AG2005/5417, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 1809 (2 September 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 12542-1

COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN

AG2005/5417

APPLICATION BY THE GREATER UNION ORGANISATION PTY LTD & MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT AND ARTS ALLIANCE
s.170LJ - Agreement with organisations of employees (Division 2)
(AG2005/5417)

BRISBANE

9.18AM, THURSDAY, 18 AUGUST 2005

PN1

MR J E MURDOCH: I'm a barrister instructed by Mr Serong of Deakins Lawyers and I appear for The Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd.

PN2

MR M RYAN: I appear for the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance, and we don't object to Mr Murdoch's appearance, Commissioner.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, leave to appear is granted. Yes, Mr Murdoch?

PN4

MR MURDOCH: Commissioner, I formally read the application for certification filed on 10 August 2005. I also read the statutory declaration of John Poole made on 9 August 2005 and the statutory declaration of Mark Ryan made on 9 August 2005.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, take them as read, thank you.

PN6

MR MURDOCH: There is an error that I need to correct and that's to be found in the statutory declaration of Mr Poole at page 6. You will see the item CA20 Uniforms, about two-thirds of the way down the page?

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN8

MR MURDOCH: The reference to two per cent is a typographical error. It should be 2.9 per cent.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: You don't have any difficulty with that, Mr Ryan?

PN10

MR RYAN: No, because I've made the same mistake, Commissioner.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN12

MR RYAN: And I'd seek also to correct my declaration.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN14

MR MURDOCH: Then, Commissioner, on page 7, CA appendix B, Duties of Cinema Technician. The reference there to one to five screens should be crossed out because if you go back to page 5, you will see a reference to CA schedule B where it's explained that there is an anomaly in relation to a technician at a five screen site and the prospect of that person, we believe there may be only one among the thousand-odd employees, might receive $1058.20 per annum less than the award. Commissioner, it's appropriate at this stage to say that in relation to that one-off anomaly in relation to the five screen, that there's been discussion with the union and I'm in a position on instructions to give an undertaking and the undertaking on behalf of Greater Union is that no technician at a five screen site will be paid less than the relevant award rate of pay.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that your understanding, Mr Ryan?

PN16

MR RYAN: Yes, it is, Commissioner.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN18

MR MURDOCH: Commissioner, I also formally read the certified agreement.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN20

MR MURDOCH: I can advise that, as dealt with in the materials before you, there was a secret ballot conducted in collaboration between the union and my clients, and the secret ballot resulted in a yes vote with a significant majority. And Commissioner, so far as the no disadvantage test is concerned, the statutory declarations particularise the areas of disadvantage and advantage and in my submission, the position is one where you would be satisfied on the materials that the no disadvantage test is satisfied.

PN21

Insofar as that test is concerned I draw attention to the fact that in the classification and wages structure there is a new classification which is termed General Cinema Worker. The position historically under the award has been that the classifications for service providers have been on the basis of multi-skilling and under the award the lowest current rate is $530.50 per week, but that is for a multi-skilled classification which includes a cash handling component. Because of the change in the nature of the industry and the trend toward bigger complexes, the parties agreed that there was a need for a new classification covering unskilled work and without a cash handling responsibility.

PN22

So that is a classification with a lower work value and the rate for the general cinema worker is $501.70 per week. Now, as I've said, that is lower than the current rate for a service provider level 1 in the multi-skilled category of the award. However, it is considerably in excess of the current safety net minimum which is $484 per week. And the following important features, in my submission, lead to the conclusion that the new classification result in the no disadvantage test being failed and these points are the general cinema worker rate will not apply to any current employee. Secondly, the work covered by the new classification is of significantly lower work value than that covered by the current service provider level 1.

PN23

The rate, as I've said, is above the current safety net minimum. Additionally there's been a situation where those who start at service provider level 1 are subject to training rates if the employer puts them on to a training rate regime and the training rates are 80 per cent of the service provider level 1 rate for the first 50 hours and that's a rate of only $428.72 per week under the award which is lower than the proposed general cinema worker rate. Additionally under the award there's a second tier for trainees, after the first 50 hours, the next 75 hours are subject to 90 per cent of the SP1 rate and under the award that's $481.80.

PN24

Now both of those training rates under the award are significantly less than the proposed general cinema worker rate. So that even though they apply only for the first 125 hours, it is a significant offset given that the general cinema worker classification will only apply to new employees and that it applies to employees in unskilled categories. Further to that, I'd mention that the casual percentage at 20 per cent under the certified agreement is in excess of the rate for a casual loading under the award and given that these employees are predominantly to be casuals in the general cinema worker category, that factor too is a significant offset.

PN25

The other technical requirements of the Act have been satisfied. This agreement, Commissioner, is the fruits of many months of intense negotiation between the company and the union. It's a major agreement applying to over 1000 employees and the Commission is asked to order its certification.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Ryan?

PN27

MR RYAN: I have nothing further to add to the submissions made by Mr Murdoch, Commissioner, but to endorse them and seek that the agreement be certified from today's date.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Yes, based on the submissions, statutory declarations and undertakings given by the parties, the Commission is satisfied the requirements of the Act and rules have been met. The agreement shall come into force from 18 August 2005, remain in force until 17 August 2008. That matter stands adjourned.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [9.31AM]