C2005/4690, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 2446 (1 December 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 13551-1

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT CARTWRIGHT

C2005/4690

HAWKER DE HAVILLAND AEROSPACE PTY LTD
AND
AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
s.127(2) - Appln to stop or prevent industrial action
(C2005/4690)

SYDNEY

10.12AM, WEDNESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2005

Continued from 10/10/2005

Hearing continuing

PN1

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any change in appearances? It's a while since we were together.

PN2

MR WILLIAMS: No changes.

PN3

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't think there is, is there, other than to note that we have a fax from the ETU indicating Mr Robinson isn't able to appear today and I think, Mr Neilson, you're appearing therefore on behalf of the ETU. That's correct?

PN4

MR A NEILSON: That's correct.

PN5

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, you wanted to say something, Mr Williams?

PN6

MR N ALLEN: Maybe my appearance might have changed before yourself, your Honour. I was involved in the matter when it was before Commissioner Cargill. Unfortunately, I was unable to make the previous hearing so I think we had one of our advocates from the office attending. My name is Allen, initial N and appearing on behalf of the AWU.

PN7

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Allen. We've got to watch the number of Allens in this case. Mr Williams, you wanted to say something?

PN8

MR WILLIAMS: Your Honour, I just want to say something about programming. The matter has been set down for two days. We've had a bit of a discussion at the bar table. Including submissions, we think there's about a day and a quarter or a day and a half to go. All that means is we're going to have one short day, either today or next week. As far as the applicant is concerned, as long as we get finished in the two days and the way it's actually programmed in terms of which is the short day and which is the long day perhaps doesn't matter to us.

PN9

We're in the situation that I have three witnesses, Mr Allen, Mr Johnson and Mr Carbon. We have to go two days because Mr Carbon, as you have been advised, is unavailable today. Irrespective of what happens today we'll have to come back next week.

PN10

I won't have to recall Mr Johnson. Your Honour might recall that two of my witnesses, Mr Allen and Mr Johnson, have already given some evidence and been cross-examined. Because of the nature of the arrangements made it was agreed that in this leg of the application we would recall them if required. I've been advised this morning that Mr Johnson will not be required but Mr Allen will be and in fact Mr Allen has ..... affidavit in response to the union's material, so shortly I'll put Mr Allen in the box.

PN11

When Mr Allen is finished, and that depends, of course, on cross-examination, then the issue then will be whether effectively we split our case and the union calls its witness Mr Yee, or whether we finish at that point today and proceed in perhaps a more orthodox way that we would complete our case by calling Mr Carbon next week. Then the union would call Mr Yee and then we would have submissions.

PN12

From the company's point of view we would prefer not to split our case. On the other hand the imperative is for us to finish, including submissions, next week. I think the position we've put to the unions is that as long as - knowing what we know about the likely length of cross-examination, as long as we can guarantee that next week we can get through Mr Carbon's evidence, Mr Yee's evidence and submissions, on the understanding that each party might need - or we decide at the bar table might need an hour in submissions, so perhaps two hours allocated to that, then we would be content to pause today after Mr Allen's evidence is finished so today being the short day and then a full day next week.

PN13

If there was any doubt about that, however, if there was any suggestion that because of lengthy cross-examination of Mr Carbon, we were going to get to a situation next week where we were part-heard, then that would an unacceptable outcome for us and I suppose, in that event if that was likely, we would make an application for Mr Yee to be interposed so that we use today.

PN14

In terms of the time that my side will require next week, we think that cross-examination of Mr Yee would take perhaps half to three-quarters of an hour and then of course there would be a couple of hours for submissions. As long as we can get some form of undertaking from the unions that they believe - and of course they have Mr Carbon's evidence so I guess they know how long they think he'll be - that they would be able to undertake to get Mr Carbon's cross-examination finished within a couple of hours, then we could finish today after Mr Allen. If that undertaking couldn't be given, then we would be asking the Commission to press ahead and for the unions to call Mr Yee today. That's our proposition in relation to programming, your Honour.

PN15

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Allen or Mr Neilson, who wants to go first?

PN16

MR NEILSON: Your Honour, I don't whether the undertaking sought can be given insofar as it will place an artificial limitation on the unions' right to cross-examine Mr Carbon but having said that, what I am prepared to say is that on the basis of Mr Carbon's evidence as it's presented in his statement that has already been filed in these proceedings, the union, certainly the AMWU would not expect that they would keep Mr Carbon anything more than 45 minutes to one hour.

PN17

There is one caveat on that, of course, and that is Mr Carbon may in fact traverse some matters in reply that may in fact require cross-examination. My friend, on behalf of his client, wrote to the parties and the Commission last week indicating that due to Mr Carbon's overseas work commitments, they were unable to prepare and provide to the parties a copy of the statement in reply and as such, we're not in a position to be able to definitively give a time indication to the Commission.

PN18

However, we are confident that this matter can be resolved on Friday next week, which is the next scheduled day for hearing. We are confident that if Mr Allen was to be the only witness called today, then we would be able to complete the hearing but I can't give an undertaking in the form sought by my friend.

PN19

MR ALLEN: Your Honour, we would support the submissions made by Mr Neilson in that regard but I don't anticipate that, likewise, depending on the evidence that is given by Mr Carbon, would be largely dependent on the amount of cross-examination. If the Commission pleases.

PN20

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Williams, having heard that, what do you propose?

PN21

MR WILLIAMS: Your Honour, we're not expecting there to be anything significant in reply from Mr Carbon. It may be that there are one or two point in reply to Mr Yee's affidavit. If there are any at all I doubt they'll extend the requirement for cross-examination significantly. Can I just make an inquiry.
Mr Neilson's estimate of half to three-quarters of an hour, or is it 45 minutes, is that an estimate given on behalf of the unions together or is there a further cross-examination from Mr Allen likely?

PN22

MR ALLEN: Your Honour, I think in relation to that matter, we wouldn't seek to go over the ground Mr Neilson would lead. We would be basically tidying up so I think it would be factored in the maximum of about 15 minutes for that. So if you're looking at an hour in total of cross-examination, then that would be a fair assessment.

PN23

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Williams, all that sounds do-able, doesn't it?

PN24

MR WILLIAMS: If that's a genuine estimate and of course I don't suggest it's not, then we'll finish next week.

PN25

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The only other matter that's relevant is that I indicate to the parties that it's a very busy period before Christmas this year and I had to adjourn a matter yesterday which was adjourned until 19 December. There is a premium in that sense in finishing in a day next week.

PN26

MR WILLIAMS: Your Honour, I think from where we sit, as long as there's no attempt to filibuster, and again I' m not suggesting there's anything of that nature proposed, but as long as there's no attempt to filibuster, there's no doubt we can get through two witnesses and submissions next week. My concern is not that, given what we've heard, there's any genuine proposition of failing to finish next week, I would be intensely concerned if the estimates of cross-examination proved to be wildly inaccurate. I suppose at that point, perhaps I would reserve the right even to make an application for the Commission to exercise its powers to control the process next week. I've got no reason to think that would be necessary. Can I simply record the determination that we have to finish in the time allotted next week, including submissions.

PN27

MR NEILSON: Your Honour, perhaps I can offer this offering to try and allay Mr Williams' concerns. We will, as far as practicable, attempt to reduce our submissions to writing, particularly in relation to jurisdiction and that may obviate some required time for oral submissions later on.

PN28

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Indeed, that would be helpful. That presumably takes care of all the housekeeping matters we need to attend to.

PN29

MR WILLIAMS: Yes, I think so.

PN30

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In which case, Mr Williams, over to you.

PN31

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, your Honour. I recall Mr Allen.

<DAVID RODNEY ALLEN, RECALLED AND RE-AFFIRMED [10.22AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WILLIAMS

PN32

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Allen, you will be well familiar with this process because you've given evidence in these proceedings once before. Have you made a supplementary affidavit in relation to these proceedings in response to a statement of Mr Yee?---Yes.

PN33

Do you have a copy of that with you?---I do.

PN34

Mr Allen, are the matters of fact set out in that affidavit true?---As far as I'm aware, yes.

PN35

I tender the affidavit, your Honour. I think it should have been filed.

PN36

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, it was. Now you might just help me because I've got on the Commission's file an affidavit from Mr Allen which seems to be dated 9 September and it's got Hawker de Havilland 1 and then it's got bracket (6) on it. It appears to have been previously marked or it appears to have been an exhibit in previous proceedings. Is that correct?

PN37

MR WILLIAMS: Your Honour, Mr Allen's original affidavit is dated 9 September. Let me verify this. It exhibits a statement of Dave Allen as exhibit or annexure DA1, a statement which he had provided in relation to some other proceedings, or related proceedings. In effect there are three affidavits of Mr Allen before the Commission now. One is his original affidavit in these proceedings dated 9 September. The second one is exhibit DA1 to that affidavit which is a statement of David Allen which he had made in respect to related proceedings. It contains some relevant material. Then finally there is the supplementary affidavit today. Flicking through my material I can't see a 6 anywhere, any reference to a 6.

PN38

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've got DA1 and it's been stapled to the other one. Of course, the only utility of my question is, I'm wondering what exhibit number to give this supplementary statement since we appear to have something that's previously been marked. Are you intending to tender the previous ones?

PN39

MR WILLIAMS: They're tendered I think, your Honour. They should even have an exhibit marked on all of them.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XN MR WILLIAMS
PN40

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm just wondering, we've approached this proceeding on the basis that it's step 2. Just refresh my memory. It's step 2 in something that was previously begun.

PN41

MR WILLIAMS: That's right, your Honour. There were two orders sought. The first one has been disposed of. This is stage 2. It probably wouldn't be inappropriate to start again.

PN42

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's what I'm thinking. We're really dealing with it as new proceedings, aren't we?

PN43

MR WILLIAMS: We are dealing with it as new proceedings, your Honour, but the arrangement is that the evidence given on the last occasion is before you and the parties can make submissions based on that evidence.

PN44

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that's true. So they're related proceedings.

EXHIBIT #A1 STATEMENT OF DAVID RODNEY ALLEN

PN45

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We'll deal with exhibit numbers as they come up. What you're saying is, there are exhibits from the previous proceedings that will be relevant and I'm really expecting the parties to alert me where material has already been marked.

PN46

MR WILLIAMS: Yes, your Honour. It's the one application so they are strictly the same proceedings but undoubtedly they have proceeded in a stepped way.

PN47

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay.

PN48

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Allen, in your supplementary affidavit you give some evidence in paragraphs 5 to 14 in respect of contractors?---Yes.

PN49

You give evidence of a dispute about a contractor who was engaged to put in some racking and you give evidence about a dispute concerning an electrical service agent. Do you see that?---Yes.

PN50

Mr Allen, I have just one question for you. Are you aware of any other dispute regarding contractors in your time as a Hawker de Havilland employee where it has been suggested that the company has failed to follow the proper process?
---Not in relation to a dispute. There has been concerns about where issues may not have been - may not have - we may have not stepped through the process as we should have, but certainly we didn't - we actually didn't have a dispute over that. We were able to work through and actually get discussions back under way. I'm referring there to one issue back in - early 2002 I think.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XN MR WILLIAMS
PN51

2002?---Yes, in relation to some fasteners but that was solved - in that dispute.

PN52

Apart from the issues relating to fasteners, can you recall any other time that it's been suggested the company has not followed its own process?---No.

PN53

On that occasion it was your evidence that the matter was resolved satisfactorily?
---Yes.

PN54

I don't have any further questions for Mr Allen.

PN55

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Neilson, do you want to go first?

PN56

MR NEILSON: I will, your Honour.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEILSON [10.28AM]

PN57

MR NEILSON: Mr Allen, do you have a copy of your affidavit that was filed in these proceedings on 12 September 2005 with you?---Yes.

PN58

Your Honour, I think in the last proceedings that affidavit was marked as HDH1 ..... from a quick glance at the transcript.

PN59

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay. On my file, attached to that is a number of attachments with various labels, DA1, DA2, et cetera, et cetera.

PN60

MR NEILSON: That's correct, your Honour.

PN61

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's the whole of the document you're referring to?

PN62

MR NEILSON: That is, your Honour. The annexures go up to DA8 in my understanding.

PN63

Mr Allen, at paragraph 4 of your affidavit you depose that there are approximately 390 award employees engaged at Hawker de Havilland. Do you see that?---Yes.

PN64

How many of those employees work on day shift?---I don't know the - - -

PN65

Can you give an approximation?---It's probably 290 or something like that - maybe - no, I - - -

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN66

That's fine. Mr Allen, in paragraph 7 you detail a number of instances where you say industrial action had occurred at the site. Do you see that?---Sorry, which - - -

PN67

Paragraph 7 of your affidavit?---Yes, yes.

PN68

Mr Allen, the first issue that you depose of at 7(a), as you deposed, related to employees taking action over contractors. You agree, do you not, Mr Allen, that the company did not follow its certified agreement in that particular situation?
---The - yes, that's on record, yes.

PN69

The company was to blame in that particular dispute for causation of that dispute?
---What we sought was - we made a mistake and we - all we sought was for everybody to follow the disputes avoidance procedure. That's what we required of the delegates at the time - we discussed the matter with them - was to follow the disputes avoidance procedure so the blame for the - - -

PN70

One of the reasons for having the contractors' clause in the certified agreement was the employees' concern, was it not, over job security?---That is one of their concerns generally.

PN71

The company agreed to include a clause requiring consultation in the enterprise agreement that was certified by the Commission on 11 August 2003?---There's references to consultation.

PN72

Clause 4.2.6 of the certified agreement provides that consultation must occur prior to contractors being engaged?---With the shop committee?

PN73

Yes?---Yes.

PN74

That did not occur in this particular circumstance?---No, that was part - that's in the record, yes.

PN75

Mr Allen, the dispute over that particular matter has been resolved now between the parties?---Well, yes.

PN76

On 16 August at paragraph 7(b) you provide some evidence that again employees took industrial action over the use of a contractor. Was it not the case that again the company failed to comply with the procedures contained within the enterprise agreement at 4.2.6?---There was - Whitmans is really a service agent. We did abide by service agents' arrangements at the time. To answer your question specifically, we went through the processes required. We consulted with the employees on site at the time and the issue blew up after that point, after we had consulted with the employees on the site.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN77

Because you hadn't consulted with the shop committee. Is that correct, Mr Allen?---No, we didn't consult with the shop committee.

PN78

That's a specific requirement of the consultation clause in the EBA?---Well, that is, yes.

PN79

That issue has been resolved between the parties now, has it not?---Yes.

PN80

At paragraph 7(c) you depose that there was a further unauthorised stop work meeting on 13 September. Do you recall what that stop work meeting was about?---Sorry, I haven't got - no, I can't recall.

PN81

You haven't provided in any of your affidavits any details about that stop work meeting, have you?---No.

PN82

I put it to you that that stop work meeting never occurred?---Well, the employees were docked 40 minutes on that day for attending an industrial - attending industrial action so that's the only evidence that I've got. I didn't - I haven't put that in there but it's a payroll deduction from each of the award employees on site.

PN83

Don't you keep notes on all industrial action that has taken place at the site?
---All the - all the action that I'm involved in, yes.

PN84

Those notes reflect the causes in your mind of that industrial action, do they not?
---When I'm involved I take notes and it usually has the cause in it.

PN85

Those notes aren't annexed to your affidavit in these proceedings, are they?---No, I - not, they're not. There was no - it's possible that I wasn't involved in the dispute. I'm not the only human resource person on the site.

PN86

If you weren't involved in the dispute, how can you depose that you were certain that there was an unauthorised stop work meeting?---By the payroll record. It says, "Payroll docking award employees" for the period of time.

PN87

The payroll record indicates that they were docked for taking industrial action, does it not?---Yes.

PN88

When was the last time you checked that payroll record?---Well, when I was searching around for diary notes that I might have had, so probably last week.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN89

Do you have a copy of that payroll record with you?---No, not with me, no.

PN90

At paragraph 16 you detail that there was an unauthorised stop work meeting of 40 minutes over the use of contractors. Do you see that - sorry, over the use of fixed term employees. Sorry, my apologies?---Sorry, could you repeat that again.

PN91

Yes. At paragraph 7(d) you depose that there was an unauthorised stop work meeting of 40 minutes over the use of fixed term employees.?---Yes, I see that.

PN92

The use of fixed term employees is a matter of particular concern for employees at Hawker de Havilland as a result of the continual fluctuations, I suppose, in Hawker de Havilland's production requirements?---It was - it was one of the concerns raised by the employees.

PN93

They were worried that the fixed term employees were going to be used to undermine their job security, were they not?---Yes.

PN94

Those fixed term employees were going to be engaged in areas where full time employees were recently told that they were to be made redundant?---Yes.

PN95

The company, as part of its enterprise agreement, is bound by the requirement that the engagement of fixed term employees shall not be to the detriment of full time employees. Are you aware of that requirement?---The engagement of fixed term employees, the intention was not to disadvantage or bring to the detriment of our full time employees their work by putting them - by putting the fixed termers in place.

PN96

But you can understand, Mr Allen, can you not, that the full time employees would be concerned that the company had breached their certified agreement by engaging fixed term employees in positions that were going to be made redundant?---No.

PN97

You don't accept that?---No.

PN98

Why don't you accept that? It's a reasonable proposition, is it not?---Well, I'm not sure - I know that there was - I know that people didn't like what was occurring. Whether they actually attributed that to the certified agreement I don't know.

PN99

I'm going to show you paragraph 4.1 of the certified agreement. I'll just give you the opportunity to have a look at that. I'll provide a copy to his Honour as well.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN100

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You came prepared.

PN101

MR NEILSON: Have you had an opportunity to read that, Mr Allen?---Yes.

PN102

You're aware of the existence of that clause in your day-to-day duties at Hawker de Havilland?---Yes.

PN103

You're required to abide by that clause as an officer of Hawker de Havilland?
---Well, yes.

PN104

You'll see at paragraph 4.1.2 the words in the third line:

PN105

Consequently the company shall on occasion require the employment of temporary or casual employees for a specific task or period, such employment shall not be to the detriment of full time employees.

PN106

Do you agree with that?---Exactly right.

PN107

I put it to you that the employees who held that unauthorised stop work meeting held it as a result of the company, in their minds at least, undermining full time job security in breach of the enterprise agreement?---Well, I guess that's what brings us here. It certainly - - -

PN108

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, can you repeat that?---I said I think that's what bring us here.

PN109

MR NEILSON: You said, "Yes, that's what bring us here"?---Yes. So the employees may have thought that but that's not what we were doing. The company wasn't doing that at all by bringing in fixed termers or seeking to bring in the fixed termers. It wasn't seeking to undermine or bring to the detriment of our full time employees anything.

PN110

Mr Allen, that comes back to the failure of the company, does it not, to consult with the employees about this particular issue in the first place?---Well, no. So I'm not - I don't have all my notes in front of me but I remember a lot of consultation, a lot of discussions taking place. We had the operations manager, we had at one stage the whole of the composite shop that was involved at a session. I mean, there was a lot of consultation taking place, a lot of discussion taking place over that issue.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN111

That consultation took place after the matter was put into dispute by the employees, did it not?---After the illegal industrial action?

PN112

Yes?---Well, the process - our disputes avoidance process calls for people to abide by the disputes avoidance process or procedure and we have - the company has to raise issues that might get people upset or whatever, but the disputes avoidance procedure is, I consider, a circuit-breaker to try and take the heat out of the issue so we can have at least some discussions either with the shop committee or our employees, or if that doesn't, we come on to the Commission but to take illegal industrial action shouldn't be the next step after we raise an issue.

PN113

But you hadn't raised an issue at the time, is that not the case? You raised the issue in consultation after the meeting had occurred?---No, we - no. We discussed the issue with the shop committee. We discussed the issue with the shop committee.

PN114

I put it to you that you didn't?---Okay.

PN115

That dispute has now been resolved between the parties, hasn't it?---There's no longer a dispute.

PN116

Yes, that's correct. Those fixed termers are, to my understanding, now engaged as full time employees?---Yes.

PN117

At paragraph 17 you detail that there was a stop work meeting which went beyond the authorised time concerning the issue of higher duties. Do you see that?---Yes.

PN118

The issue of higher duties had been the source of some dispute between the parties for some time, had it not?---The mixed functions about - - -

PN119

Yes?---Yes.

PN120

I refer to it as higher duties but it is also known as mixed functions. That dispute ultimately ended up in the Commission, did it not?---Yes.

PN121

The employees concerned at that particular time, as it was put to you, was that the use of mixed functions was being utilised excessively. That was the first issue?
---That was raised.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN122

That potentially the agreement and award classification structure was being undermined by the use of that particular clause?---That was also raised.

PN123

Can you provide evidence to the Commission about some of the roles that Hawker de Havilland required to be filled as part of the mixed functions element of the award?---So the - we did - we did that during that dispute. It related to one of the exhibits. There was a list of duties that we asked - so it's annexure 3, 4 - those annexures, they're - 5, they're the sorts of things we were asking our employees to do under the mixed functions.

PN124

The annexure 3 position, is it titled Metals Quality Support?---That's what it was called, yes.

PN125

Is that a specific classification under the terms of your Hawker de Havilland Award?---No, it's just a title.

PN126

So it's not specifically covered under the Hawker de Havilland award?---Those functions are.

PN127

Those functions are but the title isn't. Perhaps I'll provide you with a copy of the classifications in the Hawker de Havilland award and you take me through where that falls in. I've got a copy for his Honour as well. What I've provided to the witness is an extract of the entire classification structure as it relates to the Milperra site of Hawker de Havilland. You see it commences at the bottom, schedule B. Did you find it, Mr Allen?---Well, I'm just reading through the award. So I look at in this case, this position with this list of functions and they would be covered in the aerospace tradesperson level 3, 115 per cent, 110 per cent, 125 per cent - sorry, 120 per cent.

PN128

Take me through which role you covered in those particular positions one by one slowly, thanks, so I can just mark it?---So if we look at 110 per cent - - -

PN129

This is the aerospace technician 110 per cent?---No, tradesperson.

PN130

Tradesperson; I'll just turn to it?---So if you look at the last dot point under that:

PN131

Undertake quality role control procedures including verifying, certifying other persons' trade work.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN132

That sort of - - -

PN133

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, what page are we on?

PN134

MR NEILSON: Page 73 of 91. The top of it was unfortunately cut off.

PN135

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay.

PN136

THE WITNESS: So we would - those functions broadly - we're looking at the award - we're not looking at any competency based stuff here, it's just general award definitions. So we're looking at the last dot point there, dot point 6 under 110 per cent, there would be some functions in there. Again, if you go down to 115 per cent, the fourth dot point there, there would be some functions picked up in there and I haven't looked at this for some time now but there will be generally some work and in that 120 per cent role, that would be covered in that as well.

PN137

One hundred and?---20 per cent, over the page.

PN138

Can you point it out to me?---So in there at the - the definition says:

PN139

A tradesperson who generally performs work at a level beyond that required of a tradesperson 3.

PN140

So if I look at tradesperson 3 - it means going back to tradesperson 3 so we go back to tradesperson 3 and have a look at dot point 4 and it says, "Undertaking enhanced quality role". So then I would be able to say that to the extent of the award, that's the way we would be able to read at 120 per cent, someone who would be able to undertake quality functions.

PN141

Where can we find, perhaps, reference at annexure 3, "Maintaining approved persons register"? Is that covered in the classification structure?---I'm not aware of the detail of the functions of the quality system or that, so if I had - if I was a quality person I would be able to tell you where that sits. I'm not able to do that.

PN142

Mr Allen, recognising the dispute that was before the Commission about the use of mixed functions, one of the central concerns of the employees, was it not, that the classification structure was being undermined by the company picking little bits from varying roles and putting them up into what they saw as a higher duties role?---No. The major concern, as I understand it, was that people were doing perceived supervisory roles. That was the major concern and - yes, so out of - so if we turned over to annexure 4 and it was perceived that those sorts of roles were more like staff supervisors and that was the biggest concern.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN143

Yes, and one of the concerns related to whether or not the employees would remain to be covered by the award if they were undertaking those duties?---I don't recall that being raised at the time.

PN144

One of the issues central in those proceedings, was it not, was in relation to whether or not Hawker de Havilland could require the employees to undertake the duties that they were directing them to?---So going back to - if we go back to that mixed functions dispute and we sought volunteers. We never actually directed anybody. We had volunteers agree to undertake those higher - or those mixed functions roles.

PN145

Those employees reserved the right, if they chose to, to reject the offer to undertake the mixed functions roles?---Yes.

PN146

At paragraph E, which we're talking about, you talk about the meeting being unauthorised for 30 minutes. Do you see in your affidavit there?---Yes, I see that.

PN147

Mr Allen, you see the words "authorised time". Do I take it that Hawker de Havilland had authorised some time for the employees to discuss this issue prior to them exceeding the allocated time, if you like?---I don't have my notes with me so - but certainly it would have been outside - either outside the arranged time. Whether it exceeded it, it would be outside whatever arrangements were in place, whether it be a common lunch or something that the company might have come to some arrangement with the shop committee about.

PN148

In authorising time for employees to meet over these issues, it would be fair to say that Hawker de Havilland accepted that it was a serious issue of concern to those employees?---Yes, the seriousness - the reasons - there's a whole lot of inputs into what - how management came to make a decision about what they will authorise or what they won't.

PN149

Whenever any particular organisation or even yourself conduct a meeting, you like to ensure that those participating in the meeting are aware of what's going on and walk away with clear understandings of the motions of what has come out of that meeting, do you not?---Yes.

PN150

When you conduct meetings with the employees, scheduled meetings, and particularly refer to them as your weekly updates that Mr Carbon convenes, how long do those meetings generally go for?---No more than one hour.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN151

How many employees do those meetings involve?---Fifteen or 20 maybe, maximum 15, 20.

PN152

Given that there would be some 290, approximately, employees attending a mass meeting at any one time at Hawker de Havilland, it's fair and reasonable that those employees may have a number of issues that can't be resolved in 15 minutes?
---It's highly likely.

PN153

It's fair and reasonable then that the employee representatives attempt to resolve all of the issues and disputes that are outstanding in the one meeting?---Well, I am not sure how to answer that question.

PN154

See, Mr Allen, if they don't resolve the issue at least in their mind, of what they're going to come back to the company, the dispute remains on foot, does it not?
---Well, it - yes, it does and that's part of the reason why we have a disputes avoidance procedure.

PN155

That's part of the reason why the company authorises time for the employee representatives to meet with their membership base?---And that's been done in the past to do that.

PN156

The purpose of those meetings is to resolve as far as practicable the outstanding dispute?---If it's a dispute, where practicable, yes.

PN157

That's the overriding basis and the overriding reason that the company authorises such time?---Well, sometimes it's not just a dispute. Sometimes it is a feedback and sometimes it's a company sponsored meeting as well.

PN158

But the overriding emphasis for the meeting occurring is to progress the matter, if you like?---The - my understanding is that the delegates would call a meeting or be pressed into calling a meeting by the shop floor over matters. How they actually conduct the meeting, I'm not sure how they do that, like at the gate or wherever they are. I'm not sure how they do that.

PN159

The issue we're talking about here, being higher duties, was not, as you say, as a result of a small number of employees calling a meeting, was it?---No, no. As I say, the shop committee or a small - it could be anybody calling that meeting.

PN160

At paragraph 17 you detail - I'm sorry, just one last question on 17. That issue has now been resolved between the parties, hasn't it?---It's been resolved, yes.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN161

In accordance with the Commission's recommendation the last time we were before Commissioner Cargill?---Yes. We have - yes.

PN162

One of the elements of that particular dispute was an agreement that came out of the Commission which was taken back to the employees. Do you recall that agreement?---I recall - yes, I recall - there was - yes.

PN163

The employee representatives took the recommendation and the agreed position back to the employees for acceptance. Do you agree that they did that?---They went to have a meeting, yes, to talk about the outcomes of the Commission, the agreements reached in the Commission.

PN164

The employees at a vote rejected the resolution that had been reached?---The agreement reached in the Commission?

PN165

Yes?---They rejected that agreement, yes.

PN166

As part of the resolution that was put to the company, the employees requested that the matter go back before the Commission in an attempt to progress the matter along the disputes settlement procedure?---It was - one of the motions that was received by the company was that it sent back to the Commission.

PN167

That is entirely in accordance with the disputes settlement procedure, is it not?
---Well, the issue had been - the agreement had been reached in the Commission on the issue. The issue had been put - that agreement put that issue to bed. Then there was further illegal industrial action at a point after that which then - a further motion came out to say we're not happy with that. We want to take it back to the Commission to discuss it again.

PN168

That is their right if they chose to exercise that option?---To go back to the Commission?

PN169

Yes?---Yes, it is.

PN170

Hawker de Havilland authorised a meeting of the employees on that particular occasion, didn't they?---For a period of time.

PN171

You understood that it was important that all employees have the opportunity to hear the resolution that had been reached, which they were to abide by?---Well, to let - my understanding of that meeting was to let people know what the outcome of the Commission was, what agreements had been reached.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN172

Since that matter has been resolved there's been no industrial action taken over that issue?---Well, we haven't - we haven't actually put anybody in or requested or asked anybody to undertake a mixed functions role.

PN173

There's been no threats of industrial action if you do that course?---Not that I'm - no, not on that particular matter. No.

PN174

You're aware that the employees last came before Commissioner Cargill where representatives indicated that the recommendation had been accepted by a mass meeting of employees?---I wasn't - I hear that's the case, yes.

PN175

At paragraph 7(h) you detail a meeting relating to the unions in New South Wales campaign against proposed Industrial Relations reforms. You also detail a further meeting in relation to that campaign at paragraph (i) and also in paragraph (j). Do you see that?---Yes.

PN176

Those protests relate to employees wanting to express their opposition to the federal government's proposed changes to Industrial Relations, do they not?
---That's my understanding.

PN177

Those employees retain democratic rights to exercise their protest in relation to that?---I'm not sure how to answer that question.

PN178

The protest action was not directly aimed against the company or any furtherance of the claim on the company, was it?---There was no direct claims made on the company. Correct.

PN179

At the conclusion of your affidavit you make some sweeping statements at paragraph 30. I'll just get you to turn to that. Do you see that, Mr Allen?---Yes.

PN180

At paragraph 30(d) you say that the workforce broadly does not abide by procedures for resolving disputes. Do you see that?---Yes.

PN181

That's not true, is it, Mr Allen?---Well, those comments - those conclusion that I drew actually came from a meeting with the shop committee which starts back on point 29 and was through that discussion with the shop committee and points raised within the shop committee that I drew those sorts of conclusions and certainly, my experience on the site also allows me to draw those conclusions, I believe. So for example, if we look at (a) in this thing - in line 3 of point (a) talks about a petition. Now, I don't know where in the disputes avoidance procedure there's this thing called a petition but I do know that a petition is a list of names that goes before the shop committee on a particular issue and as I understand it the shop committee is then bound to either resolve that issue immediately or take it to the gate. That's my understanding of a petition, but it's not part of the formal process. That's my point.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN182

You base that understanding upon being given documents reflecting that fact?
---I've seen petitions.

PN183

No, have you seen documents reflecting how petitions occur and what is to occur as a result of them?---No.

PN184

Has anyone officially told you what a petition is?---Yes.

PN185

You're basing your opinions on what a petition is based on broad assumptions about how it operates?---So it's conclusions based on experience and conversations I've had with either the shop committee and/or individuals on site over the time I've been there.

PN186

You will recall a recent dispute involving an employee by the name of Mr John Stewart. Do you recall that?---Yes.

PN187

That dispute related to his classification and status under both the agreement and the award?---Yes.

PN188

As part of that dispute, the parties came to the Industrial Relations Commission?
---Yes.

PN189

Prior to coming to the Industrial Relations Commission the parties had engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the issue?---Yes.

PN190

That matter has resolved between the parties now?---Yes.

PN191

The parties, being the AMWU, the AWU and the company complied with the disputes settlement procedure in relation to that particular dispute?---Yes.

PN192

You will recall recently that Hawker de Havilland was required to implement a program, I think referred to as export compliance?---Yes.

PN193

Can you detail what export compliance entails?---In general terms it's a requirement put on our company by the US State Department and Department of Commerce to ensure that we have what they call compliant people working for - as employees working on our particular programs.

PN194

What is deemed to be a compliant employee? How is that determined?---So there's - I'm not the subject-matter expert on this so I'll need - I can only go to a certain level of detail. So there is a list of people, nationalities which are - which need to have - which are deemed not suitable for particular programs that we run or that we work on by the US State Department or the Department of Commerce.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN195

Hawker de Havilland is required to undertake inquiries with all employees about their backgrounds?---Yes.

PN196

Concerns were raised with you, were they not, that this was a potential invasion of their privacy?---Yes. It's a big issue.

PN197

Their backgrounds potentially were going to be used against them in detriment to their employment?---No.

PN198

Was there a concern raised about that?---Sorry, some people may have raised that concern. Yes.

PN199

Hawker de Havilland, as part of its compliance with the program, applied to the Anti-Discrimination Board for an exemption?---Yes.

PN200

The employees throughout that entire process followed the disputes settlement procedure, did they not?---Yes, they did.

PN201

The employees took no industrial action over that particular issue?---No. There's a lot of - yes.

PN202

There are a lot of disputes that have been followed under the disputes settlement procedure?---Yes, I agree with that.

PN203

That comes back to your broad assumption that employees don't follow the disputes settlement procedure. That's incorrect, isn't it, on your own acknowledgment?---At the same time there are a number that have and at any one time we can be working along and all of a sudden we just never know when there's going to be a dispute come up, we just don't know, that will create some issue for us. We don't know if people are going to always follow the disputes avoidance procedure. We just don't know that, so it's difficult.

PN204

If they don't follow the disputes settlement procedure then you're entitled to come to the Commission, are you not, with either a dispute or an application such as this?---So the real concern is people taking illegal industrial action, stopping work for particular periods of time whenever that period of time might be.

PN205

Casting your mind into the future though - - -?---That's not part of the process.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN206

Yes. Casting your mind into the future, your evidence now is that you don't know what will happen in the future. They may follow it or they may not?---That's always been the case.

PN207

You don't know what issue they may follow it and what issue they may not follow it on?---Yes, yes.

PN208

The parties have been in recent discussions about the implementation of a drug and alcohol policy. Are you aware of that?---Yes.

PN209

Those discussions have involved a number of meetings with both company management, which may include yourself, employees and the union's occupational health and safety officer?---Yes.

PN210

Those discussions relate to Hawker de Havilland's desire to implement a policy regulating alcohol and drugs which could impact upon employees outside of working hours?---Yes.

PN211

That particular negotiation, you would appreciate, is a source of concern for the employees?---Potentially could be.

PN212

It is a matter that may give rise to a dispute?---It may.

PN213

The parties have, as part of the current dispute, followed the disputes settlement procedure in its entirety?---The discussions at the moment, I'm not sure how far they've gone as far as discussions generally across the workforce.

PN214

In fact the discussions have been quite amicable, haven't they?---Yes. I don't know how many people have been engaged in those discussions. I don't know whether many people in the workforce have actually been - know about these discussions. So I'm unable to give you a specific answer to your question.

PN215

Mr Allen, the company is currently going through a degree of downsizing in relation to something referred to as the machine shop. Are you aware of that?
---Yes.

PN216

Could you detail to the Commission what that downsizing involves?---In very broad terms it relates to offloading of work, machine shop work to other plants and the closing down of that machine shop and deploying people throughout those machine - those people who work in the machine shop through the site wherever possible.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN217

The outsourcing of that work is going to either Melbourne and/or overseas?---And other places as well. It's not just Melbourne and overseas.

PN218

How many employees are affected by the outsourcing or potentially affected?
---Potentially affected? Everybody - 520 people on the Bankstown site.

PN219

And their job security is potentially affected, those 520 employees?---Directly or indirectly, yes.

PN220

The employees have taken no industrial action over that issue?---We've been trying to keep discussions going, consultation going and so there's been no industrial action taken, yes.

PN221

The discussion and consultation that has been ongoing has been actively participated in by the unions and the shop committee members?---Yes.

PN222

That's in accordance with the disputes settlement procedure?---Well, yes, it's part of the discussions generally in consultation which is part of our arrangements.

PN223

In your supplementary affidavit, and you'll probably recall, it's not necessary for me to take you to it, you make reference a reply to Mr Yee relating to a disciplinary issue. Do you recall that?---The letter I gave Mr Yee, yes.

PN224

That disciplinary issue related to claims by the shop committee that the company had in fact breached the enterprise agreement disciplinary procedure. Do you recall that?---I'm aware that I gave Mr Yee the letter.

PN225

It's at paragraph 32 of your affidavit?---Yes.

PN226

Mr Yee, in his affidavit, made an allegation that the company hadn't complied with the disciplinary procedure in the enterprise agreement?---That may - yes.

PN227

That allegation hasn't resulted in any industrial action being taken over the issue?
---No, not that I'm aware of.

PN228

So it can't be said that every time the company breaches the EBA - or at least in the employees' minds breaches the EBA, they take industrial action over it, can it?
---No. The concern is that at all times we need to follow the disputes avoidance procedure and that really when the company is unsure of when people won't follow the disputes avoidance procedure.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR NEILSON
PN229

An employee was recently dismissed by Hawker de Havilland by the name of Mr Mott?---Yes.

PN230

Some employees at least had concerns about the dismissal and how that took place?---I've heard no - I've had no feedback to that.

PN231

But you generally accept when somebody is dismissed there's talk on the shop floor about it?---I've heard nothing about it.

PN232

There was no industrial action taken over that dismissal, was there?---The - there was none.

PN233

The examples that I've given you - - -?---There might be just because - I mean - - -

PN234

Yes, but there's no industrial action. That's the answer to the question?---No.

PN235

The examples I've given you are but a short snapshot of a number of issues that have been resolved in accordance with the disputes procedure at Hawker de Havilland?---Yes, that's a snapshot.

PN236

The majority, the clear majority of disputes at Hawker de Havilland are resolved amicably between the shop committee and the management of Hawker de Havilland?---So disputes eventually either are resolved or they just go away but they're not always amicable at all because I've listed out a number of the ones we spoke about actually resulted in employees taking strike action.

PN237

No, I'm talking about the majority. The majority do not result in strike action, do they?---No, the majority don't but we just don't know when one - when one will result in people just walking to the gate.

PN238

Just one second. I have no further questions of the witness, your Honour.

PN239

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Allen has the opportunity to cross-examine Mr Allen.

PN240

MR ALLEN: Thank you, your Honour.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALLEN [11.18AM]

PN241

MR ALLEN: Mr Allen, again I would refer to the original statement, HDH1 is the exhibit. You talk about again those areas. You did indicate when being questioned by Mr Neilson that you believe there was one dispute in 2002 relating to contractors. Is that correct?---That was the first - in 2002?

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN242

Yes. I mean in response to a question from Mr Neilson in relation to a dispute over contractors which appears in your affidavit, you've made reference to a dispute in 2002 over the contractors' issue, that you've indicated it was to do with the racking?---No. Sorry, in my affidavit that I - the supplementary affidavit
or - - -

PN243

No, in your actual affidavit - - -?---Yes, the first one.

PN244

- - - where you talk in point 7, in (a) and (b) you talk about contractors and when question by Mr Neilson you - I'm just making sure I've got the facts correct, your response was that you made reference to a dispute in 2002.

PN245

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that might have been a question from Mr Williams, wasn't it?

PN246

MR WILLIAMS: It was.

PN247

THE WITNESS: Yes.

PN248

MR ALLEN: Yes, and his response was it was a dispute in 2002.

PN249

MR WILLIAMS: A small point, but I think you suggested it was in Mr Neilson's cross-examination.

PN250

MR ALLEN: No, Mr Neilson asked a question in relation to contractors when dealing with point 7(a) and Mr Allen's response was he made reference to a dispute relating to contractors in 2002.

PN251

MR WILLIAMS: I still think the evidence is that that reference was in the examination-in-chief. I'm not aware of any extra reference to it in cross examination.

PN252

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Allen, my notes indicate that it was in evidence-in-chief that the issue of 2002 was referred to.

PN253

MR ALLEN: Can I ask the question, you acknowledge that there was a dispute in 2002 over contractors?---Yes. There was an issue raised at that time, yes. We resolved that, yes.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN254

It's fair to say that there has been not just one, but there's been in fact three or four disputes over contractors over the years at Hawker de Havilland?---In my time, yes, over the last few years.

PN255

It's also a fair statement, is it, that the management has been found accountable in relation to not communicating properly with the shop committee in relation to the introduction of contractors?---So the issue in February 2004, yes, the company made submissions at the Commission in 2004 that they didn't consult as widely as it should have done.

PN256

I put to you that that was a common problem on that site with the consultation of contractors by management and the shop committee, not just on that issue but other issues as well?---No, I don't - I don't know how that - - -

PN257

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Carry on and complete your answer?
---No, I don't - I don't believe that's the case.

PN258

MR ALLEN: Your evidence is that the only dispute where the management didn't follow the disputes procedure was that dispute, as you say in your statement, on 16 August?

PN259

MR WILLIAMS: Just a point of clarification, I don't think Mr Allen has suggested that that was a breach of the disputes resolution procedure, rather it was a breach of the consultation provisions.

PN260

THE WITNESS: That's my answer.

PN261

MR ALLEN: That was the question, your Honour, was that Mr Allen was giving evidence saying that there was only one occasion where the company acknowledges that they failed to consult with the shop committee in accordance with the EBA in relation to the introduction of contractors?---As far as the introduction of contractors, and in - I can't think of anything that was actually - that we had a dispute. I can't find any evidence, I can't think of any others.

PN262

I just want to be clear on this, Mr Allen, is that I put to you that there was a number of occasions where it has been found that the company didn't consult with the shop committee in accordance with the agreement in relation to the use of contractors. Your response to me was that there was only one?---Well, that's the - yes. I'm - - -

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN263

MR WILLIAMS: It would be useful if Mr Allen was more specific.

PN264

THE WITNESS: I can't think of examples.

PN265

MR ALLEN: Sorry?

PN266

MR WILLIAMS: If Mr Allen was more specific the conversation might be more useful.

PN267

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You've got to be clear which Mr Allen you're talking about in this case.

PN268

MR WILLIAMS: That's true.

PN269

MR ALLEN: I think he's made my point for me, your Honour.

PN270

MR WILLIAMS: A very general proposition has been put in a menacing way. My point is it might be more useful if the cross-examiner is specific as to what's being asked.

PN271

MR ALLEN: I'll rephrase it, your Honour.

PN272

The alleged dispute in 2002 in relation to use of contractors, I don't think you were specific about a date, on 27 February 2004 where even in your affidavit you claim that there was illegal industrial action taken over the use of contractors; on 16 August there was also an occasion where there was the use of contractors. I put to you all those occasions was as a result of the company's failure to consult in accordance with the agreement of the shop committee?---The issue in 2002 you can put aside because that ended just by discussion. It was a misunderstanding.

PN273

You're saying that was before your time?---No, no. The one in 2004, that's on transcript and there's been letters written to the shop committee about where the company, yes, admits that we didn't follow the disputes avoidance procedure. The one in August we did consult with people that were on site. We went through the arrangement, the local arrangement that was in place in the maintenance department on that day. It happened after the time that the issue blew up. So as far as I'm aware, the one in 2004 was the - is the only one where there's been a dispute or industrial action taken based on the contractor - based on contractors. And part of the reason why is we've put a process in place which we try to follow.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN274

You made reference to the payroll records as being identified where people weren't paid. Every time the employees aren't paid, for example, if a mass meeting went over, is that then marked as just unpaid or is that simply marked as industrial action on the payroll records?---I'm not sure what happens on the pay dockets themselves but the payroll record will show an email or some other document, a memo, to the payroll supervisor requesting that particular hours of work - time period be docked from employees who were at work on that particular day. So there's a specific instruction given to the time office.

PN275

There's no reference made as to why that was - - -?---In most cases there's no reference as to why, it's just a direct instruction to the pay office.

PN276

If I was to look at those pay records as a person who is not used to looking at them, and I saw over a period of time a number of times where people had been actually docked, I wouldn't know whether they were docked because they had approved leave or whether it was industrial action?---No, that's different. That's different. No, that's different. So if you had approved leave you would fill out a leave application form and you would seek approval for that leave from your supervisor. That would be a different record than the ones that I'm talking about which is an internal memo or email specifically - because it's out of the ordinary so it's a specific instruction given to the pay office to do that docking of all employees.

PN277

The question I'm asking is, is there a reference made to why, not people that - - -?
---No, no.

PN278

Forget about approved leave for the individuals. Where, for argument's sake, people had attended a lunchtime meeting and that lunchtime meeting sent over by say 30 minutes, and assuming the company then docks those people that 30 minutes, it wasn't approved, is that then recorded as just docked or is it recorded as industrial action?---It's just recorded in the payroll as docked.

PN279

Just docked?---Just docked.

PN280

There's no reference to - - -?---No.

PN281

In your statement you indicate that you are the human resources manager and you've been there for sometime. The application that's being sought by the company, have you been involved in developing that application?---So I'm the human resource associate, not the human resource manager.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN282

Sorry, I take that correction. As the human resources associate have you been involved assisting the company in preparation of the application?---The application. This application?

PN283

Yes?---Yes.

PN284

Could you please explain to me then where you see out of all of your statements and the application where there might be threatened industrial action?---I've got to go back to that original 9 September affidavit. I've got to go through back to the correspondence which was sometime in late August where there was - just excuse me while I'll try and find - I wasn't - - -

PN285

Take your time?---I'm prepared not - I wasn't prepared to go back and - mentally to search this out.

PN286

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm just wondering whether this might be an appropriate time to take a short break. We've been going an hour and a half.
I would suggest that the Commission adjourn for 10 minutes and Mr Allen - Mr Allen in the witness box that is, you're under oath not to discuss your evidence with anyone during the break. The Commission will adjourn for 10 minutes.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.32AM]
<RESUMED [11.48AM]

PN287

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Allen.

PN288

MR ALLEN: Thank you, your Honour.

PN289

Mr Allen, do you have an answer?---The question?

PN290

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You might remind me what the question was too, yes.

PN291

MR ALLEN: The question was - I won't go through the prelim - basically would you please show where you believe that industrial action is threatened?
---Threatened industrial action: so I see - going through that affidavit I see quite clear examples after say 1 September where, for example, the guy who was acting in the higher duties role, in that mixed functions role, from a mass meeting motion was asked to - or requested to be stood down. I consider that to be threatened industrial action. In fact it's probably more than that. So that's one example. There's also more than threats, there's actual examples of illegal industrial action taking place right throughout the last couple of years.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN292

That example that you've made reference to, that's been resolved, hasn't it?---Yes. It's just another example of where we've got a disputes avoidance procedure that doesn't - it doesn't take us anywhere as far as being a circuit-breaker for a dispute. We have people losing time walking off the job rather than following the disputes avoidance procedure. So that's what this is about, this whole this is about is actually trying to work, use, utilise the disputes avoidance procedure the way it's meant to be. That is to actually continue this conversation, even though we're in dispute, but at least continue it, not try and resolve it in the field, out in the front gate, in the car park or wherever else.

PN293

If I understand it correctly, what you're saying is, this is really about developing a procedure for resolving these industrial disputes that come up from time to time?
---We've got a procedure. It's in that certified agreement. We've got a procedure and we just are really asking employees and the shop committee and the unions to follow that disputes avoidance procedure.

PN294

But there's no threat at this point in time for industrial action is there?---At this time on the site, today?

PN295

Yesterday, the day before? Yesterday is probably not a good example?---There was actual industrial action. Monday was a rostered day, Friday was a public holiday.

PN296

There is no immediate threat, Mr Allen, as far as industrial action is concerned, is there?---Not - no, not that I'm aware of.

PN297

Are you aware of anything pending?---Not that I'm aware of and that's the other issue I would raise today, that I just don't know when the next issue will be.

PN298

I'll ask you the third question, what about probable?---Probable? That's a hypothetical question but it could be over perceptions where - demarcations, for example, where people think it's other people's work, for fitters doing toolmakers' work or storemen doing - sorry, tradesmen doing storemen work or - those sorts of issues. Issues around the company requesting further lean procedure to be put in place, about developing the lean requirements that are imbedded in the certified agreement, developing those further. Disputes can come from any - potentially can come from any area. That's why we need a disputes avoidance procedure and that's why we need people to stick to it.

PN299

You mentioned in your examination by Mr Neilson that you had some real concerns and I think you've just indicated it then as well, about employees following the disputes avoidance procedure. Is that - - -?---Not following the disputes avoidance procedure, yes.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN300

Is it fair to say in your position as the human resources associate, that members of management too? Would you have the same concerns about them following the disputes procedure?---The company is bound equally. We're all parties to that certified agreement so the concerns are always there, that everyone follows the disputes avoidance procedure.

PN301

Both management and employees?---Certainly.

PN302

In these issues that you speak about, I put to you that there's some 35 issues on the table at the moment, ongoing issues that you're dealing with the shop committee?
---35? Possibly.

PN303

I won't hold you to 35?---No, I haven't counted them.

PN304

Either 35, 34, there's a number of over 30 issues currently that you are dealing with in your role with members of the shop committee and you meet on a weekly basis?---We haven't - yes, I'm aware of the unions' issues meeting. We haven't met for sometime.

PN305

You've been meeting up until recently obviously with this issue, but up until then you've had weekly meetings with the member of the shop committee?---Yes, members of the shop committee, along with our production manager, operations manager.

PN306

I put it to you then that there's a substantial number of issues, over 20 issues that are ongoing at the moment?---Yes, there's a number.

PN307

More than five?---Yes, more than five and various - various parts of a process about disputes avoidance process.

PN308

Out of all those issues, do you see that those issues have been dealt with properly or do they look like going to form industrial action?---I can't - I can't recall the list. If I could look at the list then I could - but certainly potentially - certainly potentially, that's not right. There is potential for those disputes or those issues to develop into some form of illegal industrial action.

PN309

But they haven't, have they?---Well, the mixed functions one was on - on that list.

PN310

Which has been resolved?---Which has - yes, which resulted in illegal industrial action being taken and - yes. It has been resolved, yes. I'm not sure if it's actually taken off the list. There's some others that potentially - I need to look at the list.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN311

I'm not holding you to the list, I'm just saying, making the point that there's a number of issues on the site and there's no industrial action taking place over all those issues?---No.

PN312

Just finally, Mr Allen, in your role could you just explain to the Commission the process for employees when they wish to communicate or get a position from the mass meeting? What's the process for them doing that? Do they come and speak to you or do they speak to somebody else?---Sorry, Mr Allen, I was thinking of your last question and - so there actually is an issue there but I won't go back to that. So your question now again?

PN313

What's the process for employees if they wish to have a communication meeting to discuss the issues that they're negotiating with yourself? What's the process for them going and communicating to the mass meeting - to the broader membership or the broader employees?---Generally there will be a request made by the shop committee to either myself or the human resource manager or even to the general manager for time to talk to the shop committee - sorry, to talk to the shop about their particular issue.

PN314

You then authorise those meetings to take place?---Well, I don't specifically authorise them. What I do then, if I'm asked about that meeting, I'll need to talk to the operations people who actually have those people I need to seek how the impact of them going to the gate would be - or wherever they want to communicate, what impact that would have on operations and whether we could actually allow them to have the time off, if they're requesting time off the job, to hold that meeting. So I don't authorise it, I seek further information and then I'll get back to them and inform them of what the outcome has been.

PN315

But then the company, through you, would then communicate back to the senior delegates of the shop committee and say yes, that's authorised, no, that's not?
---Yes, a similar process to this morning. Yes.

PN316

When they have those meetings, they then report back to you or one of the representatives of the company?---Generally, generally. There has been times when there's been no feedback at all after a meeting.

PN317

Generally speaking, they feed back to yourself?---Generally, yes. Whether I go and request or they'll come over as a delegation.

PN318

Where you claim in point 7(a), was there feedback then?---Point 7(a). Is that
13 September?

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN319

This is on your HDH1, which is your initial - point 7(a) where you say:

PN320

On 27 February 2004 the employees took industrial action over contractors, commenced at 9 am, continued for the remainder of the day.

PN321

Did you receive a report-back after that one?---The employees left work and I was - if my memory serves me correctly, I and - at least I wasn't talking to myself. I was approached by the shop meeting to tell me of the outcome of that meeting, that there was going to be strike action taken.

PN322

They reported back to you?---Yes.

PN323

On that particular day did you indicate to the employees that that would be unprotected action and that the company was intending to take action over that issue?---I remember prior to the delegates going to the gate a discussion taking place with myself and the then human resource manager - taking place in the delegates room where we requested fairly strongly to the shop committee that they should follow the disputes avoidance procedure, understanding that they were going to go to the gate to discuss the matter of the contract of ..... the contractor matter at the gate and that they should be informed of the disputes avoidance procedure.

PN324

If I understand it correctly what you're claiming is, they were then back there on the next day, which would be the 28th? I'm assuming, by what you've said the remainder of the day?---Yes.

PN325

They were back on the 28th. Did you then speak to the delegates, the senior delegates or any delegates and indicated on the next day what your views were?
---I think - I can't recall. I don't have an answer to that question.

PN326

Did you seek to make an application to the Commission on or after that day seeking some sort of orders in relation to unprotected action?---Yes. We notified the dispute to the Industrial Commission.

PN327

It went to the Commission and it was resolved?---Yes.

PN328

I ask you the same question again, on 16 August did you speak to the delegates afterwards and tell them that it was unprotected action and seek to go to the Commission to deal with it?---So that issue again, yes, and again it's about the employees not following through the disputes avoidance procedure but taking the illegal industrial action. Then we come to the Commission. So all we need to do is - and that's what we're seeking to do is to have the disputes avoidance procedure that's in their certified agreement run its course without people walking off the job.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN329

After 13 September there was an unauthorised, in your words, meeting of 40 minutes. I'm assuming that was a lunchtime meeting that went over?---Yes. I don't know. I went to look for my notes. I don't have any notes on that.

PN330

On 16 November you're claiming there that there was an unauthorised stop work meeting of 40 minutes. Did you then speak to the delegates after that particular meeting?---I can't recall that particular matter.

PN331

It's fair to say that there was no discussions with the delegates or the official to indicate that that was - you've seen that as unprotected action and if it continues the company intends to take the matter further or even attempt to bring a matter on before the Industrial Relations Commission?---Now, what I was basically saying is I don't recall whether - what took place as far as the conversations I may or may not have had with either union organisers or delegates.

PN332

I put it to you that neither you nor the company did that?---Sorry, I don't have the information to answer that question.

PN333

I put it to you that because we weren't down here, that we didn't?---Not - yes, it may have been that but it may also be that we were able to resolve the matter, whatever it was.

PN334

The company did make an application to the Commission after 16 November in relation to the employees not taking unauthorised stop work meeting for 40 minutes?---The fixed term issue was - had been ongoing for sometime prior to that 16 November. I can recall that much. In fact, back in October - maybe September, October we first brought that subject to the shop committee to discuss. Now, the reference there to the lost time on 16 November, I'm not sure whether we actually brought that to the Commission or not.

PN335

I put it to you, Mr Allen, that we didn't?---Well, that might be the case.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN336

One last question: all those areas that you've identified up until the recent dispute over the mixed functions clause, which we've established is part of this application and has since been resolved, all the other outstanding issues - I won't go through them individually, right the way through your affidavit, there was no attempt to raise that through the disputes settlement procedure, either under a section 99 or contact with the delegates on the job or the officials on the job and try to resolve that through the disputes procedure, the issue of people taking additional time after lunchtime meetings?---So the issue of - and I guess this is on transcript from last time as well - so the issue of people taking illegal industrial action and me notifying it, I think it's on transcript from last time that I didn't actually say to people, hey, you need to be on the job and we're going to dock you and what you've just done or what you are intending to do is illegal - or take is illegal industrial action. I think that's a matter for the transcript from last time.
However, many of the matters either don't escalate to the union organiser level under the disputes avoidance procedure, or don't escalate to the Commission under the disputes avoidance procedure. Some of these issues, while they may have had lost time - may have had lost time, are resolved at the shop committee level. The issue is that we've lost time and the disputes avoidance procedure hasn't been adhered to. People - it's not - losing time is not part of the disputes avoidance procedure.

PN337

Mr Allen, your part, as you've indicated and your affidavit supports your application or the company's application stating that you are seeking a 127 order, seeking the Commission to grant the company an order on the basis that of the number of areas that you've identified in your affidavit, which largely amount to mass meeting overruns, where prior to that you have not gone through any other steps through the disputes procedure or otherwise to try and resolve that particular matter?

PN338

MR WILLIAMS: Is that a question, because if it is it can be broken up. I'm just not sure what the question is, your Honour.

PN339

MR ALLEN: I think it's straightforward, your Honour.

PN340

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You might restate it.

PN341

MR ALLEN: Mr Allen, in the affidavit there is a number of areas - I'll go through them, item (c) - I'm talking about 7(c), 7(d), (e), (f), I'll put (g) in the category, (i) and (m), all those areas there clearly are meetings where the delegates notify the company that they were going to have a lunchtime or a common meal break meeting. Those meetings overran their time by the amounts that you've indicated there. What I put to you is, did you at any stage speak to the delegates about that issue itself, about mass meetings overrunning the time and not get a result and then maybe to bring it up here through the disputes procedure?
---As I said before, the short answer to the question is, no.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN XXN MR ALLEN
PN342

I have no further questions of Mr Allen.

PN343

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Williams, any re-examination?

PN344

MR WILLIAMS: Thanks, your Honour.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLIAMS [12.10PM]

PN345

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Allen, Mr Allen asked you some questions about whether industrial action was probable and you gave some answers to those questions. Then we've gone to another issue and in response to a different sort of question you said that you had been, I think, considering the previous question, but you said you didn't want to go back to it. Was there something that you wanted to add to your answer in respect of probable industrial action?---It related to the union issues meeting, that was all, and related to the question about probable industrial action and one of the items on that union issues list is - relates to when we recruit new employees. The shop committee have requested that we have those new employees - there's a normal induction process. The shop committee have requested that we introduce them to the shop committee and that at the moment hasn't been undertaken but there is also a sentence in that issues list that says something like, "The union - the shop committee should be notified, otherwise we'll take it to the car park to sort it out," or something to that nature.

PN346

There's something on the list itself related to that, is there?---Yes. So that's - I didn't go back to that. That was part of it.

PN347

Is that the only occasion that you can recall in the last six months or so where the union in one form or another has made a threat or an indication that if the issue is not resolved to their satisfaction, they'll go to the gate, as you put it? In other words, can you think of other examples of it?---I guess not specific ones like that.

PN348

In examination-in-chief I asked you a question about contractor disputes?---Yes.

PN349

You identified to me that the issue relating to the racking was the only occasion you could recall where an issue about contractors had been associated with an allegation that the company had not followed consultative procedures?---Yes.

PN350

In cross-examination you were asked questions which were beyond contractor issues and it was suggested to you that the industrial dispute referred to in paragraph 7(d) relating to fixed term employees - the suggestion was put to you that that dispute had been contributed to by a failure by the company to follow consultative procedures. Are you familiar with the extent to which the company followed consultative procedures in respect to that dispute?---Well, yes.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN RXN MR WILLIAMS
PN351

Can you comment on the proposition that the company failed to follow proper consultative procedures in respect of that dispute?---So we made significant attempts, because this is a significant issue, to ensure that we consulted widely on that particular matter, including power point presentations to the shop committee. By the time - individual presentations to individual cell or work areas within a bigger area by managers and manufacturing leads; large group presentations about the impacts, trying to get an understanding of what the fixed termers - to realise - to try and help the employees understand why we were trying to take on fixed termers and not contractors. Yes, we made significant attempts to consult with our employees.

PN352

Was that before or after you in fact implemented or sought to implement your strategy in respect to fixed term employees?---It was before.

PN353

That one was specifically raised with you. In relation to any of the other disputes referred to in your evidence, are you aware of any suggestion, apart from the contractor issue we've discussed, where the company has failed to follow its own consultative procedures?---No.

PN354

Mr Neilson asked you some questions about disputes which it was suggested had been resolved appropriately and in accordance with the disputes resolution procedure. One of the disputes he referred you to was a dispute concerning Mr Stewart and his classification. Do you recall that dispute?---Yes.

PN355

In the course of that dispute, did the company receive any threat in relation to industrial action?---Yes.

PN356

MR NEILSON: I object to that, your Honour. That doesn't arise out of certainly cross-examination. If Mr Allen wants to make that allegation then we would seek leave to press him on it. It's a serious allegation.

PN357

MR WILLIAMS: Commissioner, the situation is this, Mr Neilson in cross-examination asked Mr Allen some questions about that. Clearly for the purpose of giving you the impression that that dispute was regularly settled in an amicable way, my instructions are rather different and I'm going to ask Mr Allen a question about. In fact, I have asked the question. If Mr Neilson thinks there's matters arising out of that reply which warrant further cross-examination, he can make an application.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN RXN MR WILLIAMS
PN358

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well.

PN359

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Allen, your answer is yes. Could you please tell us the exact circumstances of that threat?---My recollection of the threat was that the nature of the classification issue which was at the - and the - the focus of the issue was about the functions not being in the award and that, given that that was the case and the title - the classification that we had John Stewart working in wasn't in the award, then John felt that it was appropriate that he goes back to the workplace and call all those individuals whose titles, their work group titles, who aren't in the award, be called out and told about the circumstances - his circumstances in the Commission. Now, I take that as a significant threat, given that most of the titles that people work in aren't actually listed in our award.

PN360

When was that comment made?---It was made - when, did you say?

PN361

Yes?---When?

PN362

Do you know what date it was made or can you be as precise as you can about now long ago that comment was made?---I think it was last week, was it last Tuesday or Wednesday?

PN363

Just clarify for me, exactly what did you understand Mr Stewart to be suggesting would occur?---Well, I took it that these people who were working - so we were using the examples of metrologists and others like that who didn't - whose title didn't actually appear in the award. There was going to be a review of those groups of employees and that they would be at least called off the job to have the outcomes of the Commission hearing told to them.

PN364

Thank you. You were asked some questions about the desirability on occasion for the lunchtime meetings or to go beyond the time allocated for a lunchtime meeting because issues had to be fully explained and questions answered. Are you aware of any restriction on the ability of the employees, the shop committee or the unions to meet with the employees outside of work time for that purpose?
--- No, not at all.

PN365

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, say again?---Sorry, none, not at all.

PN366

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Allen asked you some questions about the list of industrial disputes and industrial action in paragraph 7 of your first statement and he suggested that some of the items under the lettered items were really about authorised meetings going over time. I'll just focus you on paragraph 7(f), page 3 of your statement?---Yes.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN RXN MR WILLIAMS
PN367

Did that involve a meeting which was to any degree authorised?---No.

PN368

Was that properly in the category of an overrun of an authorised meeting then?
---No.

PN369

Mr Allen also mentioned subparagraph (m) and (m) refers to other paragraphs. Can I take you over to paragraph 26 of your statement. Is the meeting referred to in paragraph 26 one of the stop work meetings referred to in subparagraph 7(m)?
---Yes.

PN370

Did the meeting referred to in paragraph 26 involve to any extent authorised time?
---No.

PN371

No further questions, your Honour.

PN372

MR NEILSON: Your Honour, I make an application to cross-examine Mr Allen on his evidence arising out of the examination in reply relating to his allegation that there was a threat of industrial action over the issue involving Mr Stewart, if there are no objections.

PN373

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr Williams.

PN374

MR WILLIAMS: I think it's a proper application, your Honour. I don't object.

PN375

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Go ahead.

<FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEILSON [12.22PM]

PN376

MR NEILSON: Mr Allen, you just made an allegation in relation to a dispute involving Mr Stewart, that the union had made a threat to engage in industrial action. Where was that threat allegedly made?---The location?

PN377

Yes?---Here in the Industrial Relations Commission.

PN378

When was the threat made and was it before a Commissioner at the time?---Senior Deputy President Marsh.

PN379

On what basis were the unions present in the Commission? Whose application was it?---The unions' application.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN FXXN MR NEILSON
PN380

Yes, because the unions had followed the disputes settlement procedure in relation to the issue, had they not?---Well, yes.

PN381

One of the issues that was being traversed in the conference was the position advanced by the company that because Mr Stewart's exact classification name was not covered in the classification structure of the award, he was not covered by the award.?---That was what - one of the things that you and the union put up, yes.

PN382

No, no. That was the position that the company put up?---No.

PN383

You deny that. Well, I put it to you that that was the case?---No. The name didn't appear in the award.

PN384

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, did or did not?---The name did not appear in the award.

PN385

MR NEILSON: I put it to you that that was not the case?---So it's - ask me the question again.

PN386

I'll break it down, I'll try and make it easier for you. The parties were in a private conference before the Commission in relation to a dispute involving Mr Stewart. Correct?---Correct.

PN387

That involved the classification of Mr Stewart and whether or not he was covered by the award and EBA?---Yes.

PN388

It was the positions of the union that Mr Stewart was in fact covered by the award and the EBA?---Well, no. If you're looking at the title you couldn't find the title and so you said it's not in the award.

PN389

No, that was the position that was being advanced by the company?---Well, we didn't talk about titles, we were talking about the functions that were being performed.

PN390

It seems to me that you're a little bit confused about what actually happened in that conference then. I' m going to put the suggestion to you you're actually confused about whether or not a threat was actually made?---So you're talking about when the names of the various titles of positions out there like metrologists and things like that were made. Myself and Senior Deputy President Marsh didn't think that it was unwise to think like that, to talk like that, that there was a - didn't want to have anything threatened.

**** DAVID RODNEY ALLEN FXXN MR NEILSON
PN391

Mr Allen, was there a direct threat from Mr Stewart and/or the unions that the employees would walk off the job over this issue? Was that directly put to you and/or anyone else on behalf of the company?---So I'm not sure whether it has to be - so that wasn't put - a direct threat to say we're going to - - -

PN392

Yes. The only thing that was put was the position by Mr Stewart, "Well, if you say that I'm not covered by the award, then I need to go and tell everyone else who may not be covered that they should investigate their own situation"?
---That's - that would be an interpretation that could be placed on those words.

PN393

That's exactly what happened, isn't it, Mr Allen?---That's not my - my recollection of that is that he - that John made a threat and it was more than just going around and talking to people about the - - -

PN394

In fact Senior Deputy President Marsh in the course of that conference encouraged the parties to be clear about whether or not the award covered certain employees?---Yes.

PN395

That's all Mr Stewart was seeking to do?---Was that a question?

PN396

Yes?---That may have been the case.

PN397

The fact now, Mr Allen, that you regarded it as a threat but it may not have been a threat?---I regarded it as a threat.

PN398

Has there been any industrial action taken over that issue?---The issue was resolved here in the Commission and there was no action taken.

PN399

There's no industrial action threatened to be taken over the issue as a result of that resolution?---No.

PN400

No further questions.

PN401

MR WILLIAMS: Nothing arising, your Honour.

PN402

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. In that case, Mr Allen, that concludes your evidence and you're excused as a witness. Thank you?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.27PM]

PN403

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Williams, does that mean that we've reached a break point in the proceedings?

PN404

MR WILLIAMS: Yes, it does, your Honour. It does. I'm not sure if the unions have formally advised that they don't require Mr Johnson for cross-examination.

PN405

MR NEILSON: We don't your Honour.

PN406

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No other housekeeping matters to attend to? I think our next listed date is Friday next week, isn't it? I've forgotten the date.

PN407

MR WILLIAMS: The 25th. I think that is the Friday.

PN408

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, at 10 am, from my recollection. The Commission - sorry, Mr Neilson.

PN409

MR NEILSON: Your Honour, I didn't mean to interrupt. One housekeeping matter is, perhaps if I could have marked the enterprise agreement that I referred Mr Allen to in cross-examination.

PN410

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to refer to a document of the Commission? I don't normally mark those.

PN411

MR NEILSON: As long as your Honour is fine with that course.

PN412

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The enterprise agreement is the current enterprise agreement, is it not?

PN413

MR NEILSON: That's correct.

PN414

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The one certified by Commissioner Redmond on 11 August 2003?

PN415

MR NEILSON: That's correct., your Honour.

PN416

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't normally mark those as exhibits, being documents of the Commission.

PN417

MR WILLIAMS: I expect the award will be in the same category.

PN418

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. That's the basis on which I was proceeding. Gentlemen, in that case the Commission will adjourn until 10 am on Friday, the 25th.

<ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2005 [12.29PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

DAVID RODNEY ALLEN, RECALLED AND RE-AFFIRMED PN31
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WILLIAMS PN31
EXHIBIT #A1 STATEMENT OF DAVID RODNEY ALLEN PN44
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEILSON PN56
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALLEN PN240
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLIAMS PN344
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEILSON PN375
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN402