR PETERS: That is right.
PN199
THE COMMISSIONER: - - - deal with the effects of possible redundancy.
PN200
MR PETERS: But to not offer it would be improper, Commissioner. That is all we are saying.
PN201
THE COMMISSIONER: No, I understand. All right. Well, are you content to go into conference to see whether we can work it out?
PN202
MR PETERS: Yes, Commissioner, certainly.
PN203
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Perica or Mr Cheeseman, do you wish to say anything before we adjourn into conference?
PN204
MR PERICA: No, Commissioner.
PN205
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. We will adjourn into conference.
NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED
INDEX
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs |
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2004/882.html