C2005/3231, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 2155 (19 October 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 13051-1

COMMISSIONER GAY

C2005/3231

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION
AND
FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED
s.99 - Notification of an industrial dispute
(C2005/3231)

MELBOURNE

10.08AM, WEDNESDAY, 05 OCTOBER 2005

Continued from 26/8/2005
EXTRACT OF TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

<EXTRACT OF TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS [4.46PM]

---

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: I have indicated earlier I propose to give short reasons for the position that I have reached. Effectively the Commission is asked to make a binding recommendation as to the change in natural work group times recently effected by Ford from 35 to 30 minutes. Inherent in the union's case is an assertion that the capacity to make such a change is not possessed of Ford. It is not a power that they have.

PN2

I first want to say something about the natural work groups themselves because they were originally and remain a particularly noteworthy aspect of work performed in this important part of Australian manufacturing industry. The Commission is assisted by the parties and some of the union material which reflects the independent research which reveals the value of natural work groups and of course they were and should still be seen as a progressive innovation designed to achieve benefits to all by co-operation and by tapping in to the knowledge of work possessed by Ford's employees.

PN3

No good purpose would be achieved by jeopardising the commitment of the parties to natural work groups and certainly the Commission would be loath to find virtue in a change or influence upon the natural work groups which negatively affected the mutuality which is evident in the development of the groups and the mutuality, that is the degree of commitment to the natural work groups remains a noteworthy feature of the evidence of this case today and I have accepted the great thrust of what is put by the delegates and most particularly the sincerity with which they put their views and it is my observation that the parties have essentially the same approach to the natural work groups despite the very real disagreement that exists in this case.

PN4

There is no tippy-toeing around that but one cannot help but be struck by the parties ongoing desire to have the natural work groups operate to make the work safer, more rewarding and more productive. Safer, more rewarding and more productive. Now I am not going to repeat the details of the competing cases, they are well known to the parties. Having considered all that has been put I have determined as follows. That the duration of the specified natural work groups is not determined by an industrial agreement or instrument and accordingly that Ford have not breached any such agreement or instrument.

PN5

Now this isn't a breach case, but rather this is a case as to whether the capacity exists within Ford to make the change they have and whether the Commission having heard the detail of the cases chooses to intervene. Now I think Ford have got the capacity to make the change that they have made and I have no inclination to intervene. I am unable to accept that the natural work groups autonomy can or should be seen as extending to determining the duration of their meetings and I make that finding having closely examined the early memorandum of understanding and the other material which was developed at the outset of the natural work group initiative.

PN6

I have already said that the duration of the natural work groups is not fixed by agreement and examination shows that the times for the natural work groups are in the early evolutionary stage and in a subsequent more developed phase of natural work groups have always varied or have from time to time varied and have been adjusted more recently over time not just back in the early 1990s and I am conscious also of course that there have been different times for different areas. I have also accepted that detailed consultation occurred at the plant level prior to the change applying.

PN7

Having carefully reviewed the material and the evidence I am not of the view that the change to 30 minutes is of itself unreasonable or such as to have a deleterious effect or a bad effect on those within the natural work groups so as to require intervention by the Commission. If I came to a view that it did require intervention I would have no hesitation in so intervening. Now I have paid close regard also for the concerns and apprehensions expressed by the Ford employees who gave evidence. I have earlier said something about that evidence.

PN8

These essentially reflect a claim that there, or a conviction that their input has been, to varying degrees, marginalised by the dominance of the helpers and the intrusion of extraneous materials displacing the focus on local shop issues. In the same way as I have accepted the sincerity of the views of the employees, that is the witnesses led by Mr Cole, I have also accepted much of Mr Kearns' evidence as it acknowledged a diminution in the effectiveness of the natural work groups in the areas under his responsibility and importantly the active measures yet to be fully applied that he is taking to have issues, particularly the key local issues of safety and quality, dealt with more quickly and with a process that shows employees that this is so.

PN9

I have particularly noted Mr Kearns' intention to severely restrict, I think to one meeting in four, to severely restrict the foreign issues complained of and I am cautiously optimistic that this will have a positive effect. I propose to grant leave to the union to have the matters of the operation of the natural work groups come back on for report should it be the union's desire, in six months time and review the effect of those changes. Thank you, gentlemen. I now adjourn.

<END OF EXTRACT [4.54PM]