AG2005/3499, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 1334 (15 June 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---


Workplace Relations Act 1996 11786-1

COMMISSIONER DANGERFIELD

AG2005/3499

APPLICATION BY BRAMBLES INDUSTRIAL SERVICES & THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION - GREATER SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BRANCH
s.170LJ - Agreement with organisations of employees (Division 2)
(AG2005/3499)

ADELAIDE

3.46AM, THURSDAY, 02 JUNE 2005

PN1

MR N LLEWELLYN-JONES: I appear with MR C PURCELL for the Australian Workers' Union.

PN2

MR T SMALL: I represent Brambles Australia Limited trading as Brambles Industrial Services.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks Mr Small. Mr Llewellyn-Jones?

PN4

MR LLEWELLYN-JONES: Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner, this is an application pursuant to section 170LJ for certification of the Brambles Industrial Service Port Pirie Certified Agreement 2005. By way of factual background the agreement covers some 28 employees. All those employees, on my instructions have been fully informed and consulted throughout the negotiation process and in the view of the union have a clear understanding of the implications of the agreement on their industrial rights and responsibilities.

PN5

The clause in terms of prerequisites for certification has a renegotiation clause at clause 5 and a dispute resolution clause as required and that clause is found in clause 8. It has a nominal expiry date of two years from the date of certification so it's a shorter agreement than is possible. The Commission will see that there has been a statutory declaration which was lodged with the Commission in the view of the union confirming that all of the requirements of the Act have been met. I'm working on the assumption that that statutory declaration is before the Commission.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: It is, yes.

PN7

MR LLEWELLYN-JONES: It's therefore the succinct submissions of the union that as the statutory requirements have been met and that as there has been no reduction in the overall terms and conditions of the employment that we request the Commission certify the said agreement.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Small, any comments?

PN9

MR SMALL: Yes. If it please the Commission, I would endorse the comments of the employee organisation in respect of the agreement. The agreement was achieved after some months of quite considerable discussions and negotiations between the parties involving the company, the employees and the employee representative. The company has submitted a statutory declaration attesting to the fact that we believe that the agreement complies fully with the requirements of the Act and would submit to the Commission that we see there are no matters in there which would preclude the agreement from being certified and accordingly would endorse the certification of the agreement if the Commission pleases.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Gentlemen, while I've got the two of you there. In regard to the statutory declarations I note that the union's declaration from Mr Skuse at 6.3 talks about 28 employees being covered by the agreement with five casual employees and one under the age of 21 years and for the company, Ms Kestell's statutory declaration talks about 26 employees with eight casual employees and no one under the age of 21.

PN11

Now, what's the reason for that discrepancy? I mean, we are talking about the same work force here?

PN12

MR LLEWELLYN-JONES: I can only assume so, Commissioner. Unfortunately, to some degree, I'm limited by my instructions and my instructions are consistent with the statutory declaration. So I'm not necessarily in the position to provide the Commission with an answer as to why the two declarations are inconsistent.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Small, do you have any idea there?

PN14

MR SMALL: Commissioner, I must admit that I'm unable to respond to that in the direct sense, other than to say that the actual number of employees covered by the agreement was supplied to the union by the company and one would have assumed there would not have been any disparity between the numbers on that basis. So, I'm not sure whether it is a typographical error. I think you said the union was 28 full time employees and six casuals was it?

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Five casuals.

PN16

MR SMALL: Five casuals.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: That's correct. Whereas the company says
26 employees and eight casuals and the union also says there's one under the age of 21. Look, it did occur to me that maybe the explanation is that one of the statutory declarations was talking about the composition of the work force at the time of the ballot and the other one was talking about ..... there from the necessary documentation confirming certification will be forwarded to the parties in due course after I receive those statutory declarations. I think unless there's anything further from the parties that then disposes of the hearing of the matter.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.57PM]