AG2005/3611, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 1685 (10 August 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 12372-1

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON

AG2005/3611

APPLICATION BY HAWKER DE HAVILLAND AEROSPACE PTY LTD T/A HAWKER DE HAVILLAND & COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS
s.170LJ - Agreement with organisations of employees (Division 2)
(AG2005/3611)

MELBOURNE

9.28AM, FRIDAY, 29 JULY 2005

PN1

MR S DARGAVEL: I appear on behalf of the AMWU.

PN2

MR R LUCKMAN: I appear for the CEPU.

PN3

MS Z ANGUS: I appear for the Australian Workers' Union.

PN4

MR R ELDER: I appear for Hawker de Havilland Aerospace Proprietary Limited. With me is MR D JONES.

PN5

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Dargavel.

PN6

MR DARGAVEL: Your Honour, just to address one issue first, which is that the agreement was somewhat late in being lodged of some number of days. The voting finalised on 9 June. It's a national agreement, multiple sites with multiple national offices. So it took longer than the parties would have liked to get all our paperwork in order, so we seek an extension of time, if it pleases the Commission. It's not my intention to go through the contents of the agreement or the history of the agreement. The AMWU's submission is that the agreement complies with the relevant provisions of the Act, members of the unions, party to the agreement have voted in support of the agreement set out in the attached affidavits and we seek certification of the agreement.

PN7

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 5 of the agreement - part 4
clause 5, fourth line from the bottom says:

PN8

Nothing in this MOU

PN9

I assume that means nothing in this agreement.

PN10

MR DARGAVEL: Yes, the intention of the language MOU - the origins of the document was originally a drafting entitled an MOU that then became a page intended to be certified. Where it refers to MOU is intended to refer to agreement.

PN11

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The disputes avoidance procedure, you pick up that in the Havilland Bankstown and Port Melbourne agreements, which I don't have before me so I’m not exactly sure what they say, but save for the following:

PN12

The dispute cannot be resolved by following the disputes settlement
procedure -

PN13

Because I don't know what's in those certified agreements, I don't know why it wouldn't be resolved by following those. Then my next question becomes, what if you can't agree on a private mediator?

PN14

MR DARGAVEL: There are two points to address with that, your Honour. Firstly, it's arguable about whether or not the existing certified agreements provide for determination. It's the intention of the parties that an arbitrator determine disputes in accordance with this agreement. So, rather than re-opening existing agreements, it's the intention of the parties that in respect of this agreement disputes are determined. The parties have already agreed on the arbitrator, so the parties don't anticipate difficulties in the execution of the disputes procedure.

PN15

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So we can put on the record who the private arbitrator is, so there's no dispute in the future?

PN16

MR DARGAVEL: Certainly, in respect of the Port Melbourne site, the agreed arbitrator is Mr Neil Pope. In respect of the New South Wales operations it's - - -

PN17

MR ELDER: If I might provide some assistance, there's no agreed private arbitrator with respect to the operation in Sydney at the Bankstown facility at this stage. But, given that we have an agreed private arbitrator with respect to
Port Melbourne, we would propose in the absence of another that it would continue to be Mr Pope ....., Mr Dargavel, it would apply to both sites.

PN18

MR DARGAVEL: I apologise to the Commission, I was not aware of that ..... but that clause is satisfactory to the union.

PN19

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll go off the record.

OFF THE RECORD

PN20

MR LUCKMAN: Your Honour, we do support the application. The process has been pretty lengthy and I would have to put on record that the union's not very happy with conditions of employment being dictated by an outside country. But, in the interests of protecting the members, we've reached agreement with the company that this is the best way to go. We believe that all of the necessary areas of LK have been met to enable the agreement to be agreed to, with the exception of course of - it's outside the 21 days but it's been because of a fairly extensive arrangement for meetings and paperwork being developed and etcetera, across interstate borders.

PN21

The other thing that we would indicate is that whilst the date of operation would be the date certified as such. There is some effect of the agreement back for some two months. The employment has been effective or could be effective.

PN22

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Angus:

PN23

MS ANGUS: We support certification.

PN24

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Elder.

PN25

MR ELDER: We support the certification, your Honour. As pointed out, the agreement has been subject to extensive discussions between the parties. Whether we like it or not we have an agreeable way forward and we support the application.

PN26

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll have regards to material contained in the file of this matter and also the submissions put to me. I'm satisfied that I should grant the necessary extension of time for the lodgment of the application in this matter. I'm also satisfied I should certify the Hawker de Havilland Aerospace Pty Limited ACN103165466 US Export Compliance Certified Agreement 2005. I'm satisfied that to do so would be consistent with the requirements of the Act and the regulations. Certification of the agreement will come into force from today's date and remain in force until 6 May 2008. I'll now adjourn.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [9.37AM]