C2005/3258, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 1660 (5 August 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 12321-1

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY
COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN

C2005/3258

APPEAL BY DURAL PAINTING SERVICE
s.45 Appeal to Full Bench
(C2005/3258)

SYDNEY

10.05AM, MONDAY, 25 JULY 2005

PN1

MR I WARREN: I appear for The Master Painters Australia New South Wales Association on behalf of our member Dural Painting Services. I have with me MR BAIRD also from the association.

PN2

MR D RUSSO: I appear for the respondent.

PN3

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you, Mr Russo. I take it there is no objection to leave being granted to each Mr Russo and Mr Warren to appear to represent their clients? That is fine. Yes, leave is granted. Yes Mr Warren?

PN4

MR WARREN: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, as I understand it we have two matters before the Commission today. First whether or not leave to appeal would be granted and secondly, if leave is granted whether or not the appeal should be upheld. We wish to make some brief submissions in reply to the written submissions on behalf of Kym Ho which Mr Russo sent out late last week as directed by the Commission. However I think those submissions can be part of a quite brief summary of our position which I would seek to place before the Commission this morning. We would propose to call Mr O'Sullivan of The Master Painters Group Training Company to attest to his witness statement which was included with our submissions in support of the application.

PN5

I think that was annexure C to our submissions. We suggest that Mr O'Sullivan's evidence gives support to our position that this matter is of such importance that it would be in the public interest to place the evidence before the Commission. It is not intended that Mr O'Sullivan should present to the Full Bench any evidence that had it been before the Commissioner during the hearing, which is the subject of this appeal, may have persuaded the Commissioner to make a different decision. Rather Mr O'Sullivan's evidence is intended to show the decision itself does have implications of such importance that a well-established industry apprenticeship system could be disrupted.

PN6

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: So you seek to lead that evidence purely on the question of leave?

PN7

MR WARREN: Yes leave to, I am asking leave for him to be called.

PN8

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. Sorry, and you seek to call that evidence.

PN9

MR WARREN: Yes, your Honour.

PN10

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Going only to the question of leave to appeal in order to establish the public interest regarding section 45(2).

PN11

MR WARREN: That is correct, your Honour. Yes.

PN12

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Warren, we have a provisional view that is favourable to your side of the record if I could put it that way. So we are disinclined to spend the time that is involved in hearing Mr O'Sullivan's evidence at this stage. If it becomes necessary after we have heard from Mr Russo we will revisit that issue.

PN13

MR WARREN: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, the only other evidence that I wish to introduce today is a letter from the chief executive officer of the Construction Training Advisory Board of New South Wales, Mr Douglas Greening. A copy was in our submissions and the reason we wish to present that evidence again is to show the industry wide implications that could arise from the decision at first instance by Commissioner Roberts. I do have with me an original copy of that letter to pass up your Honour.

PN14

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: That was annexure D to the submissions?

PN15

MR WARREN: Yes, your Honour.

PN16

MR RUSSO: Your Honour, I will point out that that hasn't been served at this point and it appears to be an opinion.

PN17

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Well it has actually been served. It is annexure D to the submission, Mr Russo, but I think these are matters that we can probably take judicial notice of in any event.

PN18

MR WARREN: Yes, your Honour, as far as I am aware it was forwarded to Mr Russo with our submissions. Our submissions in support and it should be there as annexure D.

PN19

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: About 10 pages from the back, Mr Russo. Mr Warren, the form R21, notice of employer's appearance in this matter, at items 3 and 4 seeks to, let me start it again those items seek to confirm the identity of the employer and so item 3 refers to the employer named on the application and item 4 is has the applicant given the employer's correct name. Mr Krljar has written apparently or somebody has written on his behalf. Milan Krljar in item 3 ticked the box no in item 4 but then written down Milan Krljar again. I take it, sorry I don't take it. It seems on the face of the documents that Dural Painting Service is nothing more than a registered business name. It is a trading name.

PN20

MR WARREN: It is your Honour, yes.

PN21

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And that Mr Krljar is an individual who trades on his own account using the business name of Dural Painting Services.

PN22

MR WARREN: Yes. He and his wife, your Honour, as a partnership own that trading name.

PN23

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: They don't operate under any corporate entity at all?

PN24

MR WARREN: No, your Honour.

PN25

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Russo that is a further matter which you will need to address in due course because that also would appear to be fatal to the Commission, the Federal Commission having jurisdiction. The categories of an employer who are caught by the Federal unfair dismissal remedy as distinct from the State unfair dismissal remedy are reasonably clearly set out and Dural Painting Services would need to be a corporate employer if there was to be jurisdiction in the Federal Commission.

PN26

Having said that of course, that is no reflection on the underlying merits or otherwise of the case and clearly Commissioner Roberts formed a favourable view of the merits insofar as resignation or termination were concerned. One would assume that if that view were followed at the ultimate arbitration, that there would be a significant prospect that your client would be successful but there has to be jurisdiction in the Federal Commission before it can exercise any powers validly and that would appear to be a further problem but you can address that in due course.

PN27

Mr Warren, part of your submissions attack the Commissioner for addressing the question of whether or not there was a resignation or termination. You suggested there is a denial of procedural fairness but I would like to invite you to consider the original application. I am sorry, the original form R21A the motion to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction. The grounds that are articulated by Mr Krljar include in the third line, second sentence, he left on his own accord on 1 February 2005.

PN28

MR WARREN: Yes, your Honour. I think - - -

PN29

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Isn't that sufficient to raise - - -

PN30

MR WARREN: Yes, your Honour. In our submissions in support we have withdrawn that argument. If I could take you to paragraph 9 of our submissions in support, we have a heading there, Correction to Notice of Appeal on the third page and we withdraw that matter of the- - -

PN31

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I apologise Mr Warren, I thought I'd read
these - - -

PN32

MR WARREN: On reflection I am not quite sure, it was an aberration in putting it in your Honour but we have withdrawn it. We believe it is a point that on a fairly fine balance as the Commissioner said and we don't know he had the sufficient evidence before him to make that fine balance, but on a fine balance he had the right to make that decision. We don't have enough material to challenge that decision so we have withdrawn that point and we are relying solely on the matter of whether or not there was a three month period of employment.

PN33

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Good. Thank you. Can I just see if I can get clear in my mind what you contend for in the chronology. Do you say that the indentured apprenticeship came to an end on which date? The 12 November 2004?

PN34

MR WARREN: Yes, your Honour.

PN35

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: The evidence you rely upon for that I take it is the certificate of proficiency exhibit R4?

PN36

MR WARREN: Yes your Honour. I have put with our submission, your Honour, a list of suggested facts. I think it is at appendix F. I haven't heard back from my friend as to whether they are accepted. That is annexure F to our submissions in support and I think that summarises our position in regard to the chronology of service with the Group Training company and with Dural Painting Services.

PN37

MR RUSSO: Your Honour I suggest in respect of annexure F. The only issue I would have is that it doesn't refer to the respondent actually serving under Dural Painting Services from 5 May 2003 to 12 November 2004. That was the only matter that would make me - - -

PN38

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: So with that correction, so you would add in as it were as 5.1(a) that Mr Ho trained with Dural Painting Services from 5 May 2003. Is that correct, Mr Russo?

PN39

MR RUSSO: To 12 November 2004.

PN40

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes and what happened between 12 November 2004 and 17 November 2004?

PN41

MR RUSSO: I understand it was a weekend - the nature of a weekend or long weekend that he continued to work for Dural Painting. I am not sure that there was any - - -

PN42

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: The 12 November 2004 was a Friday. The 17 November 2004 was a Wednesday.

PN43

MR WARREN: I am just seeking some instructions, your Honour. Won't be a moment. Your Honour, I understand he had a week off. He would have been paid his holiday pay by the Group Training Company and had a week off before he commenced work as a tradesman.

PN44

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Or part of a week at any rate.

PN45

MR WARREN: Or part of a week, yes.

PN46

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes but apart from that correction, Mr Russo, you have no other dispute with the annexure F facts.

PN47

MR RUSSO: No your Honour.

PN48

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you, Mr Russo. Mr Warren, I don't think we need to hear further from you at the moment. If there are any matters that you need to address in reply you will have that opportunity

PN49

MR WARREN: Not at the moment your Honour, no.

PN50

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Russo, the Commission is a creature of statute. It is not a Federal Court. It is not exercising chapter 3 judicial power. It's decisions properly classified as administrative decisions to the extent the dichotomy between administrative decisions and judicial decisions of the Federal level and one of the consequences of that is that the Commission, if it acts beyond jurisdiction its actions have no legal effect so that jurisdictional error is something that renders any order or purported order as something that has no legal effect. For that reason it is appropriate, it seems to me at any rate, I don't know if I can speak on behalf of Senior Deputy President Lacy and Commissioner Hoffman that to the extent that there appears to be an obvious jurisdictional problem that ought be raised even at the appellant level - - -

PN51

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: Well I concur entirely with what his Honour the presiding member has said. It is essential that we have jurisdiction in order to be able to make an enforceable order and in the event that that is not made out then any orders that are made are simply not enforceable.

PN52

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: So Mr Russo, if we could deal first then with as it were the new jurisdictional point that is raised by the Bench, the fact that it appears that there is not a company involved as an employer but rather Mr Krljar is a sole trader or trading as a partnership with his wife and that Dural Painting Services is merely a business name. Do you have any instructions that will enable you to challenge that as a proposition?

PN53

MR RUSSO: Regarding the submissions that were made at the hearing before Mr Roberts that the relevant award - Dural Painting is a member of Master Painters Association and Master Painters Association was a signatory or party to the award, the relevant award.

PN54

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I see.

PN55

MR RUSSO: That that was the basis of the - - -

PN56

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I think Mr Warren's rejoinder to that is to say that there is a specific clause in the award that exempts the application of the award to apprentices. Clause 20 is that correct, Mr Warren?

PN57

MR WARREN: That is correct your Honour, yes. The award in New South Wales does not apply to apprentices. It is part of our submission, if that can help you explain it.

PN58

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Do you have any response to that, Mr Russo? Do you say that Mr Warren is wrong in that regard?

PN59

MR RUSSO: I understand the - - -

PN60

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Sorry, sorry, let me start that again. I understand your response to my proposition that we are dealing with a corporate employee here, was to say, no, this was employment under a federal award, and that, of course, you are quite correct, would ground your jurisdiction. But Mr Warren responds in his submissions by saying, No, go to clause 20 of the relevant award and you will find that the award doesn't apply to the employment premises.

PN61

MR RUSSO: In that respect, I wasn't relying on the defendant being employed as an apprentice. He certainly wasn't employed as an apprentice at the time of termination. I referred to that, Commissioner, - - -

PN62

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: No, you are right. That is fine. That’s perfect.

PN63

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: But there is still the issue of three months’ probation, is that right?

PN64

MR RUSSO: That is correct. I am suggesting that he served a period of probation employment.

PN65

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: Taking into account the period of employment that he had as an apprentice?

PN66

MR RUSSO: Yes.

PN67

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: And you say, well, how do you say Krljar is the employer during that period?

PN68

MR RUSSO: In respect of your employment I understand the Commissioner didn't make a finding and I don't think he needed to. That is my submission. He only needed to refer to a term of probation and in this case it was a single term of over a year and - - -

PN69

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: No, Mr Russo, that begs the question, with respect, if Mr Ho was employed by an entity other than the Krljar partnership until 12 November, and his employment with the Krljar partnership commenced on 17 November, then he had not completed the three month period referred to in section 170CE(5A).

PN70

MR WARREN: (5A) and (5B) your Honour, yes.

PN71

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: The extent of the Act is that, unless there is written term to the contrary, you have to have worked for three months with your employer in order to qualify as somebody who is entitled to make an application for relief. You say well we satisfy that requirement because the period that Mr Ho worked as an apprentice counts and what Senior Deputy President Lacy was inviting you to address was the basis upon which you say that Dural Painting Services was the employer during the period of the apprenticeship. And I would add, in the face of the documents that would indicate that the Master Painters Group Training Company Pty Ltd was the - appears to be the employer.

PN72

MR RUSSO: The company disputed there was a three party contract between Master Painters, the respondent and Dural Painting Services because Mr Ho worked under Dural Painting Services. His indenture contract was with Master Painters therefore there was a three party contract of that nature but there was, nothing was put in respect of the precise nature of that arrangement but it is certainly our submission that he’d worked for Dural Painting during his period of apprenticeship from 5 May 2003 to the 12 November 2004. Whether that amounts to dual employment or not is, isn't - can’t- - -

PN73

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: But there is no other evidence is there, I mean you are relying on that fact alone that he was employed under the apprenticeship arrangement of one employer and worked for Krljar. You are saying that fact alone ought to be sufficient to establish some sort of tripartite arrangement of employment.

PN74

MR RUSSO: Yes. Particularly because Dural Painting was giving timesheets to Master Painters in effect saying his services were satisfactory on a week to week basis.

PN75

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER : Yes. Those timesheets are exhibit R1. They are not Dural Painting Services timesheets, they are Master Painters Group Training Company Pty Ltd time sheets. And Dural Painting Services is identified as the host/contractor's name.

PN76

MR RUSSO: My understanding was that they were submitted by Dural Painting Services but the other factor is that as Commissioner Roberts' pointed out that at least part of Mr Ho's wages were paid by Dural Painting. His actual time worked was paid by Dural Painting Services and his entitlements such as holidays, were paid to Master Painters.

PN77

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: But isn't it the case that Dural Painting pays that as agent for?

PN78

MR RUSSO: Sorry?

PN79

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: Is it the case that Dural Painting paid those wages as agent for the Master Painters Group Training Company?

PN80

MR RUSSO: I understand that the week to week wage was paid directly by Dural Painting to Mr Ho and the entitlements were paid by Master Painters.

PN81

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: Yes. But isn't that under the taxation ruling, part of a set off of the service fees that fall due in relation to the arrangement?

PN82

MR WARREN: I am sorry, your Honour. I couldn't quite - - -

PN83

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: I was saying the payments that were made by Dural Painting were made as part of the set off for the service fees in relation to the taxation arrangement?

PN84

MR WARREN: Yes, your Honour. Mr O'Sullivan’s evidence will possibly clear this up but the Group Training company is responsible for the taxation and remittance of the taxation to the Tax Department.

PN85

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY: And the GST. Yes.

PN86

MR WARREN: So the host trainer is acting as an agent and provides the information back and every month there is a settling of the account. Hire of the apprentice will pay for his services and as that invoice goes out, and then offset against that is where the money has been paid across the apprentice's offset to a monthly account. Mr O'Sullivan can no doubt explain that much better than I can. I think it’s attached - there is a paysheet attached to his witness statement which sets that out.

PN87

COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN: Mr Warren, these arrangements have existed for many years with Group Training companies have they not?

PN88

MR WARREN: Yes. There has been - - -

PN89

COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN: There is nothing new or exceptional about the arrangements?

PN90

MR WARREN: No, Commissioner. This has been a standard arrangement. Each company has its own variations on it but this particular arrangement has been in existence with this particular group company since it started about 12 years ago, I believe. And similar arrangements, I am just looking the MBA and Master Plumbers, they all have similar, perhaps slightly varying in the actual administration, but very similar arrangements.

PN91

COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN: And the, you can call it the host employer, obviously knows what hours the apprentice works.

PN92

MR WARREN: Yes.

PN93

COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN: And obviously conveys that to your Group Training company.

PN94

MR WARREN: The intention is, Commissioner, that the host trainer knows – normally pay week finishes on a Tuesday or a Wednesday and they are paid the next day or the day after so there is a limited time. So in order to have the overtime or sick pay or whatever it may be, adjusted during the week the host trainer pays the man and puts a timesheet back into the Group Training company. It checks the administration, calculates the tax, does all those things but the money is in the apprentice's hands so he isn't waiting for some adjustment a week or so later which may have happened. So they’re acting effectively as an agent.

PN95

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And the monies that are paid directly by the host trainer are set off against the administration on higher fees but are charged by the Group Training company to the host trainer for making the apprentice available.

PN96

MR WARREN: Yes, your Honour. So a monthly reconciliation of the payments.

PN97

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes, that is the way I have understood it to work as well. Mr Russo, is there any further submissions you want to make on this issue?

PN98

MR RUSSO: I repeat the submission I made that the host trainer is under no obligation to the apprentice. He entered an agreement, it was with the Master Painters Association and it was certainly known that they were under no obligation to retain the services of the respondent on the apprenticeship being expired. In my submission that goes to the employer in this case Dural Painting Services finding the respondent employee. His services were satisfactory and the response of Dural Painting Services referred to the employee being technically employed from 17 November 2004. It seems to acknowledge - - -

PN99

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER : But that word, technically, is used by a layperson, Mr Krljar and it is really trying to indicate is it not, that as a matter of law Mr Ho was employed by Dural Painting Service? Or really more specific,
Mr Krljar and his wife from that date.

PN100

MR WARREN: Your Honour, I suggest that this acknowledges that the employee had been there, was recorded to be there. He had worked for the company before 17 November 2004. It does - the likes of which - shows that he had some idea or the Dual Painting Services had this acknowledged in that while services – well, it is a matter of what can be read into it, your Honour. But the use of the word, technically, suggests that he knew at that point that he had ceased being an apprentice and from there on in was a full time employee. It doesn't suggest that the employee had not been satisfactory in any way. Thank you.

PN101

MR WARREN: Well, I am going to make just one comment. There seems to be some confusion about probation and the requirement to have three months of service and I believe that has arisen because there is in fact in section 170CBA a reference to exclusions. And that does deal with a period of probation but we aren't talking about that - - -

PN102

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: This is the 170CE(5A)

PN103

MR WARREN: We thought the 170CE(5A) and (5B).

PN104

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: That's the qualifying period.

PN105

MR WARREN: That's where I think the confusion may have arisen that the exclusion in 170CBA is quite different and deals with the question of probation for a person who comes along. I have no doubt that we are talking about probation, we might need to take into account some previous knowledge of the applicant but in this case we are talking about a mandatory three months of employment.

PN106

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER : Yes. We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.35AM]
<RESUMED [11.10AM]

PN107

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER : This is an application for leave to appeal and if leave is granted an appeal against the decision made by Commissioner Roberts in transcript on 5 May 2005 rejecting a motion by the appellant at the respondent's application for relief pursuant section 170CE(1) of the Act be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The form R21A filed by the appellant identifies the following grounds for its motion:

PN108

Kim Ho has technically only worked for Dural Painting Service since
17 November 2004 and left on his own accord on 1 February 2005

PN109

The primary ground of appeal pressed by the appellant is that the Commissioner erred in concluding that Mr Ho had been employed by Dural Painting Service for a period exceeding the qualifying period specified in the Act. In this matter we would determine that leave to appeal should be granted. We have formed the opinion specified in section 45(2) of the Act that the matter is of such importance that in the public interest, leave to appeal should be granted. Specifically the decision has the capacity to undermine the established workings of Group Training schemes and that is a matter of considerable significance in the public interest. We are satisfied that the Commissioner erred in reaching the conclusion that he did and in rejecting the appellant's motion for dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

PN110

The relevant chronology is set out in annexure F to the appellant's submissions. Mr Ho's apprenticeship commenced on 21 March 2001 with the Master Painters Group Training Company Pty Ltd. On 5 May 2003, Mr Ho commenced training with Dural Painting Service. Mr Ho completed his apprenticeship on 12 November 2004. Mr Ho commenced employment with Dural Painting Services as a tradesman painter on 17 November 2004. Mr Ho's employment was terminated on 1 February 2005. It is clear that the period between 17 November 2004 and 1 February 2005 is less than three months. Pursuant to section 170CE subsection (5A), (5B) an employee must serve a qualifying period of three months before they are entitled to proceed with an application pursuant to section 170CE(1).

PN111

Therefore the critical factual issue before the Commission was whether or not Mr Ho's employment with Dural Painting Service being the employment that was terminated on 1 February had commenced on 17 November 2004 or had commenced at some earlier time. Mr Russo on behalf of Mr Ho submitted before the Commissioner and submits before us that in all the circumstances the proper finding is that Mr Ho had been employed by Dural Painting Service since 5 May 2003 when Mr Ho commenced training with Dural Painting Services. We disagree. On the evidence before the Commission it is clear that the only proper finding is that Mr Ho was not an employee of Dural Painting Service during the period of his apprenticeship, that is the period from, relevantly the period from 5 May 2003 to 12 November 2004.

PN112

We place particular reliance on the indenture of apprenticeship which identifies Master Painters Group Training Company Pty Ltd as Mr Ho's employer at several points. That characterisation is consistent with the way in which Group Training schemes operate in New South Wales, that being a matter of which we would take judicial notice. Further support for the conclusion that we have reached appears in the timesheets themselves, which of course were relied upon by Mr Russo before the Commissioner and before us. The timesheets are not Dural Painting Services timesheets but rather Master Painters Group Training Company Pty Ltd timesheets. Dural Painting is identified as the host/contractor's name and the document contains several other indications that Master Painters Group Training Company Pty Ltd is the employer.

PN113

So for example, the important note of the document of the form requires, for taxation purposes, the forwarding of the timesheet to Master Painters every week.
Mr Krljar signs the forms to certify that the information is correct and there are various notes which are cast in terms which are odds with Dural Painting Service being the employer. Moreover, the inferences that we draw from the timesheets are consistent with the way in which Group Training schemes operate, again a matter of which we have taken judicial notice. For those reasons, the Commissioner erred in concluding that Mr Ho had been employed by Dural Painting Service and therefore he erred in failing to uphold the appellant's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

PN114

We find that Mr Ho's employment with Dural Painting Service commenced on 17 November 2004. He therefore had not completed the qualifying period in section 170CE(5A) and accordingly the application should not have been made. Independently of matters argues before the Commissioner, we also are satisfied that there is a further jurisdictional impediment to this particular application. Dural Painting Service is a business name and is not a company – I withdraw that. It is unnecessary to go there. There may be difficulties and it is therefore undesirable to add those reasons. So for those reasons the appeal is allowed, the decision in transcript of the Commissioner is quashed and the application for relief is dismissed.

PN115

The respondent, Mr Ho, should not assume that we have reached any adverse conclusions about the underlying merits of the matter. On the contrary, we can well understand why the Commissioner formed a favourable view of Mr Ho's evidence on the underlying merits. It is a question of the proper jurisdiction and Mr Ho may well have a remedy in the State Commission. That is a matter for him to pursue upon such advice as he is minded to take. That concluded the matter and the Commission is adjourned.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.21AM]