AG2005/6016, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 2400 (25 November 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 13413-1

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

AG2005/6016

APPLICATION BY INDIGENOUS LAND CORPORATION & PRICE, TIMOTHY AND ANOTHER
s.170LK - Agreement with employees (Division 2)
(AG2005/6016)

ADELAIDE

11.31AM, MONDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2005

PN1

MR G WOOD: I am a manager in human resources with the Indigenous Land Corporation.

PN2

MR T PRICE: I am a representative of staff from the Indigenous Land Corporation.

PN3

MS C ZENGERER: I appear on behalf of the CPSU/PSU group.

PN4

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Firstly, I apologise for keeping you waiting, we’ve been running late all morning. I apologise you’ve been caught up in that. All right, who’d like to deal with the application, Mr Wood?

PN5

MR WOOD: I’m not sure what you’d like me to say, Deputy President, I believe that the Indigenous Land Corporation has embarked upon a comprehensive consultation process with its employees. We’ve embarked upon a representative group to assist that process and invited the CPSU to be involved in that.

PN6

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN7

MR WOOD: We went through a wide variety of mechanisms, both written, face to face, video conferences, personal visits, to ensure that everyone understood the agreement.

PN8

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN9

MR WOOD: We believe that the employees were - or those who voted, were happy with the outcome. We believe that the agreement itself is an improvement on the previous agreement, with a number of enhancements by way of provisions, salary increases that are commensurate with market rates and some productivity improvements articulated within the agreement support the agreement for the forthcoming three years.

PN10

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good, thank you. Ms Zengerer, I think technically you probably need to seek leave to intervene. I take it, Mr Woods, there’s no objection to that course of action?

PN11

MR WOOD: No, not at all.

PN12

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. I note that the union has been involved in all of the process and seeks to be bound by the agreement.

PN13

MS ZENGERER: That’s correct.

PN14

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. In that context, the ground rules are met for the Commission to grant leave to the union to intervene pursuant to section 43(2) of the Act. All right, Ms Zengerer, is there anything you wanted to say on behalf of the union in that context or more broadly?

PN15

MS ZENGERER: No, only that we are satisfied that the agreement meets the no disadvantage test and that we seek to be bound by the agreement.

PN16

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, good, thank you. Mr Price, is there anything you want to add on behalf of employee interests?

PN17

MR PRICE: No, nothing to add, Deputy President, no.

PN18

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Anything further? All right. Well, look, you appreciate I have had the benefit of reading both your very comprehensive agreement and the statutory declarations which have accompanied the application. Leave has been granted to the Community Public Sector Union to intervene and in a moment I will deal with the application that they be bound by the agreement. Now, having considered all of the terms of the statutory declarations and considered that in the context of the various requirements for certification and having considered the agreement itself in the context of the various awards that apply as the existing safety net I am satisfied that all the requirements for certification of the agreement have been met.

PN19

I accept that a comprehensive and open process has been undertaken which has involved appropriate consultation and the process has not only accorded with the legislation but has in my view led to the informed and genuine consent of an overwhelming majority of the employees who would be subject to it. For the purposes of the Act, there clearly is a valid majority of employees supporting the agreement. In terms of the other requirements of the Act, the principle but not only requirement is that it meets the no disadvantage test. I have, as I’ve already indicated prior to proceedings, considered the agreement in the contexts of the safety net awards. I am satisfied that it does meet that test. I am also satisfied that all the other requirements, including what might be described as form and content requirement of the Act, have been met.

PN20

Accordingly, the Commission does hereby certify your agreement pursuant to the Workplace Relations Action 1996. I so order the agreement will apply from today’s date and will have a nominal expiry date of 2 October 2008. In that context, I do note there is some retrospectivity intended by the parties. There’s no difficulty with giving effect to that by administrative action now that I’ve certified the agreement. I now turn to the application by the CPSU to be bound by the agreement. That application, as I understand it, is made pursuant to section 170M(3) of the Act. I am satisfied that the requirements for that course of action have been made out and in that context I am obliged by the Act to determine by order that the agreement binds the CPSU. That will also be reflected in the order that I will subsequently issue.

PN21

What I intend to do is settle, sign, and issue orders certifying the agreement and making the CPSU bound as an organisation. That will be supplied, together with the now approved agreement, for your own use and records. Lastly, I should commend the parties on the agreement. Obviously, it builds on earlier efforts of the parties, but I do not underestimate the effort required to comprehensively consult with a reasonably disparate group of people at least in terms of location. The effort has been substantial, but I believe the product is worth it. I wish the organisation, the employees, and their representative all the best over what remains of the three year life of your agreement.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.47AM]