C2005/5304, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 2399 (25 November 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 13412-1

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE

C2005/5304

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
AND
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
s.170LW - Application for settlement of dispute (certification of agreement)
(C2005/5304)

SYDNEY

11.37AM, MONDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2005

PN1

MR J METCHER: I appear for the CEPU, together with MR P CHALONER.

PN2

MR J KRAYEM: I appear for the Australian Postal Corporation, together with MR W GIBSON and MR B DODSON.

PN3

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes?

PN4

MR METCHER: Thank you, your Honour. We thank your Honour for scheduling this matter in relation to a dispute that has been notified by the CEPU back on 28 October. The matters in dispute with Australia Post relate to discrimination of employment methods adopted by Australia Post's commercial division, against part time employees when fulling vacant full time postal service positions in post office, retail, and business centre outlets in NSW. Your Honour, you also received as part of the application accompanying letters dated by the union 28 October to Australia Post and their response on 29 October 2005. Your Honour, the matter is in relation an item that is contained in the existing agreement. I’ll ask your Honour, does she have a copy of the current certified agreement?

PN5

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I didn’t bring it with me, thank you.

PN6

MR METCHER: Your Honour, if I could quickly just take you to the agreement in relation to the dispute. The current Australia Post agreement 2004 was certified in this place on 24 November 2004 and it remains in force until 31 December 2006. The subject matter in dispute as in relation to the agreement is found at attachment a, which is page 26 of that document, if I can refer your Honour to that section.

PN7

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN8

MR METCHER: You’ll see the heading there, your Honour, attachment A, EBA 6 for Service. If I can take you over the page to section 6 of attachment a, and I quote, section 6 part time employees preference, and it says:

PN9

Priority will be given to permanent part time employees when applying for permanent full time vacancies in accordance with agreed guidelines.

PN10

Your Honour, that section relates to current agreed guidelines. Your Honour, if I could provide those guidelines, your Honour, to assist the Commission.

PN11

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes?

PN12

MR METCHER: I’ll just give Australia Post a copy, your Honour.

PN13

MR KRAYEM: Your Honour, I may already have a copy. If Mr Metcher could just identify the document.

PN14

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Management item, priority for fixed term and part time staff when filling permanent vacancies. This bulletin provides guidelines on giving priority to permanent part time staff and fixed term staff when filling permanent vacancies.

PN15

MR METCHER: Is that a document, your Honour, which was dated
December 2001?

PN16

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This document doesn’t have a date on it.

PN17

MR METCHER: Your Honour, you’ll see on the covering page there which is from Mr Rogan to Mr Coonam at the national office, and attached there is a document headed up Management Bulletin and the date of receipt at our national office at the top near the fax number was 17 December 2001.

PN18

MR KRAYEM: I have a copy of that one.

PN19

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, thank you.

PN20

MR METCHER: Attached to that document, your Honour, they’re the present guidelines, are the guidelines that were replaced. That is dated 2 December 1999 and that’s to assist the Commission with respect to some changes that were in relation to the guidelines. I’ll give a copy to Australia Post.

PN21

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN22

MR METCHER: Your Honour, I’ll take you to the relevant points of the dispute. In the first four dot points of the existing guidelines, and I quote:

PN23

Priority will be given to permanent part time staff in respect of the permanent fulling of full time vacancies in our employment stream in their current facility.

PN24

Dot point two:

PN25

Priority is subject to the employee’s services being satisfactory.

PN26

Dot point three:

PN27

If two or more staff covered by this preference provision apply for the one vacancy, priority will be given to the most efficient provided that employees with short periods of service will not be given over long service employees unless such a decision is supported by structured C, D, and E assessment.

PN28

The relevant change, your Honour, to the previous guidelines, that were developed during the enterprise agreement number four, were the third and fourth dot points.

PN29

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They were additions?

PN30

MR METCHER: They were replaced. You’ll see there, in the previous guidelines that I’ve given you, dated October 1999, I’ve given you a copy of the implementation in New South Wales by Mr Corner.

PN31

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That’s dated December 1999, is that the one you mean?

PN32

MR METCHER: Sorry, December 1999, yes. You’ll see dot point three and four, they were the changes made. In the previous guidelines it was:

PN33

If two or more staff covered by this preference provision apply for the one vacancy priority will be given to the most efficient.

PN34

Then the last dot point:

PN35

Permanent part time staff receive priority over fixed term staff.

PN36

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN37

MR METCHER: Your Honour, that is the nature of the dispute and the relevant guidelines that cover attachment a in the existing enterprise agreement for preference for permanent part time employees when filling full time vacancies in the corporation covered by the agreement. Certainly, Australia Post enterprise agreement does not exclude this part of the business. Not only are they included as a major division of the business but also collectively at the negotiation table when putting together the enterprise agreement they are there hand in glove with their colleagues and I can say to you your Honour I know this because I’ve been involved in every single enterprise agreement negotiation. So, it’s a clause that covers all employees who are covered by the agreement.

PN38

Your Honour, the issue in dispute is where - your Honour, first of all, can I just take you back to the agreement and just point out the dispute processes that are contained in the agreement. Can I take you to clause 12 of the agreement which is on page 21 of the enterprise agreement? The dispute process contained under the existing agreement and in particular under 12.2 talks about the employees will discuss the matter preferably at the immediate stages about the concerns or grievances, (b) if the matter is not resolved in a reasonable time then employee concerned may have further discussions involving more senior levels and then in (c) involves more than one employee, the union may raise this matter at a higher level.

PN39

Then, it goes on, if the matter still remains in dispute, the parties have the opportunity to notify the Commission, where the Commission is given powers to deal with the matter under a conciliation process and if the matter still remains in dispute it goes into the next stages of arbitration. Clearly, your Honour, there are powers there in the Commission to do with this dispute matter between the CEPU, its employees, and the Australia Post. Your Honour, if I could just quickly outline the dispute.

PN40

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You mean in relation to this particular employee?

PN41

MR METCHER: No, your Honour, in relation to this particular employee, but the practice adopted by this division inside of Australia Post when filling full time vacancies with part time employees.

PN42

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

PN43

MR METCHER: Your Honour, back on 14 June this year one of our members, Mrs Cynthia Richards, who is employed at the Jamison Centre retail facility in the ACT, expressed an interest with her manager for prospective filling of the full time vacancy in that office. As a result of that, the area manager responsible for the Jamison facility and a whole range of offices in the Canberra area network advertised that position with four other positions in the Canberra metropolitan area on 30 June 2005.

PN44

Mrs Richards, along with a number of employees, expressed an interest in filling those five vacancies. Your Honour, I can tell you that the vacancies were all full time postal service officer positions and postal service officer in Australia Post is the base grade level of retail classifications who work at post offices. Basically, the requirement is that postal service officer is the normal base grade position. You apply for employment, you do the training, you complete the training, you are certified, you are competent under the processes for permanent employment and then you become a postal service officer whether you are working less than full time hours, permanent part time, or you are working full time. All postal service officers who are working out of retail outlets in Australia Post are basically ….. with respect to their requirements of the duties and functions they are expected to perform and the duties that they carry out in the post offices.

PN45

As a result of those positions being advertised, Mrs Richards and others attended an interview process that was set up by management of two management employees and another management employee who was the chairman of the selection panel. Following these interviews, Mrs Richards and others expressed concerns on the conduct of the selection process. Not only was there disappointment in missing out on positions, but also they questioned Australia Post through a number of grievance processes that started at the workplace, by formally making an application for a grievance with Australia Post. That happened on 4 August 2005. Australia Post responded to the grievances on
29 September 2005, some eight weeks later after they made a grievance and the investigation carried out by Australia Post.

PN46

Of fundamental concern to the grievance were that part time retail staff who are working in these post offices who exercise their right to make application for full time employment within those offices had to confront a selection process that grouped, that was invited by the whole network to show expressions of interest to fill the five vacancies which included the Jamison Centre retail facility. Now, the union’s concern is that the process was not only flawed in regard to meeting the requirements of the guidelines, of filling full time positions within the facility with part time employees within the facility and not on a general network basis, but also the selection process itself. Because the selection processes identified that basically management made up their mind on who was going to get the jobs before the selection process has commenced and we have evidence and we put on evidence to that effect and I’ll come to that shortly.

PN47

But also when the employees challenged the process after attending an interview of why their referee’s reports were not taken into consideration, why there was no highlight of any shortfalls within the selection process with their ability to be able to do additional hours, because that’s what it is, it’s additional hours of employment from part time to full time, and why in particular Mrs Richards in her complaint - she spent 32 years in the job, 32 years as a postal service officer, acted in full time capacities on every single occasion that Australia Post’s management has asked her to do extension of hours, which was just going from part time hours to full time, but more so acted on a regular occasion doing the postal manager’s position.

PN48

So every time the postal manager was on leave or off duty Mrs Richards was even invited to do not only the extension of hours but the higher duties to act as a postal manager, but when it come when she showed an expression of interest to fill the vacant full time job in her office, which comprises of two full time positions and two part time positions she was overlooked, the process went to a wide network basis, management then ….. to people through an expression of interest process, basically adopted their own local selection processes and fitted up people in the jobs based on merit selection as against what is required under the guidelines.

PN49

A point I want to make in this part, your Honour, is critical. During the EBA 4 negotiations a preference of part time clause was put into the agreement for filling full time vacancies, the union was confronted with right across Australia of the abuse by management picking people to fill full time jobs that are of either five minutes in a job as against long serving employees and remember we’re talking about base grade employees here just doing additional hours and also we say and we allege seriously picking non union members to fill full time jobs as against union members. Now, that concern was raised during an EA negotiations that resulted in the changes to the guidelines during EBA 5 agreement, which is the one previous to the current agreement, that made those changes to the guidelines to make it more fairer and more consistent where part time employees in a workplace when a full time vacancy comes up they will have priority in being given an opportunity to fill the full time vacancy.

PN50

Some part time employees don’t, like in this case of Mrs Richard’s office, at Jamison. As I’ve said to you, there’s two full time employees, one of them is a postal manager, and two part time employees. The other part time employee at Mrs Richard’s office has no desire to work full time, but Mrs Richards showed an expression of interest. The guidelines, basically, should have applied.

PN51

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could you tell me, Mr Metcher, whether or not there was a C, D, plus E assessment, whatever that is? What is that?

PN52

MR METCHER: Conduct, diligence, and efficiency. So, basically, your
Honour - - -

PN53

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Was there such an assessment?

PN54

MR METCHER: We understand there was and we understand that that is the process - and I can highlight that point to you - when we develop these guidelines, agreed guidelines, obviously Australia Post’s concern was, when somebody is making an application to do additional hours to full time employment or transfer from one location to another or transfer of one shift to another, what comes into play as part of if you want to call it the selection process is a person’s record. If a person is basically, you know, playing up, involved in misconduct, been disciplined on a number of occasions then obviously management would look at that very closely whether they should allow that person to transfer or to fill a full time position and obviously, you know, they have to be concerned by their management in a facility who was going to pick up the person filling their vacancy that they weren’t going to pick up some poor person who was going to give them grief by not being in order with regard to their conduct.

PN55

That’s what the C, D, E - conduct, diligence, and efficiency is put in there for - things like they really zoom in is sick leave, a person is taking a lot of time off, not coming to work, not producing medical certificates when they are required to produce medical certificates. They are the type of examples that post management zoom in when they look at the C, D, and E type of reports.

PN56

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Perhaps, Mr Metcher, I don’t think this is a matter that you need to put all your full submissions on. I understand generally what the issues in dispute you are and I’ll hear from the employer, but what is it you are seeking?

PN57

MR METCHER: Yes, your Honour. Your Honour, we believe that because what has happened with Mrs Richards and other employees with Post hasn’t acted fairly, we believe that the Commission is needed to assist in this process in making sure that Australia Post adhere to the agreed guidelines, but also the second part is the selection processes when there are two or more employees applying for a full time position inside a facility. There needs to be a proper process, a proper and fair process and not to be manipulated by Australia Post as is the case in the Canberra region under this process.

PN58

We seek three things, your Honour. The first thing that we seek is that the part time preference guidelines as of 17 December 2001 be recognised and applied to all Australia Post workplaces as determined by the Australia Post enterprise agreement under attachment a. Two, we seek that Ms Cynthia Richards be converted to full time employment at the Jamison Centre retail facility. Three, the union requires an independent investigation by an agreed person of the parties into the selection process for filling vacant positions in the NSW country south ACT retail network - that’s the area network, your Honour - with the report and recommendation provided to the Commission.

PN59

We say that, your Honour, because we have got problems with the process adopted by this network inside of Australia Post in filling vacancies, so that needs to be solved, but also we seek fairness and justice to be applied to Mrs Richards with respect to the way she should have been given the opportunity to fill the full time vacancy at her workplace at Jamison centre retail facility in the Canberra network. Now, we can’t be any fairer than that. All we’re asking is for what the enterprise agreement provides for, what the agreed guidelines provide for, and how they’re applied. All Australia Post employees have been consulted by their arrangements contained under this industrial instrument and how they’re applied and what the purpose is for.

PN60

We’ve entered into these agreed arrangements. The enterprise agreement is certified. We’ve taken every opportunity, right up to the national - and even since notifying the Commission – where Australia Post has sought national discussions in this dispute. We’ve met with Australia Post after they served notice on us on the Monday 31 October after we notified the Commission. Both myself and the acting secretary Mr Cheryl Harrington have had discussions with Australia Post at national level. They didn’t even have a copy of their own guidelines. We pointed out the matters that were in dispute, the fairness - or the unfairness - that is applied in this area, and we have not received any response whatsoever since those discussions with Australia Post on 4 November.

PN61

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, thank you.

PN62

MR METCHER: That’s why we’re here. We believe we have exercised all avenues of the dispute process, your Honour, and that is why we are here seeking the assistance of the Commission and we’re happy for the conciliation process to be applied in this manner.

PN63

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Krayem?

PN64

MR KRAYEM: Thank you, your Honour. There is probably one thing that I do agree with Mr Metcher on, your Honour, and he talked quite a number of times about fairness and equity in the process. In essence, that is what this matter really is about. The position of the corporation is that the interpretation on the guidelines which Mr Metcher would have us take would in fact be prejudicial to the vast majority of our part time employees. Ultimately, when this matter gets heard in conciliation a bit more and we get through some of the details we would hope that we could show your Honour exactly how that would work.

PN65

If I can take your Honour to the guidelines which Mr Metcher refers to, the document which Mr Metcher first handed up, the one that we referred to as the December 2001 document, your Honour, if I take your Honour to the faxed cover sheet which went with that, your Honour will see that it comes from Mr Peter Rogan, whose title at the time, your Honour, was manager workplace relations unit and major change, M&ND, which is mail and network division. It’s the submission of the corporation, your Honour, that that document relates only to the mail and network division, it does not relate to the commercial division. Accordingly, it doesn’t constitute the agreed guidelines as far as commercial goes with respect to those parts of the selection process, your Honour.

PN66

We would maintain that the wording, which is still in the HR manual, and which is consistent with the earlier ….. bulletin is what would be the last agreement, your Honour. Perhaps I can hand that up to your Honour, I’ve got a clean copy.

PN67

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is this the one that was attached, the previous one?

PN68

MR KRAYEM: That’s the ….. bulletin, your Honour. This is a current good copy of the HR manual, which has full details of the policies for selection. I’ve referred to different parts of that at various times, your Honour, so it may be helpful if I just hand that up. If I could take your Honour to page 18 of that document, your Honour, it’s section 7.5.4. I guess the point, your Honour, is that it still refers to at point 2 the employee’s service being satisfactory and then at point 3 where there’s two or more staff priority is given to the most efficient.

PN69

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I’ve read it.

PN70

MR KRAYEM: So, that’s the position that we maintain is the position with respect to the selection process, your Honour. With respect to some of the matters which Mr Metcher has alluded to, there was an investigation done with respect to Mrs Richards’ case, your Honour. It was independent of the network. It was done by staff from the human resources division up here in head office. As
Mr Metcher indicated, the response was provided to Mrs Richards and to the unions in respect of that matter. The union and Mrs Richards chose not to take that matter any further, your Honour. There is a process, an agreed process, with respect to those grievances. If the outcome of that investigation is something which Mrs Richards and the unions are not satisfied with then there is an agreed process where they can have that reviewed by an internal board of reference and the matter taken further.

PN71

I find it somewhat difficult to accept that they were not satisfied with the independence of that investigation, yet at no stage prior to this morning have they ever indicated there was an issue with that process, your Honour. There has never been, other than this one particular instance, any notice provided to the corporation in respect to any concerns about the selection process as followed within that particular network either, your Honour. Again, Mr Metcher refers to matters which he says he had put before the Commission, yet we’ve never been given an opportunity to address whatever those matters may be.

PN72

With respect to the matters which Mr Metcher is seeking, we would suggest your Honour that we have complied with the guidelines as agreed. Our view in relation to that, your Honour, is that the guidelines need to be looked at with respect to the unique nature of the commercial division as opposed to our mail colleagues. The essence of the difference, your Honour, is we’ve got facilities in mails which a small facility would have several hundred employees and a larger one well over 1,000 employees as opposed to a retail network where the average number of employees is six or seven. I’ve just got some figures in terms of the average number of employees, your Honour. In New South Wales, the average number of employees in a delivery facility would be between three and four hundred. In a transport facility, between three hundred - - -

PN73

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Why does that matter? I don’t understand the difference.

PN74

MR KRAYEM: It matters, if I could, sorry your Honour.

PN75

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you have as standard selection process and the selection process is fair for one then why would it be different in another division, depending on the number of people? I mean, you might say you’ve got a larger pool; therefore, you don’t need to advertise as widely, but that’s really a matter of convenience rather than fairness, isn’t it?

PN76

MR KRAYEM: If I could just explain it in this sense, your Honour. If
Mr Metcher is correct in saying that priority needs to be given to part time staff in the post office then the situation we have is that we will have a vast number of part time employees who will never have an opportunity to apply for a full time job. Take, for example, Jamison, which has two full time positions in that office only - - -

PN77

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you just wait one second? It’s an air conditioning problem, up here. Yes?

PN78

MR KRAYEM: As I say, in Jamison there are two full time positions in that office and that is not an unusual situation in our post offices. It would be quite some time, given our turnover of staff, before one of those positions becomes vacant. Now, if we are to give priority only to part time employees within that office there would be part time employees with a legal length of service in other offices within a reasonable distance who would not be given an opportunity to get full time work. Our split at the moment, your Honour, is about 55 per cent full time 45 per cent part time. When we look at equity, we are looking at equity in terms of our overall employment categories rather than just an individual at a particular outlet.

PN79

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. I understand the issues. We seem to have a number of questions here. One, whether the guidelines apply at all. Two, if they do apply, whether their application is restricted to the individual workplace or two the entire division for application. Three, whether in the circumstances of Mrs Richards’ case they were applied (a) in the way
Mr Metcher says they should have been, and more generally whether in this particular case they were applied fairly.

PN80

MR KRAYEM: I agree with that, your Honour, except just one point if I can clarify. It’s not that the guideline should apply across the division, we say it should apply across a network, retail network.

PN81

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Whatever term it is that you use, the largest base.

PN82

MR KRAYEM: Yes, that’s correct, your Honour. That’s essentially - - -

PN83

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I can never remember the difference between the two. It seems to me that there ought to be some discussion about how you want me to deal with those matters. As to the larger question, I don’t think that’s really a matter for negotiation. You might want me to determine that. As to the question in relation to Mrs Richards, it is part of that question, but attached to it is also the individual merits of that. It’s a smaller matter. There is, on the table, the proposal of Mr Metcher that there be some general examination of how that process is applied. It seems to me that you might necessarily not find it efficient to deal with that second question even if you were interested in having an independent person look at it until the larger question has been answered. Do you agree with that, Mr Metcher?

PN84

MR METCHER: Yes, your Honour. Your Honour, also, I need to assist your Honour in some of the things that Mr Krayem has said so that - - -

PN85

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think I interrupted him before he finished saying everything he wanted. Did I stop you?

PN86

MR KRAYEM: Look, no, that’s all right. Your Honour has summed up the situation. I think it would be helpful for us to understand how the parties that do want your Honour’s assistance - - -

PN87

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, well, we’ll hear from
Mr Metcher again, then. Thank you. Yes?

PN88

MR METCHER: Your Honour, Mr Krayem talks about fairness and he handed your Honour a document that was a HR policy. Now, in my time as a union official, your Honour, when I look at employer’s policies, when I look at industrial instruments such as awards and enterprise agreements and the matters contained within those instruments that are certified that’s what I rely on. I don’t rely on policy, because it’s an employer’s policy that can be changed at any time they like. It’s an internal policy and that’s how it is applied.

PN89

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But it’s only an expression of a view, really, one side of a view?

PN90

MR METCHER: The second thing is, your Honour, Mr Krayem talks about fairness with regard to employees in the retail area of the division. Your Honour, can I just give some outline to your Honour about what New South Wales looks like, In New South Wales, your Honour, there are 278 corporate post offices. Out of those 278 corporate post offices there are nine area management networks, which are what Australia post rely on to fill up on a network basis. Some of these networks cover from one end of the state to the other. That’s what they rely on in ….. and to fill up on a network basis. Nine networks cover 278 retail facilities. Importantly, there are 1753 full time retail staff in New South Wales in those 278 corporate post offices.

PN91

There are also 1479 part time staff, but out of those part time staff there are part time employees in every single one of those 278 corporate post offices, more than what the union would like to have in place in some of these places where there should be full time jobs and less part time jobs, but nevertheless that’s what the current staffing is, there are part time employees in every single one of these 278 post offices, where there are many part time employees who choose to work part time because of work and family commitments etcetera - - -

PN92

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand all that, Mr Metcher.

PN93

MR METCHER: And part time employees seeking to have access to additional hours such as full time employment. The other thing I wanted to mention, your Honour. 32 years. 32 years in employment and from 1973 to 1977 Mrs Richards worked full time, when she first started employment. From 1977 to present, she’s been working 25 hours per week at Jamison Centre, the only facility that she chooses to continue to work in and that she’s been working in all the time. An opportunity came up for a full time job under the guidelines - - -

PN94

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand that, Mr Metcher. That’s the merits of one of the questions I outlined to be answered, is it not?

PN95

MR METCHER: That is the basis of the whole issue that is in such a dispute in regard to the whole process of filling full time jobs.

PN96

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN97

MR METCHER: When you’ve got people in these circumstances, your Honour, and if Mrs Richards you look at her case, this is just one example, we’ve got many examples that have come to our attention in this Canberra network that we can put on evidence if it is required - - -

PN98

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it your position, Mr Metcher, that in advertising this position and interviewing for it or in allowing the interviews for it, it should only be those person within the particular post office who are given priority?

PN99

MR METCHER: I’ll say this. I’d say this, for this reason, your Honour. You look at ….. guidelines.

PN100

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN101

MR METCHER: In the two sets of guidelines, the original guidelines and the ones that have been superceded[sic], the first dot point talks about facility. Nothing has changed. It is only the third dot point and the fourth dot point, when there is competition, when two or more employees apply for the one full time vacancy within that facility - - -

PN102

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You say facility is the post office?

PN103

MR METCHER: The facility is in both guidelines and that’s what applies out there. That is what the information that I have received not only from our national office but I’ve spoken to every single state secretary about this issue and they tell me it is what applies right across the board in their states. Now, it’s just New South Wales who think they are different, they are not part of this country or part of the enterprise agreement when it comes to this matter

PN104

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN105

MR METCHER: They are relevant points. The last point I want to make, your Honour, is if a person of Mrs Richards’ capacity has given 32 years loyal service and she is holding her hand up seeking full time employment and she couldn’t get full time employment under the recent vacancy that arose then when does a person get the opportunity to work full time? When will there be an opportunity for a part timer in a post office under these guidelines to access full time employment? We talk about fairness, that’s why the guidelines are in place.

PN106

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Somebody did get access, didn’t they? A part time got access. It just wasn’t Mrs Richards and you say that that choice was unfair.

PN107

MR METCHER: Your Honour - - -

PN108

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The point is that a part timer did get a job, did they not?

PN109

MR METCHER: Yes, and your Honour, with eight months service.

PN110

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I know. That’s a merit matter. It’s not a question of whether a part timer did get a full time job or not. That has already happened, has it not?

PN111

MR METCHER: It’s a merit matter, what Post is relying on, but it’s the guidelines, what we are relying on.

PN112

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN113

MR METCHER: More importantly, your Honour, we’re not suggesting for one minute that they should put people into jobs for the sake of putting them into jobs that are not capable of performing the jobs. We’re talking about base grade employees here, not promotions. We’re talking about extension of hours in going from part time hours to full time hours.

PN114

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Okay.

PN115

MR METCHER: Sorry, your Honour, if I could just hand up. Mr Krayem talked about the investigation into the grievance with Mrs Richards. Can I hand up the outcome of that investigation done by Australia Post?

PN116

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, it seems to me that - - -

PN117

MR METCHER: I think it’s important - - -

PN118

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I’ll just put this to you. Resolving the question of how the guidelines apply and what the process should be is one issue and that is a much larger issue than the issue about Ms Krayem. Perhaps the - it’s Mrs Krayem, isn’t it?

PN119

MR KRAYEM: Richards, your Honour.

PN120

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Richards, sorry. Okay. That’s a worry. Perhaps the question of whether, even within the system that you say, Mrs Richards was dealt with, whether there was unfairness within that should be dealt with first before determining about the whole system in case that is a matter that can be separated more and release the individual members from the larger matter.

PN121

MR KRAYEM: I do, your Honour, and we’re happy to have some more discussions with Mr Metcher about Mrs Richards’ individual case.

PN122

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN123

MR KRAYEM: We’d attempt to resolve that before coming back to your Honour about the main issue.

PN124

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, I might just separate the parties first. There’s an issue I will put to both of you but I would like to do that separately. Could I see the employer first, would you mind, Mr Metcher? Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen would you mind just waiting outside for a minute. We’ll come and go, it’s what we do. Thank you, we’ll go off the record.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [12.20PM]
<RESUMED [1.42PM]

PN125

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Has there been an agreement between the parties, Mr Metcher?

PN126

MR METCHER: Thank you, your Honour. Yes, your Honour, as the result of further discussions between the parties I am pleased to indicate to the Commission that we have agreed to a process for an attempt to resolve this dispute. That is as follows, your Honour. The parties have agreed that one, Mrs Cynthia Richards will be placed into a full time position at Jamison Centre post office as of
21 November 2005. Two, that Mr Krayem and Mr Chaloner will discuss with
Mr Adrian Fluneri, F - L - U - N - E - R - I, the opportunity for him to consider either Belconnen or Civic Square retail facility with regard to his future full time employment.

PN127

Three, the discussions will take place at the national level in an attempt to resolve the issues raised by the parties with filling vacant full time positions. Four, in the interim the parties at the senior state level will determine how any vacant position can be filled pending these national discussions and resolution. And five, the parties report back to the Commission about the progress, resolution, or otherwise of this dispute at 2.30 pm on 15 December 2005.

PN128

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good, done. Is that agreed to?

PN129

MR KRAYEM: Yes, it is, your Honour, thank you.

PN130

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, I’ll see you both on the fifteenth. I hope you enjoy your new position Mrs Richards. You can all go, I have to call the next matter. Thank you.

<ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [1.44PM]