C2005/5203, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 2634 (30 December 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 13707-1

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON

C2005/5203

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION
AND
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION LTD
s.170LW - Application for settlement of dispute (certification of agreement)
(C2005/5203)

MELBOURNE

10.04AM, FRIDAY, 09 DECEMBER 2005

Continued from 8/12/2005

PN1005

MR ADDISON: If your Honour pleases, I had finished my examination-in-chief, but there are a couple of matters that I forgot to raise with Mr Davis yesterday. I've had a discussion with Mr Skene, and there's a copy of documents I want to present to Mr Davis which we say are consistent with this witness statement. I think Mr Skene may have something to say about that, so I'll resume my seat while that occurs.

PN1006

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN1007

MR SKENE: Your Honour, at the end of the day Mr Davis had an opportunity to prepare a statement and to present documents, and if he had documents to present then it was appropriate that we should have them at the time he files his statement. Now, I don't want to have a big argument about that. I think Mr Addison is going to present these documents. Rather than have a fight about the procedure we'll allow him to proceed providing I can be granted leave to get instructions on things that arise based on his evidence in that.

PN1008

I should say though that we would become very concerned if this became the standard practice, that each morning there's new material that's presented that should have been included in statements, and if that were to be the case then we would not adopt such a flexible approach in future. So that's basically all I wanted to say about it at this stage.

PN1009

MR ADDISON: The proposition that my friend have time for instructions and an adjournment be granted is not opposed, your Honour.

PN1010

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well.

PN1011

MR ADDISON: Thanks, your Honour. Just a couple of matters that I want to deal with, with Mr Davis if I could. I've been a bit remiss, your Honour. I also appear this morning with Ms Donnellan from the AMWU.

<PETER JOHN DAVIS, RECALLED ON FORMER OATH [10.06AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ADDISON

PN1012

MR ADDISON: Peter, can I just give you a document. Can I ask you to have a quick look at that document Peter. Can you identify what that document is?
---Yes. That's the grievance I first put in as a result of the side shift of the GF out of the reporting structure in the body shop.

PN1013

Now, that's a matter you gave evidence about yesterday I think, is that right?
---Yes.

PN1014

I'd seek to tender that, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #AMWU7 UNRESOLVED PROBLEM NOTIFICATION DATED 09/03/2004

PN1015

MR ADDISON: Peter, can you just explain the sequence of events. I think there was another grievance procedure form that was marked AMWU6 which you identified yesterday afternoon too?---That's right.

PN1016

Does that relate to the same grievance?---It does, yes.

PN1017

Could you just explain to her Honour the sequence of events so that we have it clear as to what AMWU6 and 7 said?---What happened was the structure came out without any consultation or understanding about why there was this side shift of the GF into the Kaizen structure. That then removed the GF from the reporting structure, so I put in the - after discussion with management I then informed them I would be putting in a grievance, which is this grievance here. After this grievance was put in a couple of weeks later I actually sat down with Martin Nelson, he's the senior manager of the shop, and through the discussions I had with Martin Nelson, as I mentioned yesterday, Martin said well, look, the way we could fix this is just to move Ron back into the reporting structure and that would fix your concern. I said absolutely. And my understanding was from that meeting that that's what was going to happen. So I never got any written response or anything about that. What I try and do is have a trusting working relationship with my management who are supposed to be peers and the leaders of the organisation, so I don't ask for everything in writing every time, I try and take them on their word, and in doing so I thought this was going to fix the problem. But then as a result of no structure change coming out and then this issue coming up in paint shop with the other GF I then put a further grievance in just to reinforce the non acceptance of what was going on.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN1018

Thanks for that. I just want to show you another document if I could. Can I ask you just to have a look at that document and ask you to identify what it is?---Yes. What's happened over the years, since I've put the first grievance in at the senior consultative group meeting, that is the directors et cetera level, since we put the first grievance in in 2001 I then had some meetings with the divisional manager, which is Mr Bernie O'Connor after that, and he asked me to come up with a document, an understanding of where the SGF positions had been lost, removed from, which is this document here which I did present to Mr O'Connor at the time. The understanding was that through this I would indicate where the positions had been lost and not been back filled in agreement with our workplace agreement at the time and the award, and hopefully we might be able to derive some understanding where we could actually - positions that were currently performing Kaizen type functions for example or administration type functions around the plant, have those brought back out onto the shop floor to perform the function they're supposed to be performing and that is responsible for major manufacturing functions.

PN1019

I seek to tender that, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #AMWU8 GENERAL FOREPERSONS LOST AT ALTONA

PN1020

MR ADDISON: Can I ask Peter, when did you present this document to Mr O'Connor?---This is approximately two years ago before he took over his current position in the organisation.

PN1021

So that would be late 2003?---Yes, I have got diary notes on it but I haven't consulted with my diary. I could give you the accurate notes hopefully if required. But approximately two years ago.

PN1022

Now, you said that you forwarded the first grievance I think you said that you raised in 2001?---That's right.

PN1023

Can I show you another document. Can I ask you to have a look at that document and identify what it is?---Yes. This is a - we were going up to an SCG meeting, that's with Mike Harvie, Barbasan, but then I think it was Ken Assano, and we were continuously discussing this senior general foreperson situation. So we agreed that we would present this grievance at the SCG as a result of what was going on within the organisation in relation to the SCG, SGF situation.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN1024

I seek to tender that, your Honour.

PN1025

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is a double sided document that's intended to be?

PN1026

MR ADDISON: It is intended to be, your Honour, yes. I'll come to the second page of it in a second.

EXHIBIT #AMWU9 UNRESOLVED PROBLEM RESOLUTION

PN1027

MR ADDISON: Now, Peter, the document is dated 2001?---That's right.

PN1028

You said you intended to present the grievance at the SCG?---That's right.

PN1029

Was it presented at the SCG?---It was presented at the SCG.

PN1030

I note there are a whole range of signatures at the bottom of the grievance form. Who are those individuals?---These are the technical and supervisory employee reps from both Port Melbourne and Altona.

PN1031

So they're the delegates are they?---The delegates, that's right.

PN1032

And was there a response to that grievance?---There was. The response is as minuted on the back. These are the actual minutes from the SCG at that time responded to by Mike Harvie, director of manufacturing.

PN1033

Okay. So when you say Mike Harvie, director of manufacturing, in the organisation where does Mike Harvie sit?---Just below the president.

PN1034

So is he the most senior manager of Toyota in Australia?---I believe apart from maybe Barbasan I think.

PN1035

So he's a senior manager?---That's right, yes, absolutely.

PN1036

Would he be higher in the chain than Mr Dobson for instance?---Yes.

PN1037

The responses are set out there in the fifth column. That's all I have for this witness now.

PN1038

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Skene?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SKENE [10.14AM]

PN1039

MR SKENE: Perhaps if we can just initially deal with these documents that you've just put in this morning, just in terms of the order of events. In December 2001 at that time did you occupy the position of senior employee representative?
---Yes, I did.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1040

Yes, you did. So you were effectively the senior techs representative of the people who signed this document, is that correct?---For Altona.

PN1041

For Altona. And then there's a senior employee rep for Port Melbourne as well is there?---That's right.

PN1042

And who is that?---That's Patrick Alfonso.

PN1043

Patrick Alfonso. So he's the senior rep for Port Melbourne, you're the senior rep for Altona, correct?---That's right.

PN1044

And in December 2001 you raised the concern for the first time that the newly created assistant position - when I say newly created, it's been around for what, some 12 months, longer than that at that stage hadn't it?---No. I think it started in 2000. I'm not actually sure when it started. I'd only recently taken over the position of senior delegate at the time and it was all fairly - I was just dealing with local matters at the time.

PN1045

Well, Mr Tainsh tendered some organisational structures yesterday?---Yes.

PN1046

The first one that he tendered is dated February 2002 - is 2000 rather, February 2000, and there's an assistant manager in that structure so they obviously existed then didn't they?---That's right.

PN1047

So they've been around for nearly two years when you put this grievance in haven't they?---According to that documentation.

PN1048

Yes, and possibly longer?---I don't think so.

PN1049

I see, all right. At least since February 2000, if the chart that Mr Tainsh has put in is correct, you accept that don't you?---That's right.

PN1050

I see. So in December 2001 the concern is raised and it seems that that concern is that the function of the assistant manager is the same as the roles as the GF/SGF, and you're concerned that there are assistant manager positions replacing the GF. In a nutshell is that the dispute?---That's pretty much it.

PN1051

Yes. And that gets progressed through this process in December and you get a response, and the response is the next step in the problem resolution procedure isn't it? So you file a grievance, the next step is that the company puts a response?---That's right.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1052

That's right. Now, the response that - the concerns that you raise there are a little bit more detailed. It's agreed that in relation to press shop position you will have a discussion after the meeting?---Right.

PN1053

That seems to be the outcome, you would accept that wouldn't you?---Discussion, that's right.

PN1054

Yes. So there's going to be a discussion between you and Bernie O'Connor?
---That's right.

PN1055

Following the meeting. Now, that discussion happened didn't it?---A number of discussions happened with Mr O'Connor, it did, yes.

PN1056

That's right. Now, the second aspect of your concern which is headed New Management Structure, says you're concerned there about four GFs being promoted to assistant manager and skipping progression to SGF and why the positions are not advertised, will the above GF positions be filled? I mean, they're your concerns. So essentially the position that Mr Tainsh is putting today, you would accept that wouldn't you?---Certainly.

PN1057

Yes, it's the same dispute. Now, you would agree wouldn't you that that practice that you were concerned about has occurred since that dispute was raised?
---Absolutely.

PN1058

Yes. Now, you would also agree wouldn't you that this step is not the last step in the process is it? It's a straightforward question Mr Davis. There are other steps aren't there?---There can be, yes.

PN1059

Yes. So the thing isn't resolved?---That's right.

PN1060

And it remains a concern?---That's right.

PN1061

Then it's open to the union to progress it through the procedure?---That's right.

PN1062

And that's effectively what's happened here isn't it?---That's right.

PN1063

That's right. So you could have at any time since December 2001, if you were concerned about this grievance, progressed it through the structure couldn't you?
---Yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1064

And that's not what happened is it?---Yes. We went through with various discussion with Mr O'Connor which just went on from month to month to roundabout to roundabout.

PN1065

Well, hang on Mr Davis. We're here doing something now aren't we?---After 2001, yes.

PN1066

It's 2005?---Yes, that's right.

PN1067

I see. Now - - -?---That's a long time for management to get round to actually accepting their responsibility and commitment.

PN1068

Well, is that right? I mean, the grievance that we're dealing with now was put in in July 2005 wasn't it?---We had the award then and the workplace agreement - - -

PN1069

Just answer the questions that you're asked Mr Davis. Mr Addison can ask you other questions later. The grievance that we're dealing with today was put in in July 2005 wasn't it, 11 July to be precise?---That's right.

PN1070

And here we are in December, some six months later, and we're in a process of effectively final resolution of your grievance, you would accept that wouldn't you?---Yes.

PN1071

So the whole process from beginning to end can happen as quickly as six months can't it? You would accept that, from July to December?---Yes, as a result of having access to certain information it can, yes.

PN1072

I see, right. But at the end of the day it was always open to the union if it wasn't satisfied with the process to progress things through the process wasn't it? You would accept that? There was nothing to stop the union moving forward was there?---There was. Information.

PN1073

All right. Well, we'll come to that perhaps shall we? So you then in AMWU8 put in an explanation of where you saw this problem happening. That's effectively what this document is isn't it?---No. I think this document actually expresses the areas, the positions that had actually been lost in - - -

PN1074

Indeed. So in other words where GFs you say have been replaced or - sorry, where an assistant manager has been introduced and a GF position has not been replaced. I mean, that's the way it's articulated?---No, not where assistant managers have been introduced. This is just where the SGF positions have been lost. We never accepted the assistant manager, we never understood what the assistant manager's role is in the organisation. It's only now we're starting to
get - - -

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1075

Mr Davis, I understand, and you've said that in your statement. We can, as I say, Mr Addison can ask you questions again, so just confine your answers to the questions that are asked. With the SGF then what this document represents is only the SGF positions that haven't been replaced, so SGF positions that were previously in the structure that you say haven't been filled, that's what that represents isn't it?---That's right. And as agreement in the workplace agreement at the time and - - -

PN1076

Okay, let's come to that. So if we're talking about the workplace agreement, the workplace agreement contains some provisions about the SGF position doesn't it?
---Yes.

PN1077

Yes. And if we come to the 2002 agreement for a moment - have you got a copy of that?---No, I don't.

PN1078

Perhaps if I could just ask that the witness be passed a copy. So the 2002 negotiations happened around the time that this dispute was happening didn't they?---This dispute which - what, about the paint shop dispute or - - -

PN1079

No, this one?---That one there?

PN1080

You put it in in December, this agreement came into place in March?---Yes.

PN1081

So you were negotiating?---That's right.

PN1082

I see. Now, that document there, when did you say exactly that was produced and provided to Mr O'Connor?---Two years ago.

PN1083

Two years ago, so 2003 roughly, yes?---Roughly, yes.

PN1084

Now, you raise your dispute and you negotiate. And when you're negotiating in March 2002, if I could just ask you to turn to - it's a provision we're going to come to again. I'm not sure it's marked in the copy you've got, but you know where that - it's in appendix F on page 92?---The position of senior - - -

PN1085

General foreperson?---I've actually got appendix I here.

PN1086

Now, have you got page 92?---Yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1087

Your Honour, have you got that?

PN1088

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1089

MR SKENE: If I could just ask you to read that?---"To our - - - "

PN1090

Just read it to yourself, and just tell me when you're finished. So you would accept wouldn't you that the grievance that you raise in December is dealt with under that clause, you'd accept that wouldn't you?---No.

PN1091

No. Well, the paragraph 2 there says:

PN1092

In relation to the current supervisor vacancies these will form further discussions.

PN1093

That's contemplated, that there will be further discussions. And then there's a commitment in paragraph one isn't there that says:

PN1094

The position that Toyota agrees that where appropriate the position will be maintained.

PN1095

Where appropriate. And if agreement can't be reached you can go through the disputes procedure. So you would accept wouldn't you that that clause acknowledges that Toyota retains a discretion, you would accept that?---And an obligation, yes.

PN1096

Well, just answer. So you'd accept that there's a discretion though wouldn't you?
---Understanding their obligation at the same time, yes.

PN1097

Well, Mr Davis, we'll talk about their obligations in a sec. Start, you accept that there's a discretion?---On both sides, yes.

PN1098

Okay. So the discretion on Toyota's side is that it can decide whether it's appropriate, and the scope on the union's side is it can progress it through the disputes procedure and we could end up here?---That's right.

PN1099

They're the two discretions aren't they?---That's right.

PN1100

Okay. So you would accept wouldn't you that how disputes like this are to be dealt with in relation to the SGF position is a matter that was dealt with in bargaining in 2002?---Partially.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1101

I didn't say was your position met. I said the issue of how disputes like that were to be dealt with was dealt with in bargaining wasn't it?---It was dealt with in relation to a commitment by the company.

PN1102

Well, the commitment by the company is that where appropriate the position will be maintained?---No. The commitment by the company was also to - through the letters of understanding, to do a joint review of the structure.

PN1103

That's right. So there was going to be an ongoing review of the classifications, supervisor classifications under the life of that agreement wasn't there?---That's right.

PN1104

Yes, okay. Now, since that time you've bargained again haven't you?---Yes.

PN1105

Yes. And during bargaining obviously you have an opportunity to change the position don't you?---Yes.

PN1106

Now, if I could ask you to turn to section 26 of the current certified agreement, the green one, have you got that?---No, but I guess I will very quickly.

PN1107

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What page is it Mr Skene?

PN1108

MR SKENE: It's 33, your Honour.

PN1109

Could you just have a look at clause 26 of the new agreement. Are you familiar with that?---Yes.

PN1110

You don't need to read that, you're okay?---Yes.

PN1111

Yes, all right. Now, again there is a commitment to maintain SGF positions based on business requirements. There's not an absolute commitment, there's again a discretion isn't there?---That's right.

PN1112

And where it's proposed not to maintain one there will be consultation?---Yes.

PN1113

And where there's not agreement you go into the problem resolution process again?---That's right.

PN1114

That's right. Now, here we're not dealing with a dispute about maintaining an SGF position are we?---Not a particular position, no.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1115

No. So here we're really talking about maintaining a GF position, you would accept that wouldn't you?---Yes.

PN1116

And there's no commitment in the agreement about GF positions like that is there?---There is. There's clause K which is all supervisory positions as they become vacant will back filled.

PN1117

Okay. Have you got the agreement?---Yes.

PN1118

Show me where that is?---It's in the 2002.

PN1119

No, I didn't ask you that. Show me where it is in the 2005?---2002, when it's cited in here this one applies. I mentioned that to you in the negotiations, and they said well, we'll make sure it's covered through this one because it was left out intentionally as usual.

PN1120

Okay, it was left out unintentionally?---No, intentionally.

PN1121

Intentionally. So you say that there was an intention to remove clause 3K?
---That's right.

PN1122

All right. Well, we'll come back to 3K shortly. The point is that actually written in the terms of this agreement that clause doesn't exist does it? It's not written in here is it?---No, it's not written in there, no.

PN1123

It's as a result of what you say interaction between the agreements is, is that right?---That's right.

PN1124

Okay. Now, Mr Davis, you've been employed by Toyota since when exactly?
---1995, some 16 years.

PN1125

Sixteen years. And you started as a team member?---I did, yes.

PN1126

And then you progressed through team leader to group leader?---Yes, terrific experience.

PN1127

Excellent. Now, how long have you held the position of group leader?
---Approximately 13 years.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1128

Thirteen years. So most of your time at Toyota?---That's right.

PN1129

Now, you're currently in the body shop aren't you?---Yes.

PN1130

And you're on the production side of the body shop?---Yes.

PN1131

Yes. So there's two sides of the body shop, there's maintenance activities and there's production activities isn't there?---As there is in every shop, yes.

PN1132

Yes. And there is a separate supervisory stream for maintenance and production isn't there?---Not that I'm aware of.

PN1133

Well, that's to say that production supervisors don't supervise maintenance employees do they, they have their own supervisors?---No.

PN1134

You don't accept that?---I don't accept that.

PN1135

So you would say that there's not an arrangement that production supervisors will not supervise maintenance employees?---There's no arrangement that I'm aware of.

PN1136

So there's no requirement that a person to supervise a management employee be trade qualified for example?---A management employee?

PN1137

Sorry, a maintenance employee?---Sorry, could you re-state that?

PN1138

There's not requirement that to be a supervisor of a maintenance employee that you have to have had a trade qualification?---There's no requirement that I'm aware of, no.

PN1139

Okay, nothing you're aware of?---A supervisor is a supervisor.

PN1140

Okay, so you can translate everywhere?---That's right.

PN1141

And you as an employee representative would have no difficulty with a production supervisor taking over maintenance employees, that wouldn't be something that you would oppose?---As long as it was all subject to consultation and agreement by both parties.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1142

Consultation. I just want to understand you. As far as you're aware there is no problem with that practice?---I don't know if it is actually a practice, but as far as I'm aware, no.

PN1143

I see. Now, you're the employees senior rep, if there was a problem with that practice you would expect to know about it wouldn't you?---Yes.

PN1144

Yes?---It's happened the other way but it hasn't happened where supervision had gone into - - -

PN1145

If you don't know, you don't know?---No. My memory fails me at the moment.

PN1146

And as far as you're aware though there is no arrangement or limitation imposed by the union?---That's right.

PN1147

On production supervisors supervising management?---That's right.

PN1148

Maintenance employees?---Maintenance, no.

PN1149

Well, I put it to you that there is such a limitation?---I have yet to see it.

PN1150

I see. Now, your area of responsibility though as a GL is just on the production side isn't it of the body shop?---Yes, pretty much, yes.

PN1151

Now, you can't really report to an acting GF?---Currently, yes.

PN1152

And in the normal course there would be a GF that you report to?---That's right, yes.

PN1153

Now, have you worked in other parts of Toyota other than the body shop?---Other than Dandenong, no. All around the body shop and I have applied for opportunities in assembly, and I've certainly no objections to moving in other areas should they become available.

PN1154

So of your 16 years though how many of them have been spent in doing the body shop work either at Dandenong or Altona?---Well, predominantly all of them.

PN1155

All of them, yes. So that's your principal area of direct knowledge and understanding about what the supervisor in Toyota has done in terms of what you've actually done?---That's right. There is background to that but that's fundamentally it, yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1156

All right, okay. Now, you've never actually held the position of GF yourself have you?---No. I've been offered it a few times but I haven't actually held the position.

PN1157

You've never actually gone into that role and performed those duties have
you?---No. I prefer to give other people the opportunity.

PN1158

That's fine. But we're talking about you and not your motivations. You've never been an assistant manager though have you?---Not to my knowledge, no. But there again I don't know what the assistant manager. As far as - I know SGF - - -

PN1159

Just answer the questions Mr Davis. We don't need to worry about the commentary. Now, let's talk about your capacity as a senior employee representative. You've held that position for some four years?---Yes.

PN1160

Did you previously hold any positions within the union or were you a representative of other areas?---Prior to that I think I was just the employee rep in my shop.

PN1161

Just in your shop. Now, you - I see. And how long did you hold that
position?---It was about a year, possibly two years.

PN1162

So since 1999?---Yes.

PN1163

So since 1999 you've been an employee representative, since 2001 you've been a senior employee representative and you've been performing those duties in addition to your role as a GL?---That's right.

PN1164

Now, part of your role as the senior employee rep though is you still retain your function representing the interests of the body shop don't you?---Interests in all shops.

PN1165

Yes, of course. You have an industrial interest, you represent the industrial interests of employees across the site as the senior person but you retain some responsibility for the body shop in particular as well don't you?---I am paid by Toyota to be a group leader in the body shop, yes.

PN1166

We're talking about your - I'm not talking about what you do as a group leader, I'm talking about what you do as an employee representative. And you have that broader responsibility for everyone as the senior person?---That's right.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1167

But you also have the responsibility as an employee representative of the people in the body shop don't you?---Obviously.

PN1168

Yes. Now, you represent as a result both the production and maintenance sides of the body shop don't you?---Yes.

PN1169

And you would accept wouldn't you that one of the key parts of your employee representative position either as an employee representative and then as a senior employee representative is representing the industrial interests of supervisors, you'd accept that wouldn't you?---Absolutely.

PN1170

Yes. And you would accept that that includes your role in the negotiation of the workplace agreement?---Yes.

PN1171

And dealing with your involvement in disciplinary processes?---Yes.

PN1172

And processing disputes as they come up from time to time through the disputes procedure, you'd accept that wouldn't you?---Yes.

PN1173

Now, you're also familiar aren't you with the industrial instruments that apply to the supervisors that you represent?---Well, I think so, yes.

PN1174

So you're familiar with the classification levels for supervisory positions that appear under the award for example?---Yes.

PN1175

And you're also familiar with the process under the award for progression?---Yes.

PN1176

And you're familiar with the fact that, or you would accept wouldn't you that the front line management position after the SGF has been the section manager under the award, you would accept that wouldn't you?---No.

PN1177

Well, you would accept that the SGF position can operate under the direction of a section manager wouldn't you?---Department manager, section manager as expressed in the award, yes.

PN1178

But typically the practice has been that an SGF might report to a section manager. That's not unusual is it?---Yes. That's on the understanding that the section manager is a section manager, not an assistant manager.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1179

Well, we'll come to that. But historically speaking the structure if you like of positions has been GL, GF, SGF, section manager, that's the normal reporting structure isn't it?---No. The department manager is the normal reporting manager. Section manager has been in long before the assistant manager, put it that way.

PN1180

Yes, that's been there for a very long time hasn't it?---Before my time.

PN1181

Yes. So the section manager has been in the award for a very long time, you would accept that wouldn't you?---And never superseded to my knowledge.

PN1182

No, I didn't ask you whether it had been superseded, I just asked you whether it was in the award. So it's traditionally though that section manager role hasn't been award covered has it?---That's right, it hasn't.

PN1183

So the coverage of the award ends with the SGF doesn't it? That's the highest position under the award?---That's right.

PN1184

Okay. Now, perhaps if I could ask you to have a quick look at the award. We're a bit tight on space this morning, your Honour. Can I just confirm that you've got the right one. I think you do.

PN1185

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I hope so.

PN1186

MR SKENE: I hope so?---1998?

PN1187

Say again?---1998.

PN1188

Yes, it's called 1998, but there are some - yes.

PN1189

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's not the end of it unfortunately.

PN1190

MR SKENE: Yes, unfortunately. Perhaps it should be.

PN1191

If I could just ask you to turn initially to page 124, and we'll just confirm that your page 124 has sort of halfway down the page three supervisory definitions. So if you could just turn to that and tell me when you're there?---Yes, appendix D.

PN1192

Yes, that's right. So under that title Supervisory Definitions you've got level 3 senior general foreperson, level 2 general foreperson, and level 1 group leader. Do you see that as you sort of read down the page? And then you get to the next title which is Application of Classification Structure, do you see that?---I'm still trying to find one. Level 1 group leader, level 2 general foreperson, level 3 senior general foreperson.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1193

Okay?---Page 123?

PN1194

It's 124 in mine. Yes, no, go over the page and you come to a heading Supervisory Definitions, perhaps halfway down that page that you've just turned over?---Level 1 group leader is on the other side.

PN1195

Just go back, just go back a page. Do you see number 3 there?---Supervisory Definitions.

PN1196

Yes, okay, we'll start there. Okay. So you'll see level 3 senior general foreperson, level 2 general foreperson, and level 1 group leader?---Yes.

PN1197

If you just have a quick scan through that. You're familiar with that I assume?
---Yes.

PN1198

Okay. Now, you would accept wouldn't you that that is all of that the award says about the definitions of each of those classifications?---There doesn't seem to be anything else written in there, yes.

PN1199

And you would accept wouldn't you that that doesn't provide a complete account of the actual duties of each of those roles?---The broader context it does, but without the actual itemised bits.

PN1200

You'd accept there's no detail?---Yes. It's quite broad, yes.

PN1201

And in the same way it doesn't articulate the actual job requirements in a fulsome way does it, it's broad again?---It's fairly broad, yes.

PN1202

Yes. Well, I mean, if we just turn back for a minute to - let's just go back to page - perhaps if we come back to page - again I think your numbering might differ from mine, but try 108, page 108. Okay. Which sets out the classifications for the trades employees, and if you step through that, if you go over the page to 109, I mean, there's much more detail there about, for example, what an experienced level 2 person would do on the whole, you'd accept that wouldn't you?---It's certainly a bit more written, so.

PN1203

Yes. If you come over to 114 we're talking there about that level 2 person again, the experienced level 2 person, you come to duties and responsibilities. It actually articulates exactly what it is that the people do. Do you see that on 114 and then over the page to 116?---Yes, I'm still looking for where it says there supervision.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1204

This isn't the general foreperson description, this is a level 2 tradesperson team member?---So you've got nothing relating to the group leader at all?---No. That's my point, it doesn't deal with the group leader. The group leader is dealt with separately, and the only thing that the group leader says is under the first bit we went to. You accept that don't you?---Mm.

PN1205

Now, what the award does deal with though, it sets out what the normal qualification is for entry to those, each of the supervisory classifications, do you see that there?---Yes.

PN1206

And it sets out that they're responsible for supervision in each case doesn't it? So each of those people are described as being responsible for supervision?---Yes.

PN1207

And it says also that in respect of the GF and the SGF it says that they are responsible for performing - well, let's talk about the words in the GF initially, it adds that they're responsible for performing management functions, it says that doesn't it?---Yes.

PN1208

Yes. And then if you get to SGF it says responsible for planning management direction of a major production or trades operation. So there's that additional component above the GL, you would accept that?---That's right.

PN1209

Yes?---Above the GF.

PN1210

Well, for an SGF, yes, right. So there's a component for the GF above the GL and then a component for the SGF above the GF?---That's right.

PN1211

Yes. Now, you would accept wouldn't you that that reference to a management function, performing a management function doesn't mean that the role ceases to be a supervisory employee, wouldn't you?---In addition to supervision, supervisory roles.

PN1212

Yes. So they perform supervision. The fact that they perform some management function as well doesn't mean that they cease to be a supervisor does it?---No.

PN1213

No. They're still a supervisor?---Absolutely.

PN1214

Yes, that's right. Now, you'd also accept wouldn't you that the actual definitions don't really describe how progress between the classifications will be
articulated?---I think it does on the next page.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1215

We'll come to that. What it does say in the definitions though is that a GL to a GF relies on a higher degree of competence. So it doesn't really say very much about what that means does it? It just talks about a higher degree of competence, that's the measure isn't it?---I think there's another component there as well, competency skills application, acquisition.

PN1216

Yes. But in terms of the difference between a GF and a GL the requirement is just that there is a higher level of competence through experience, qualifications and training at a level 1 supervisor. I mean, that's all the award says isn't it, about that?---Well, if that's what it says, that's what it says.

PN1217

Yes. And in relation to progression from a GF to an SGF it doesn't actually say anything. It doesn't even say that does it?---It does on the next page, it's a little more explicit.

PN1218

Yes. Well, we'll come to that. But in terms of what the measure is in the definition, there's not a measure in the definition is there?---I'd have to read through it just to double check. If I take your word for it.

PN1219

Do you want to have a quick look?---What page was that again?

PN1220

124?---Thank you.

PN1221

So just to contrast the two Mr Davis, if you look at the general foreperson, the last sentence on that page, or the sentence that begins "This supervisor," and it says:

PN1222

This supervisor would have achieved a higher level of competence through experience, qualifications and training than a level 1 supervisor.

PN1223

There's a point of distinction there. That doesn't exist between the GF and the SGF does it? That's not in the definition of the SGF is it?---

PN1224

The supervisor of trade or non trade wage employees and responsible for the planning of management and direction of major production and trade operations.

PN1225

I think if you were to look at that lightly and not put the appropriate people into that position there'd be something wrong with you.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1226

Okay. Well, perhaps we'll come to that then. If you go over the page, you've found the heading 5, Progression Between Levels?---Yes.

PN1227

Now, the first part of 5 under there, 5.1 as it was, says progression from level 1 to level 2, so that's GL to GF?---Mm.

PN1228

It says subject to the employee meeting the following criteria, either this competency skills increment point, which I think is what you were talking about earlier, or promotion to a designated position?---Mm.

PN1229

So there's two ways you can get there?---That's right.

PN1230

And then progression from level 2 to level 3 is subject to criteria as well isn't it? It says that it occurs by promotion to a designated position or by upgrading the employee in a presently occupied level 2 position. So they're the two ways it can happen from level 2 to level 3 under the award?---That's right, yes.

PN1231

And if you just keep reading down, the first thing that happens in this case:

PN1232

In the case of upgrading an employee the company must in its opinion have a need for an additional employee to perform consistently and at skill level 3 as defined.

PN1233

Do you see that?---I do.

PN1234

Now, you would accept wouldn't you that that's the starting point for progression under this clause from GF to SGF? The company has to have assessed that it has that need in its opinion, do you accept that?---I accept that.

PN1235

Now, that issue about progression from the different roles has been something that's been quite vexed at Toyota for some time isn't it?---Very contentious, yes.

PN1236

Very contentious. And your documentation demonstrates that that goes back at least until 2001?---That's right.

PN1237

Now, there has been quite a lot of debate between company representatives and techs representatives including yourself about how that issue should be resolved hasn't there?---I don't know about how it should be resolved, no. Lots of round and round but no actual - nothing I could actually hang my hat on or anybody else to try and resolve anything.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1238

I didn't say that it had been resolved, but there has been - the company's had its position and the union's had its position and, as you say, it's gone round and round. But there's been a lot of discussion hasn't there?---A lot of attempted discussion but nothing come out of it, no.

PN1239

Okay. So there's been discussion but no outcome?---No, we've never really even got onto the discussion.

PN1240

Really?---Mm.

PN1241

Okay. So you would accept though there's been debate about the line between the assistant manager and the supervisory classification wouldn't you?---At our request, yes.

PN1242

At your request, yes, at the union's driving. Now, you would also accept wouldn't you, in paragraph 3 of your statement - have you got a copy of your statement there?---No, I don't.

PN1243

It's AMWU5. Now, in paragraph 3 of your statement do you see in the second last sentence all positions before the introduction of the AM were those of SGF. That's not correct is it?---Award covered positions, absolutely.

PN1244

Well, that doesn't say award covered positions, if you're there to add assistant manager positions. And the truth is, isn't it - - - ?---I'm not talking about the assistant manager, I'm talking about the SGF in the award. There's no assistant manager in the award.

PN1245

Yes, there's no assistant manager in the award. But you say here, it gives you the impression that the assistant manager has always been part of the Toyota structure when it's only been around for the past five years and the focus of industrial tension from the first grievance presented to management in 2001, which is the one that you tender?---That's right.

PN1246

Okay. Now, all positions before the introduction of the AM were those of the SGF. Now, the actual fact is that assistant managers occupy positions that previously were performed by section managers don't they, as well as positions that were previously performed by SGFs?---The section manager is higher than the assistant manager. So you don't come down. No one comes down do they?

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1247

Do you accept that provisions that were previously called section manager in the structure are now performed by people with the title assistant manager?---No, I don't accept that, certainly not that I'm aware of.

PN1248

Well, I put it to you that's the case?---Well, I've learned something, thank you.

PN1249

In fact since 2004 the company's position is that it doesn't have section managers any more, it really just has assistant managers, you're aware of that?---No.

PN1250

Okay, that's fine. Now, the next point you make is that the last promotion of a senior GF, the last process for a GF, SGF rather, was in 2002, being Robert O'Neill, who is going to give some evidence in the proceeding shortly, that's right isn't it?---To my knowledge, yes.

PN1251

Now, there was a working party established to clarify various issues including this question of progression from GL to GF, and you were on that working party weren't you?---Yes.

PN1252

Now, the discussions for that working party were held over a number of months in 2004, do you recall that?---Yes.

PN1253

And they started in about March and they continued till sort of July?---When you say discussions, which discussions in particular? Because in that period of time all we were dealing with was the group leader's job description.

PN1254

Yes, that's right. Well, the issue that was on the working party, there were four of them and the issue of progression was the issue of group leader to GF, that was actually what the working party was going to be focusing on wasn't it?---Well, hopefully we were going to get round to it eventually, yes.

PN1255

And you spent quite a lot of time dealing with the group leader, and then I think what Mr Tainsh said yesterday is that come about June you were stuck, that's right isn't it?---We got past all the health and safety issues, everything, we had the document there and then we came to - we came to a head because we wanted to understand, we wanted to work on the SGF side of it, that's what - - -

PN1256

Yes. Now, you started with - you said yesterday that you would assist - that this was done to assist with the starting of the 2005 negotiations, the discussions for the 2005 agreement. Now, in fact this was something that was done under the auspices of the 2002 agreement wasn't it? I think you said a minute ago that when the 2002 agreement was reached it was agreed that these things would be discussed over the life of the agreement, and that's how this working party was established wasn't it?---With respect, this issue's been going on for so long half the time I don't know what year I'm in when it comes to the length of these particular issues, but you may well be right, yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1257

I see. And the area - and I think this is uncontentious, and that's why we're here - the area where this group became stuck was the distinctions between GF, SGF and assistant manager, you'd agree with that wouldn't you?---GF, SGF and assistant manager? The company gave a commitment to provide us with some documentation in relation to what they perceived the assistant manager's functions to be, so we needed to understand those before we could go on with anything else.

PN1258

Yes. Well, with respect, I think that might have - - - ?---Which we never got.

PN1259

I think that might have happened a bit later. If we come back to it, what happened first was that the company presented its vision of the supervisory structure didn't it? And if I could just - - - ?---That came later again.

PN1260

You say that came later again?---Yes.

PN1261

I see. Well, let's talk about the vision, because that happened in June 2004. So if I could ask that the witness be passed a copy of Mr Dimech's statement. Now, Mr Dimech presented this to you on - well, sorry, I'll withdraw that. The techs working party Toyota representatives presented this vision to the employee representatives on the working party on 2 June 2004, and it includes a range of things about how Toyota saw the supervisory structure operating. And I think you make the point in your statement that this wasn't something that Toyota had consulted you on, that's right isn't it?---How it saw? It was just its vision. There was never any how, when, what or anything included in this. We had no idea. All we saw was a document that said this is our vision. So we said well give us more.

PN1262

Well, what you did say though, you said more than just give us more didn't you? You actually provided quite a comprehensive response didn't you?---Yes.

PN1263

Your own vision?---That's right.

PN1264

And then you provided another document that set out some responses to this vision a bit more particularly, so there are two sort of parts of the response aren't there?---That was on the understanding that this one said nothing, so we could only show the company what it was that we were actually referring to in the hope that we might actually give them some understanding as to where we were coming from if the vision was the tool by which to do it.

PN1265

Okay. Well, you accept don't you that one aspect of this vision was the idea of the absorption of the SGF, that's part of it isn't it?---That was their vision, yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1266

Yes, their vision?---Mm.

PN1267

Now, the union then responds, and if I could just ask you to turn to JRD5. Do you see this document - have you got JRD5 there? It's got a handwritten date at the top, 26 June 2004. Now, that was the date that the techs people presented their response. Now, the second dot point there - sorry, it's not a dot point, but the second sentence there articulates that it wasn't raised at the meeting, but what's required in the RWPA, and it refers to letters of understanding, is the clear delineation between the GF, SGF and assistant manager. Do you see that?---Is that the second non dot point?---Yes, the second sentence it is, second under the heading What was Requested?---Yes, it's all right.

PN1268

Now, you then in part of your response, reading down the page, I think that there's a paragraph that commences with the word management, sort of three sentences down, it acknowledges there that:

PN1269

From our reading of the vision the following appears to be evident. Management want to abolish the SGF classification.

PN1270

Do you see that?---Want to replace the current - sorry, management want to abolish the SGF level 6 classification 1 and 2.

PN1271

Okay. And then the next sentence that commences management, says:

PN1272

Management want to replace the current competency based and current progression arrangements with at least a system which ultimately depends on a performance based arrangement.

PN1273

And in relation to those two things if we then go to the bit that's under our response, the second sentence under our response:

PN1274

The issue of compulsory participation in the performance based pay has been rejected by members on Toyota on at least a number of occasions.

PN1275

Now, the case was, the position of the union was that it didn't want compulsory performance based pay for supervisory classifications did it?---As in our workplace agreement.

PN1276

Yes. But in terms of what would happen in the future the union position was, we're not going to - we don't want to have that?---At that time, that's right, yes. Just to mention, this isn't actually my document, this is something that the company has put together, it's not my document, so those words aren't necessarily mine.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1277

I see. That's my I'm asking you. No, I accept that. But I'm asking you whether those words accurately reflect what the union's position was, and that is that the members have rejected it and we don't want it on a compulsory basis?---That's right.

PN1278

Now, the next sentence says:

PN1279

The AMWU cannot agree to reducing the employee's coverage of a WPA and the consequent regulation of conditions of employment for such employees.

PN1280

Now, that is responding to the proposed phasing out of the SGF isn't it?---Any position, yes.

PN1281

Yes, and including SGF?---Including the SGF.

PN1282

Now, the last thing that I think that the union says, and just go over the
page - - -?---You're saying the union says. This is the company document.

PN1283

That's what I'm asking you, I'm asking you whether this reflects the union's position because you were there as the senior employee representative putting this position as recorded?---Sorry, if you can relate to the paragraph I can - - -

PN1284

Yes, I will. Now, if you go to the second sentence, the sentence immediately above the words "We trust," and you say however - we'll read the whole sentence:

PN1285

We would welcome an agreement to simplify the current structure which would meet the future needs of Toyota and ensure an ongoing career structure. To this end we've been considering several alternative ways that might be able to be achieved, however it's difficult for us to progress these without resolving the issues of what distinguishes the roles and responsibilities of the level.

PN1286

So essentially what you wanted was some more clarification around what those roles and responsibilities would be from Toyota?---What we wanted was some consultation.

PN1287

Well, this is consultation isn't it?---Well, it's a kind, but it's just - - -

PN1288

Well, you've met and you've exchanged positions. I mean, surely that's consultation Mr Davis, isn't it?---But you get nothing from it.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1289

I see. Well, you haven't got an outcome but you've had consultation, you accept that distinction?---Well, I suppose it is in the smaller context of the intention behind the agreement, yes.

PN1290

Now, you would accept wouldn't you that in the context of this dispute that we're currently dealing with that Mark Dobson has overall responsibility for the part of the manufacturing operation that contains the paint shop?---That is my understanding from what he said in his statement, yes.

PN1291

And you acknowledge that Mark Dobson has decided to change the management structure in the paint shop?---It would appear so, yes.

PN1292

And under what Mr Dobson has decided to happen in the maintenance arm of the paint shop there is going to be an assistant manager position where previously there has been a GF position?---That's the reason we're here today, yes.

PN1293

Yes. And following some discussions Mr Tainsh lodged a grievance about that issue on 11 July 2005 didn't he?---He did.

PN1294

And you were aware as senior representative I assume when that grievance was issued that Mr Tainsh was going to do that?---Yes.

PN1295

And the union position put by Mr Tainsh in that grievance, as he gave in evidence about yesterday, was that the supervision of GLs should be done by GFs?---That's right.

PN1296

And that's basically the union position isn't it?---That's right.

PN1297

And the union thought - when I say the union, the employee representatives, you and Mr Tainsh both felt that this was an attempt to remove award coverage didn't you?---Yes.

PN1298

And the position put by the union, or put by Mr Tainsh as employee representative, was that if there's management functions to be performed then put an assistant manager in to do them, but the assistant manager shouldn't do supervision of GLs?---Say that again. I'd like to absorb it a little bit more.

PN1299

The position put by Mr Tainsh was that if the company wanted additional management functions to be performed then it could put in an assistant manager, but that assistant manager shouldn't perform the supervisory work performed by GFs?---If that's the position that Mr Tainsh put in, yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1300

Is it your position?---That's right, yes.

PN1301

Yes. And your position is that the GF essentially has to remain in the chain?
---Well, through the commitments in the workplace agreement and the award, yes.

PN1302

And you would say that because this role involves supervision of a GL, regardless of what else it does, because it contains supervision of a GL, regardless of what else it does it must be an SGF position, do you accept that?---Through our award the SGF is able to supervise supervision and perform in managerial functions. So to satisfy the company's need that was the proposal we put forward in the hope that they might accept that and acknowledge that's a reasonable outcome.

PN1303

That's not quite the question that I asked you. The question that I asked you was, that if you have as part of your role, part of this role includes supervision for GL?
---Right.

PN1304

Then regardless of what else they are - it's an SGF classification?---No. A GF can look after supervision depending on the additional expectations you may require from the GF. If you require the more managerial aspect of a GFs function then the SGF is the suitable person for that position.

PN1305

And do you accept though that you can require sufficient management, additional management functions such that it becomes a managerial role despite that an aspect of the role is supervision of a GL?---You mean more of a managerial role than a supervisory role?

PN1306

Yes?---Our SGFs do that.

PN1307

So - - - ?---If there's a requirement by the company and it wants the SGF to perform, which in the award is covered, more managerial type functions, that's fine. From that managerial seat or position that he has he then flows that information down to the GFs to disseminate that information through to the group leaders and to the shop floor, that's the flow.

PN1308

That's the flow. And the point is though that you accept don't you that an assistant manager can perform managerial functions obviously, you're not contesting that?
---I don't accept anything about the assistant manager.

PN1309

You don't accept anything about it?---No.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1310

Okay, you don't accept any of that?---No.

PN1311

You accept that a section manager can exercise supervision of an SGF?---A section manager has done in the past, an SGF, yes.

PN1312

And you accept that a section manager can exercise supervision over a GF?---Yes.

PN1313

And you accept that a section manager can exercise supervision over a GL?---No.

PN1314

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

PN1315

So the moment you've got supervision over a GL then you can no longer be a section manager doing that?---You've got to understand - - -

PN1316

No, just answer the questions Mr Davis. The question is, if you have that responsibility for supervising a GL you can no longer be a section manager? The section manager can't do that, that's what you're saying?---That's right.

PN1317

Regardless of what additional duties that section manager does the moment they have responsibility for supervision of a GL you say a section manager can't do that?---That's what the SGF and GF are there for.

PN1318

I see. So the SGF effectively is an endless classification?---Effectively it can be, yes.

PN1319

It can be, okay?---Given their training and the - - -

PN1320

That's how you interpret it?---That's right.

PN1321

Yes, okay. Now - - - ?---Top of the tree.

PN1322

Top of the tree, I understand. Now, do you accept that within Toyota it's possible for somebody to have the same competencies that we require to perform them to a different level?---Do I accept that within Toyota somebody can have the same competencies but requested to perform them at different level? Well, yes.

PN1323

Yes. So if we just - have you got Mr Dobson's statement there?---No, I don't.

PN1324

Can I just pass him Mr Dobson's statement please?---Thank you.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1325

Can I just ask you to turn to paragraph 18 of Mr Dobson's statement. Do you see there that Mr Dobson says that all employees of TNCA who perform manufacturing work irrespective of their classification or seniority perform certain functional abilities, and they are in relation to occupational health and safety, quality control, productivity, cost control and management, human resources development and people environment and environmental impact. And you accept don't you that that's common from the executive director down to a team member?---I do.

PN1326

Yes. And obviously what an executive director has to do in relation to those things is quite different from what a team member has to do?---Yes.

PN1327

Yes. And you accept don't you that plainly - I withdraw that. You accept don't you that everybody who has those abilities doesn't actually do the same thing on the ground either?---Depending on their function with an organisation, they might deal with it differently, yes, but still performing the same requirements.

PN1328

I see. Now, nothing stops Mr Dobson from deciding that he wants to have a role in an area within his responsibility that has a particular scope?---I disagree.

PN1329

You disagree. I see. Well, Mr Dobson can decide that within the paint shop he needs more managerial capability, can't he, he can decide that?---Absolutely, yes.

PN1330

Yes, he can. And he can then decide that out of a particular level within the paint shop that he needs more management capability or supervisory capability, he can make that assessment can't he?---Yes.

PN1331

And then what he can do with that is decide whether or not he wants a manager or supervisor with the exception of clause 3K as you read it?---Say that again.

PN1332

The only reason you say that Mr Dobson can't decide that he wants to replace this GF position with an assistant manager position, to say that this isn't a position of greater scope, I want an assistant manager there, is 3K of the agreement isn't it?
---No.

PN1333

No, it's not?---No.

PN1334

Okay. So you contest do you that Mr Dobson can look at the levels within his structure and assess, I need this role to do this much management and do this much supervisory? He can do that can't he?---He can look at it, yes, absolutely.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1335

He can, that's right?---That's his job.

PN1336

That's his job?---In line with his responsibilities, yes.

PN1337

Exactly. And if he decides he requires additional functions to be performed he can do that?---That's right.

PN1338

It then becomes a question of classification doesn't it, where that person fits?
---Well, keep going and see where we go.

PN1339

Well, no. Well, I've just asked you the question?---Right.

PN1340

So he decides what the scope of the role is, and then it becomes a question of classification, does it fall under the award or not, doesn't it, that's the way?
---That's part of his responsibility as well, yes.

PN1341

Now, the scope of what Mr Dobson decides has to be performed determines whether it falls within particular classifications or whether it's an assistant manager doesn't it?---It could do, may do.

PN1342

And your argument is that if he decides that part of that role is supervision of a GL regardless of how much of that role is, if part of that role is the supervision of a GL then it can't be an assistant manager under the award, and that's basically your argument isn't it?---Pretty much so, yes.

PN1343

Regardless if the vast majority of the functions of the role were not supervisory, and I accept that's contested. That's hypothetical. Say the supervision element was only 10 per cent, even then it couldn't be an assistant manager could it?---No, the SGF could do that.

PN1344

The SGF would have to do it?---Yes. We have a position within our award that allows the SGF to do that.

PN1345

So there isn't a point in your assessment when a role ceases to have a supervisor and starts being a manager?---Say that again.

PN1346

In your assessment there isn't a point on that scale of supervisory responsibility and management responsibility, there isn't a point where a role stops being supervisory and starts being managerial. If you stop being a supervisor you start being a manager, that point doesn't exist?---No. Realistically not within our structure, no.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1347

No. Now, do you accept that an SGF can essentially do everything that a GF can do?---No.

PN1348

No?---No.

PN1349

So an SGF isn't required to do all the range of duties of a GF?---Isn't required to do the range of duties of a GF, no.

PN1350

So an SGF, there's things within the GF role that an SGF can't do?---I wouldn't say can't do, but he's probably not familiar with or doesn't do as well. That's why you've got the GF there, because he's got the greater relationship with the shop floor that the SGF hasn't got because of his managerial requirements.

PN1351

But you accept that in practice it tends to be one or the other doesn't it? It doesn't tend to be GF reporting to SGF, it tends to be a GL reporting to either a GF or an SGF?---Depending on the logistical set out, how many people he's actually looking after, because that's why we allow the SGF can do this.

PN1352

I appreciate we're having a debate about t his Mr Davis?---As long as he's not looking after a huge operation or something like that. If he's only looking after small operations - - -

PN1353

Mr Davis, you've got to answer the questions that are put to you, okay? All right. So the question that's put to you is whether the usual practice is that a GL reports to either a GF or an SGF, and a GF doesn't report to an SGF?---A GF doesn't report to an SGF.

PN1354

That's not the usual practice is it?---No, that's the usual practice.

PN1355

Usually the GF or an SGF?---No, that is the usual practice, a GF reports to an SGF.

PN1356

So in the structure, in all these GFs we're talking to, all these ones that are giving evidence in this proceeding, they report to SGFs do they?---No. Some of them are SGFs.

PN1357

Yes. Well, there's one that's an SGF. But we're talking about the GFs now. We're talking about the GFs. The GFs that we're talking about that are giving evidence in this proceeding don't report to SGFs do they?---And I don't think a GF is giving evidence in this proceeding. I don't think we have any GFs - just Adrian, yes. Adrian doesn't report to an SGF, no, because there's no SGF on his shift, there's no manager on his shift, there's no nothing. Adrian does it all. The same goes for a lot of the guys on the afternoon shift.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1358

We'll go through the witnesses. Eddie Makara. Eddie Makara is a GF isn't
he?---Yes. Sorry, Eddie, I didn't mean to - - -

PN1359

I hope Eddie's not in the room. Eddie Makara reports to assistant manager doesn't he?---Not that I'm aware of.

PN1360

Okay. And you would accept wouldn't you that Ken Smith reports to an assistant manager?---Is Frank Wardell an assistant manager? I thought he was a section manager. I stand to be corrected. I don't familiarise myself with that part of it too much. I'm more focused on the supervisory structure.

PN1361

Okay. But usually an assessment is made of a role and based on that assessment it's either a GF position or an SGF position depending on what the role is. There's not usually - - - ?---It depends who makes the assessment too. I mean, there's got to be an understanding about the actual function in order to make a correct judgment on what the actual function required is. It seems to be some of the problem we have.

PN1362

Yes. Now, you were senior employee representative - sorry, you weren't. You were an employee representative in December 2000 and you became an employee representative in 2001. When in 2001 was that?---I'm sorry, I couldn't tell you exactly when.

PN1363

Now, you will have to forgive me my pronunciation here Mr Davis, I'll probably get this wrong. Do you recall a general foreperson employed by Toyota called Mr F Uthe, spelt, before you pick me up, it's spelt U-t-h-e?---Fred Uthe, yes.

PN1364

Fred Uthe, you know him?---Yes, I know Fred, yes.

PN1365

And what was his role within Toyota?---His role was a general foreperson, I think on afternoon shift in power training.

PN1366

Okay. Now, are you aware that in December 2000 there was a dispute about section - the coverage, aware coverage of section managers at Mitsubishi that Mr Uthe gave evidence in?---I'm not absolutely aware of that.

PN1367

Okay. So are you aware of the dispute?---No.

PN1368

The union made an application to try and get section managers covered by the award, are you aware of that?---No.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1369

And are you aware that during the context of that dispute was that some supervisors have become section managers, you're not aware of any of this?---I'm aware of that actually eventuating, but I wasn't - the early parts of it I wasn't familiar with. It must have been when I was just sort of teething into the role.

PN1370

Now, are you aware that the union position in that dispute, are you aware of what the union position in that dispute was?

PN1371

MR ADDISON: Your Honour, I object to this line of questioning. I object on the basis of relevance. This is a section 170LW application, and it deals with the application of an agreement of Toyota with regard to these matters. It has nothing to do with Mitsubishi, it has nothing to do with any outcomes of Mitsubishi. I object on the basis of relevance.

PN1372

MR SKENE: Well, whether he knows about what the union position was in another dispute is entirely relevant to what he did in 2001 and 2003 and 2004, 2005 in relation to a dispute that essentially involves the similar facts. So is he aware of what the union put or not? If he doesn't know I won't ask him, and if he knows then it's relevant.

PN1373

MR ADDISON: Well, the whole line of questioning is irrelevant to the resolution of this dispute, your Honour. This dispute, your Honour is asked to deal with the application of this agreement, the Toyota agreement with regard to the structures at Toyota regardless of what the argument at Mitsubishi was. It can't possibly have any relevance to this particular dispute between the parties. So I don't think it adds anything to assess the application of the Toyota agreement. If your Honour pleases.

PN1374

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll allow the question.

PN1375

MR SKENE: Thank you, your Honour.

PN1376

Are you aware of what the position the union took in relation to section managers in that dispute?---I'm not aware of it but I can assume it's the same position we have here at Toyota.

PN1377

Well, the union claims that section managers have, quote, primary supervisor responsibilities for production. Now, you don't disagree with that position?---I do. I agree with it - I disagree with it, sorry.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1378

You disagree with it?---Yes. I don't agree on the system manager position, full stop.

PN1379

All right. We'll move on, your Honour. You gave evidence yesterday about the situation in the body shop, which is your area of responsibility?---Yes.

PN1380

Now, in the body shop it's not typical that GFs report to SGFs is it?---Yes, it is.

PN1381

You say it is?---Yes.

PN1382

I see. I've got the chart here in front of me, I'll just ask you about a couple of them and you can tell me?---Please do.

PN1383

So R Shields?---Ron, yes.

PN1384

Reports to Peter Mulhall?---That's right.

PN1385

Peter Mulhall's not an SGF is he?---No, he's an assistant manager.

PN1386

And D Wiley?---Yes.

PN1387

He doesn't report to an SGF does he?---D Wiley did report to an SGF.

PN1388

Well, he doesn't now. He reports to a department manager according to this?
---Yes, there was a grievance put in about that as well.

PN1389

A grievance as well. So that's obviously in dispute. There should be an SGF in there?---That's right.

PN1390

Okay. But there's not now is there?---No back filling, no nothing.

PN1391

Okay, all right. Now, you accept wouldn't you that Bazal, the general foreperson in the body sub assembly reports also to a department manager directly?---That's right. He was previously an assistant manager, and they made him a group general foreperson.

PN1392

All right. Well, you then say - you accept don't you that Stilianou is a general foreperson?---Stilianou? Eugene Stas?

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1393

No. He's an acting general foreperson, Stilianou?---Steve? Steve Stilianou, yes.

PN1394

Steve Stilianou reports directly to the department manager?---Yes, no SGF there.

PN1395

In fact there's no SGF anywhere there is there?---That's right. That's why we've got grievances in about it.

PN1396

All the general forepeople - I see. So there's a grievance about that too?---Yes.

PN1397

But the current position is - - - ?---A number of grievances, yes.

PN1398

You gave evidence a minute ago that the typical position is that GFs report to SGFs. Now, it might be subject to a dispute, but the typical position is in fact not that is it in the body shop?---No. That's been the typical position.

PN1399

And it's not now is it?---Not now because the company is trying to change the reporting structure outside of the award agreement.

PN1400

And it has been since 2001 when you first raised this hasn't it?---That's when I first became - - -

PN1401

Directly involved?---Directly involved with it, yes.

PN1402

Okay. Now, when you started talking about how things started in the body shop you said you found out if this new structure, whether there was going to be a GF in maintenance and a GF in production, and I think what you said was you thought that was a great initiative because you had two GFs?---That's right.

PN1403

And then Mr Mulhall, who was one of those GFs, one of the two, was promoted to assistant manager wasn't he?---He accepted the position of assistant manager.

PN1404

Yes, he was offered a job and he accepted?---That's his choice, yes.

PN1405

Up to him. Do you recall when that was?---I don't actually, no.

PN1406

Well, it happened in January 2004. You're not saying it didn't happen then are you? That's when he said it happened?---If you say that's when it happened. I don't know. All I know is I put a grievance in not long after.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1407

Okay. So in January 2004 when he was promoted you put a grievance in not long after that?---Yes. I think it was when the structure was made known. It's very hard to get structures out of any management in just about any shop.

PN1408

Now, what you said yesterday was that you raised an informal objection to it at the time, that's right isn't it?---No.

PN1409

It's not right?---My processes, I go and talk to the manager first out of courtesy, and then if we don't have any agreement - - -

PN1410

I'm just asking whether what you said yesterday is right. What you said yesterday is that you raised an informal objection to it. Is that right or not?---That would be my communication with him, yes.

PN1411

Your communication with the manager, I see. Now, you say yesterday that you spoke to Martin Nelson?---That was after I spoke to Eugene, yes.

PN1412

So you had a discussion with Martin Nelson when you become aware of it, and during that discussion he told you about the rationale for the new structure didn't he?---Rationale for the new structure was - Ron has got the - - -

PN1413

I didn't ask you what it was. I'm asking - - - ?---I'm just recalling the actual time.

PN1414

Yes. Well, think about it and then answer the question. So the question is, he told you about the rationale for the new structure didn't he?---Probably, yes.

PN1415

And he told you that assistant managers would have GLs reporting directly to him didn't he - directly to them rather?---No, he didn't tell me that. That's what the structure was saying.

PN1416

Yes, the structure said that, and that's what you were talking to him about?
---That's right.

PN1417

And that's what he's explaining to you, that yes, that's what's going to
happen?---And his rationale behind that.

PN1418

Yes. So that was no surprise to you at that point. You've seen the structure, you've raised the formal objection. You knew from that point on that in that area there was going to be GLs reporting directly to assistant managers didn't you?
---To which I objected, yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1419

To which you objected, okay. Now, at the time you prepared your statement you were aware weren't you that Mr Mulhall was giving evidence in this
proceeding?---At the time I prepared my statement? No, I didn't. I didn't know who was giving evidence.

PN1420

Didn't know who?---No.

PN1421

Well, you know Mr Dobson was giving evidence because you refer to Mr Dobson in your statement?---Well, I assume being the initiator of all of this he would be, but that was just an assumption. I don't know who - - -

PN1422

Mr Davis that's not true. Please have a look at your statement. Have you got your statement there? Just read paragraph two. So at the time you've prepared your statement you'd read the statement of Mr Dobson at least?---That's right.

PN1423

Had you read at all the statement of Mr Mulhall?---I'm not sure when these were available to me, but it was on receiving of this, Mr Dobson's statement, that I was able to put this response together. I retract my first - - -

PN1424

Yes. And you're the senior employee representative that had been dealing with the dispute since 2001?---That's right.

PN1425

In Mr Dobson's statement - have you got a copy of that there still?---Yes.

PN1426

So when you read Mr Dobson's statement he explains there in paragraph - - -

PN1427

MR ADDISON: Thirty-four.

PN1428

MR SKENE: Yes, thank you, in paragraph 34. Everyone's found it except me. In paragraph 34 he explains there that he thought it was appropriate to appoint an assistant manager, not to replace - he decided not to back fill the general foreperson role. The paint plant required management rather than further supervision of maintenance. Now, at that point you must have thought that's exactly what they did in the body shop?---I thought that when that was - when Adrian first raised it about the GF position at paint shop.

PN1429

When it first went in. So at that point when you're preparing your statement you don't say anywhere in your statement that you filed a formal grievance do you?
---About body shop?

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1430

Yes?---Well, if it's not there in my statement, it's not there in my statement. I can't say it is.

PN1431

You didn't attach this document to the statement did you. Have you got AMWU8 there - AMWU7 rather?---No. It's because Maurice spoke about it yesterday and asked me if I could produce the grievance. I said I could, so I brought it with me today.

PN1432

I see. So the document that you're talking about in paragraph 3 of your statement is this document, this first grievance. Now, have you got a copy of - - - ?---No, it's not. The one I'm talking about is the one that was - this one here, the 2001.

PN1433

That's the 2001 one. Okay, so where in your statement do you mention the 2003 one - the 2004 one, sorry? It's dated 9 March 2004, where do you refer to that?
---Do I?

PN1434

I don't think so. I'm just asking you?---No. I said that this was only as a result of being requested to provide it today by Mr Addison yesterday.

PN1435

Okay. Now, the usual course when you file a grievance - have you got a copy of AMWU9 there?---Yes.

PN1436

Because that's your whole process about this isn't it - isn't there?---That's right.

PN1437

And that process involves putting it in and getting a response and assessing a response, and then deciding whether you want to progress doesn't it?---That's right.

PN1438

Now, this document AMWU7 actually was never formally filed under the disputes procedure was it?---No. That was just - that was given to the manager. Whether he formally sort of - this other document, the previous is a new grievance procedure that came out of the 2005 workplace agreement arrangements. Previously we would do things like this or the grievance you have in your hand, we would file our own grievances.

PN1439

So you used that form in August 2005, the one that's marked AMWU6?---I'm not sure about the actual date but yes, that's the newly - - -

PN1440

That's the second one you put in you say, yes. So you didn't ever press for this dispute to be dealt with through the structure did you, through the grievance procedure did you?---Which dispute?

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1441

This one that you say you put in?---The body shop one, no. That was supposedly resolved.

PN1442

Yes. But you didn't - well, Mr Mulhall continued to supervise a GL?---That's right.

PN1443

After this didn't he? He's been supervising a GL since January 2004 hasn't he?
---Yes. Well, let's get the process here.

PN1444

Just answer the question. We will. We're going to go through the process, exactly right. So in January 2004 Mr Mulhall is promoted, in March 2004 you put this in?---Yes.

PN1445

And you say you have a discussion with the manager?---Before I put that in.

PN1446

Before you put it in, but you showed it to him?---No.

PN1447

You put that in, talked to the manager about it?---We had the informal discussion, then as a result of the informal discussion I let the manager know that I'm going to present him with a grievance, then as a result of presenting him with the grievance some - I can't remember the actual length of time after, but then we had some discussion about the actual document, the structure document, so I sat down at his desk with him and there we agreed that the fix to it all would be just to put the general foreperson back into that position there.

PN1448

That never happened Mr Mulhall - Mr Davis, has it?---It's never happened, it's very disappointing.

PN1449

It's very disappointing?---Because that's the agreement we had.

PN1450

You must have been very disappointed?---That's the agreement we had at the discussion.

PN1451

You were very disappointed weren't you?---When I found out that it never happened, that's right.

PN1452

Very disappointed?---That's right, very disgruntled.

PN1453

Yes. And despite that you were very disappointed you've never pressed to have an SGF position put in ahead of Mr Mulhall until - - - ?---An SGF position?

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1454

This SGF position you say was agreed?---Right.

PN1455

You've never pressed to have that put in until 18 August 2005?---There was never an SGF position in that meeting structure previously.

PN1456

Mr Davis, you say that you had a discussion with the manager, you say that the manager agreed to insert an SGF position?---No, I didn't.

PN1457

So you didn't, okay?---No. He didn't - - -

PN1458

I thought you said that was the simple solution?---He didn't agree to put in an SGF position, he agreed to put the GF position back.

PN1459

He agreed to put the GF position back, I see. So to make Mr Mulhall a GF again?---No.

PN1460

Or to insert another GF?---No. Let me take you back.

PN1461

No. I'll just - - - ?---What happens here is that the GF - - -

PN1462

No, please Mr Davis - - - ?--- - - - that was on the project goes back into the structure.

PN1463

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, just let him ask the questions, and you can answer.

PN1464

MR SKENE: You've just got to answer the questions I'm sorry, that's the process?---Sorry, it's been a passion of mine for a number of years now, you'll have to excuse me.

PN1465

Indeed. Well, you never formally progressed this notification through the disputes procedure did you?---No.

PN1466

And you say that there was an agreement to insert a GF after you found out that Mr Mulhall was performing duties as an assistant manager. But you never pressed that dispute through the procedure until you filed this on 18 August 2005, that's right isn't it?---That's pretty much right, yes.

PN1467

So you accept don't you that Mr Mulhall has been supervising a GL to your knowledge since at least March 2004?---That's right.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1468

And until 18 August 2005 you didn't do anything about it to follow up on this?---I did. I tried to at least.

PN1469

You didn't ever formally progress a dispute through the procedure did you?---No. Well, I trusted what my manager said was going to happen.

PN1470

Well, if your manager doesn't do what you say is going to happen then you progress a dispute, that's the process isn't it?---On the understanding that what he said isn't going to happen doesn't happen. But when he says it's going to happen and says well, look, I haven't done the structure yet, you know, and I'm waiting for the structure.

PN1471

You were given a structure, the structure was given to you. That's what you say provoked this?---Which was going to be altered.

PN1472

Now, from June 2004 do you accept that it was evident that the company was saying to you that it wanted to abolish the SGF position?---Phase out, gradually phase out.

PN1473

Yes. And even when you were told that in June 2004 you didn't progress a formal dispute through the procedure about that did you?---We wanted to know how. Please come and talk to us, we want to know how we want to work with you. We want to understand what your issues are so that we can progress with you. But we never got any - - -

PN1474

I see. Now, you accept don't you that there are different management structures, including supervisory structures, in different parts of the business?---Yes.

PN1475

And that, as you said before, I think you acknowledged that in most shops there's a production arm and a maintenance arm?---The structure I'm thinking of is the engineering.

PN1476

I see. But you accept don't you there's a production function which I think you said you had responsibility for and then there's a supervisor and there's a maintenance function as well within the body shop?---There's maintenance supervision and there are body shop production supervisors.

PN1477

Production supervision, yes. And do you accept that the requirements of what a supervisor does in each of those roles is a little bit different? What a supervisor does when they're supervising technical people requires different knowledge and skills from what a supervisor does when they're managing production employees?---Not necessarily, no.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1478

So Mr Tainsh acknowledged that yesterday. You'd disagree with him about that would you?---Well, all I know is I've been rotated around everywhere and as a result of being rotated around I have to learn the requirements of that particular area, be they of a manufacturing kind, of a mechanical kind.

PN1479

Yes. I'm not asking about whether you need to learn the requirements?---I accept you'd need to do that, if you get moved around to a new area you'd need to learn it, that might be right.

PN1480

But the question is, do you accept that there's a difference between the requirements in production and maintenance?---Supervising is supervising, and this is what the company's line has always been.

PN1481

The number of employees that you might supervise would be different though wouldn't it in a production area and a maintenance area?---It might be different. It might be more, it might be less.

PN1482

It might be more, it might be less. So in all these different parts of the business you need to look at them individually and in individual areas they have different requirements, do you accept that?---I think I can accept that, yes.

PN1483

Now, do you accept then that there's differences in who reports to whom? And we've had a brief chat about this, but sometimes a GL will report to an SGF, sometimes a GL will report to a GF, sometimes a GF will report to a manager, sometimes a GF might report to an SGF. There's lots of differences in the way that that can work?---Combinations, yes.

PN1484

And as a result of those differences would you accept that looking at all those different combinations that at SGF level there might be a difference between the amount of supervisory work and the amount of maintenance work, do you accept that, as management work that an SGF might be doing?---Yes.

PN1485

And you'd accept as well potentially that there'd be different amounts of what an assistant manager that is supervisory work than assistant manager would so in supervisory work and the management work that an assistant manager would do depending on the structure?---I don't accept the assistant manager at all.

PN1486

Don't accept anything of that?---No.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1487

You can't even talk about it?---Well, I can talk about it.

PN1488

Well, let's talk about what they do?---All I know is my structure, the award, and the assistant manager is not a part of it.

PN1489

Okay. But in practice on the ground at Toyota in your area there's been an assistant manager supervising GLs since at least March 2004 that you've been aware?---That's right.

PN1490

So can we just talk about that?---Yes.

PN1491

And so at the end of the day you'd accept wouldn't you that if you're looking at that type of reporting relationship the amount of supervisory responsibility and the amount of management responsibility will be different in different areas of the business?---I don't accept that. I never accepted Peter's inclusion in this structure.

PN1492

I'm not asking you about whether you accepted his inclusion. I'm asking you about what he does and comparing that with other areas?---He does SGF work, yes.

PN1493

Okay. Do you accept that - I withdraw that. There can be - and we talked earlier about how the same job can be responsible for a competency in different ways. So you have, people have the same competency and they're responsible for it in different ways. The executive director is different than a team member, you accept that?---Yes.

PN1494

Now, do you also accept that accountability can be different?---That's where you have the different levels for different accountabilities, yes.

PN1495

Yes. So the accountability of your executive director is different from the accountability of the team member?---Yes.

PN1496

The team member's accountability is based on their activities, and the executive director's is based on the business performance of the company one would think, do you accept that?---Yes.

PN1497

And as you move from team member through the structure there's a transition from being responsible for activities to being responsible for the business performance of the company, do you accept that?---Yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1498

That's the nature of the transition from doing the work through to managing the business?---That's the purpose of the structure, yes.

PN1499

And do you accept that within that structure that the way that a person can be held to account can be different?---Within the management structure I'm not too - all I know is that they have the code of ethics and the Toyota way, and we also have the workplace agreement and the Toyota way that we also like to embrace in the supervisory structure, yes.

PN1500

But you'd accept that there are differences in how that all operates. The Toyota way from managers is different from what happens under the award, the agreement structures?---Well, for managers there may be. I can't speak for managers.

PN1501

Okay. So you would accept, given you can't speak for managers, that an assistant manager might be dealt with differently as well?---I have really no idea.

PN1502

No idea. Yes, fair enough, all right. Now, you were asked some questions yesterday about - and I think it's come up this morning - about the interpretation of the workplace agreement, and you were asked in particular about clause 2 of the workplace agreement. So just go to the 2005 agreement for a minute, clause 2. I'll be pretty brief on this, your Honour. If I can just sort of take you through clause 2. The first sentence says that:

PN1503

The agreement will be read and interpreted wholly in conjunction with awards and agreements as varied from time to time as specified below which shall continue to apply the relevant employees but shall not be incorporated into the agreement.

PN1504

So they're read in conjunction, they're not incorporated. And the next sentence is:

PN1505

Existing award, certified agreements, other agreements binding on TMCA continue to apply, however this agreement overrides any such instruments to the extent of any inconsistency.

PN1506

And then it sets out what the awards and agreements are. For present purposes it refers to the 2002 - no, it doesn't?---Right at the bottom.

PN1507

Sorry, I was looking at the wrong document, getting very confused. Okay. Now, the relationship there between what's in the old agreement and the new agreement, in some cases the old agreement sets out one process to deal with something and the new agreement sets out another process to deal with something. You accept that don't you?---Yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1508

And sometimes things in those processes can be different can't they?---Through the agreement, yes.

PN1509

Through the agreement. Now, you would accept wouldn't you that where one process includes certain steps and another process doesn't include those steps, that they're inconsistent?---Certainly an inconsistency if there's a requirement there, yes.

PN1510

An inconsistency. And what clause 2 says isn't it, is that where there's an inconsistency what's in the new agreement prevails?---No. It says whatever is silent in a new agreement, the old agreement does - - -

PN1511

Show me where it says silent in clause 2?---That is my interpretation of clause 2. You show me where it doesn't.

PN1512

Well, you've just accepted haven't you that what that governs is inconsistency. So the issue is not what's silent, the issue is what's inconsistent isn't it?---What inconsistency are we actually talking about?

PN1513

Well, if we talk about - we're talking about an old process and a new process, and where the old process has some steps in it and the new process doesn't have those steps in it, they deal with exactly the same subject matter. Let's just deal with that. So say they deal with exactly the same subject matter, there's a new process. You would accept wouldn't you that if the new process includes different steps then it's inconsistent with the old process, you'd accept that wouldn't you?---If the new process has different steps then presumably it would supersede the old process because it's a new agreement, a better agreement.

PN1514

A new agreement, a new process, yes, that's right. And that was the intention of the parties wasn't it? The intention of the parties was that we'll retain existing things but if we've changed things in this agreement then this agreement is the one that applies. That was the intention of the parties wasn't it?---If we change things in the agreement and this agreement applies. Yes, as long as it's changed, yes.

PN1515

Yes?---Not if it's not there.

PN1516

So you accept don't you that clause 3K in the 2002 agreement doesn't appear in the 2005 agreement?---I accept that, yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1517

And you would accept wouldn't you that clause 23.8 of the Altona, which is on page 36, sets out a process for the selection of permanent supervisors including GFs wouldn't you?---No.

PN1518

You don't accept that that's a process for selection?---Are you looking at page 20 to 26?

PN1519

Yes. I'm looking at page 36, clause 28.3?---It's probably why I don't agree. Thirty-six, yes. Yes.

PN1520

There's a process there isn't there, and 3K isn't in that process is it? The words that are in 3K aren't in there are they?---No.

PN1521

No. But there are a number of steps?---That's right.

PN1522

And the first step is that you need to establish a need isn't it?---That's right.

PN1523

Now, that's no different from what the policy was under the old agreement isn't it?---Fair enough, yes.

PN1524

You accept that. You know, the old agreement, the 2002 agreement in appendix - I think it might be appendix M - yes, page 113, the same process. Do you accept that? Do you want to look at it?---No. I accept it, thank you.

PN1525

All right. Now, you were asked yesterday as well some questions about the intention of clause 31.2.

PN1526

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is in the 2005 agreement?

PN1527

MR SKENE: Yes, 2005, yes. This is the disciplinary process. No doubt you're familiar with it.

PN1528

Now, you said that the reference to manager in that table was intended to be the highest level possible in your evidence yesterday?---That's right.

PN1529

And you said it didn't mean an assistant manager?---That's right.

PN1530

And I asked you a question I think, or you were asked a question about whether assistant managers ever done it, and you said look, I'm not sure, I think there might have been one case. I'm not sure if the person was an assistant manager or an SGF. That person was Frank Baldwin, is that right?---I was incorrect there. It wasn't actually a disciplinary process, it was just a counselling that was.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1531

Just a counselling. It wasn't a final warning?---No.

PN1532

Okay. But you would accept wouldn't you that assistant managers do give final warnings under this process?---Not that I'm aware of.

PN1533

Okay. Are you familiar with a final warning that was issued by someone called - pronunciation is going to be an issue again - Don Adelworough?---I know Don, he's no longer with us.

PN1534

But he was an assistant manager, and in July 2004 he's issued a final warning to an employee who I won't name?---It may have been from a different division, I was probably not involved in that.

PN1535

Someone in the press shop, assistant manager. And it's signed off as well by a supporting person who at the time is an SGF, is Frank Baldwin, so you accept that?---So Frank was there, so that was quite legitimate and proper.

PN1536

MR ADDISON: I think it's appropriate that we have ..... if you're making an assertion.

PN1537

MR SKENE: I think it's appropriate that the employees perhaps not be named though, so if we can operate on that basis.

PN1538

MR ADDISON: That's fair.

PN1539

MR SKENE: So 2004 we've got Don Adelworough doing that. You wouldn't dispute that that happened?---Here's the proof.

PN1540

And then go over the page, you've got another one where you've got Don doing it, his title has changed to production manager but he still was an E4, and you see there he's supported by a GF. Do you accept that?---Production manager supported by GF, very good.

PN1541

Yes, exactly. Well, that's how it's supposed to operate isn't it? You have a manager doing it supported by a GF, that's what the table contemplates doesn't
it?---I'm just not familiar with any of these people.

PN1542

No, I'm not saying that you are. You said yesterday that assistant managers didn't do it?---I wasn't aware.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1543

You weren't aware of it?---That's right.

PN1544

So you can't really contest that there is that practice potentially?---I can contest it shouldn't be a practice because there was never an agreement.

PN1545

I see. Now, you say that - the reason you say that manager - well, you say that manager means highest level possible. There's a distinction though drawn in the table isn't there between manager and senior manager isn't there?---Yes.

PN1546

So in fact I put it to you that the intention is that the most direct level of manager is the person that does this. The whole intention of the process is that the most direct level of supervision is involved. You accept that don't you?---Direct level of supervision is involved?

PN1547

Yes?---Of the SGF?

PN1548

Well, the GF and then the most direct level of management's involved?---Yes.

PN1549

Yes. So if the person reports to an assistant manager and they require a warning, there's an assistant manager in the chain, regardless of whether there's a GF, they require a warning, then that direct level of management is the assistant manager isn't it?---Well, it depends who is accompanied by. But it was never meant to be the assistant manager, it was meant to be the department manager or the section manager.

PN1550

Well, I put it to you that's not the case?---It absolutely was.

PN1551

The intention was, and you agreed to this a minute ago - - - ?---I negotiated this document, I know what the intention was behind it.

PN1552

The intention was that you agreed a minute ago the intention was that the most direct line of supervision and the most direct line of management would do this, that was the intention wasn't it?---Being the department manager, the section manager, the SGF.

PN1553

The only reason you say that is because you don't recognise the assistant manager position at all isn't it?---That's right.

PN1554

Yes. Now, you'll be happy to know I'm getting pretty close to the end?---I'm all right, thanks.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1555

Now, you were involved, when you talked before from Mr Dimech's statement about the presentation of the Toyota vision?---Yes.

PN1556

And you will recall perhaps from evidence yesterday that that vision included the linking of KPIs and the balance score card to assessing reward and recognition, do you recall that?---Yes.

PN1557

Do you have a copy of Mr Dimech's statement there? It might just be easier?---I don't, but I'm fairly familiar with the document. Yes, sorry, I do have a copy.

PN1558

Now, just flicking through Mr Dimech's statement, and perhaps we'll go to JD4, and you flick through that Toyota vision presentation and come to number 4, so it's most of the way through the presentation, headed Reward and Recognition. It sets out under that heading:

PN1559

The company want to regard and recognise individual performance contributions with linkages to KPIs and BSC.

PN1560

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN1561

And as you say, you remember it. So the union's response to that, that we talked about earlier, was to say this has been rejected by the membership on a number of occasions wasn't it?---It's in the workplace agreement, yes, no individual performance appraisals.

PN1562

That's right. Well, that's not quite right. It's true that it's not in the agreement that someone has to compulsorily participate in performance management schemes, do you accept that, the agreement doesn't say that people have to do it?---The agreement doesn't say that people have to do it?

PN1563

Yes?---That's right, it doesn't say that.

PN1564

And the techs group had a different vision for moving forward didn't they?---The only one we knew.

PN1565

But the one under the award?---That's right.

PN1566

Yes. So you didn't want to change this, you wanted to keep things as they
were?---We didn't have anything to work with to understand how we could change it.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1567

Well, that's not completely true is it? I mean, there are KPIs in the agreement aren't there?---Yes.

PN1568

Yes, there are. That might provide a basis to change it mightn't it?---But from this vision document we had nothing to say well, let's do this in order to achieve that.

PN1569

But at a conceptual level you've been asked whether you want to do it, and you've come back and said no, we're not going to do it. It's been rejected on a number of occasions. That was your position wasn't it? It wasn't, we don't know enough about this. You've come back and said no?---No. I think you may be mixing up a couple of issues. One was in relation to the PDR or PMS prior to that, and now you're talking about the balance scorecard, the - - -

PN1570

No, I'm not talking about either of those things. I'm talking about the linkage of KPIs and balance scorecard?---Key performance indicators are balance of - - -

PN1571

To link to performance, to link that to remuneration?---But they're already linked.

PN1572

To the remuneration. You've just said that there is no remuneration - let's go back to the start. You accept don't you Mr Davis that what the company said to you was, we would like to link KPIs and balance scorecard to remuneration of supervisors, that's what the company said wasn't it?---Yes. It's already linked.

PN1573

That's right. And you provided a response that we've already talked about that's attached to Mr Dimech's statement, the union provided it?---Yes.

PN1574

So you say it's already linked?---It's already linked.

PN1575

You say that there's a link that supervisors have at risk performance?---At risk performance.

PN1576

Based on KPIs and BSC?---Yes.

PN1577

Do you say they already have - do you say that they have at risk
remuneration?---At risk, yes.

PN1578

At risk remuneration?---Yes.

PN1579

GFs and SGFs?---Yes, competency skills.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1580

I see. So you want the competency skill frame to that. You don't want BSC and individual KPIs to do that do you?---No. But the balance - - -

PN1581

I'm asking you about individual KPIs and BSC, I'm not talking about
competency?---Yes.

PN1582

The union's position is as set out in the response to JRD5, just have a look at
it?---We would not accept that individual performance appraisals, which is what we believed that that was trying to do.

PN1583

Compulsory participation in performance based pay has been rejected by our members on a number of occasions?---That's right.

PN1584

That was the union position?---Right.

PN1585

Okay. Well, we can move on. Now, you would accept wouldn't you that you wanted this different basis for reward and remuneration which is competency based skills under the agreement?---I just wanted what was already understood in the award.

PN1586

Same system?---Because we knew of - there'd been no discussion about any alternative.

PN1587

I'm just asking you what your position is, I'm not asking you about discussions. Your position was that you wanted no change wasn't it?---Until discussions had commenced or there was some understanding about the need for change, yes. Sorry, I'm frustrating you, I don't mean to.

PN1588

No, you're not frustrating me. I'm just doing my job at this stage?---You're doing it well too, thank you.

PN1589

Praise from a witness. Now, suffice to say this issue of individual performance based pay was a pretty vexed one and when it came up at the start of negotiations for the new agreement the union said we're not going to bargain until you commit that there will not be compulsory participation in BSC, performance based pay?
---Sorry, my memory eludes me there. Can you give me some documentation by which that comes from?

PN1590

No. I'm saying it's not that long ago. I mean, this agreement only came into place this year?---We're not going to bargain - - -

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1591

The union's position was we're not going to bargain until you give us a commitment that there will not be compulsory participation in BSC and performance based pay?---No, I don't recall that.

PN1592

Do you accept that your position was that there would not be bargaining unless the company would commit that there would not be compulsory participation in performance based pay?---No.

PN1593

Do you accept excluding competency?---I don't accept that statement at all.

PN1594

You don't accept that at all, okay. So you accept don't you that Mr Dimech was involved in the negotiations?---Yes. Yes, I do.

PN1595

Now, yesterday you were asked some questions about balance scorecard. You would accept wouldn't you that balance scorecard is currently a voluntary system for GFs and SGFs?---Balance scorecard?

PN1596

Yes?---No.

PN1597

You don't think that's voluntary?---It's not a voluntary system, it's something we all get involved in.

PN1598

Yes. But whether or not it's used as a performance management tool for people is voluntary isn't it?---Balance scorecard, I suppose. But it has a link to our own PDRs.

PN1599

Okay, so PDRs. Now, the union is opposed to people, or was concerned about people being required to participate in PDR as well isn't it?---Yes.

PN1600

You don't want people to be required to participate in PDR?---No. We just want them to know that it's voluntary.

PN1601

That's right. And you want them to be aware of, I think the word used is the dangers in the system?---Because of the assessment process, that's right.

PN1602

So you think there are dangers in the system?---Yes.

PN1603

And you think that - you would accept wouldn't you that the approach of PDR to managers and award covered or agreement covered people is different?---The approach of PDR to managers - - -

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1604

PDR is acquired differently?---Yes. Managers don't do it.

PN1605

Yes. And you would accept wouldn't you that your union's position is to tell employees not to participate in this?---No. Our union position is to advise members that it is voluntary and that they don't have to participate in it and they're not required to participate in it.

PN1606

Have you seen that document before?---Yes, I have.

PN1607

That document is a bulletin from the relevant employee representatives to members of the technical and supervisory division isn't it?---Yes.

PN1608

And your name appears there, Peter Davis?---Yes.

PN1609

And as senior employee representative presumably you were involved in formulating this message?---I would have been, yes.

PN1610

And you would accept wouldn't you that this was sent out in early 2005, sometime between January and March?---The date eludes me, but yes, if that's the date.

PN1611

Now, the title of this is Say no thank to the PDR?---Say no thank you, yes.

PN1612

Say no thank you, don't do it?---Well, it doesn't say don't do it.

PN1613

MR ADDISON: Your Honour, my friend shouldn't mislead the witness. The content of the document speaks for itself. The content of the document does not in any way say no, don't do it. The content of the document is very different to what's just been put. If my friend is going to put documents to the witness he should do so properly and honestly.

PN1614

MR SKENE: I don't press the question, your Honour.

PN1615

The purpose of this document was for you to make a communication about the union's position to members on what they should do with the PDR wasn't it?
---Pretty much, yes.

PN1616

Your Honour, I seek to tender that.

EXHIBIT #EXHIBIT TOYOTA2 TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY DIVISION, SAY NO THANK YOU TO THE PDR

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1617

MR SKENE: Now, you accept don't you that there is a different performance management systems for KPIs for managers and for agreement covered people?
---I don't know about the KPIs but there's certainly a different system.

PN1618

Yes. Now, yesterday you gave some evidence about clause 10.2 of the agreement, specifically clause 10.2.4, and that sets out a table of KPIs doesn't it?---Yes.

PN1619

Now, they're not a basis for performance management are they?---No.

PN1620

They set out some general objectives?---That's right.

PN1621

And GFs and SGFs aren't able to be performance managed based on a failure to achieve those things are they?---Of course they are.

PN1622

They are?---Of course they are.

PN1623

So those things aren't met, GFs and SGFs can be performance managed, is that what you're saying?---Not necessarily. KPIs in general.

PN1624

I'm talking about these ones?---No. These are the - these are for the whole plant and there was still discussion to be held around these because of the ability to actually achieve them.

PN1625

I see. But they're in the agreement?---Yes.

PN1626

They've been agreed?---They've been agreed to, I think it's to re-visit them, I'm not sure what it says, especially the one about straight through ratio.

PN1627

Okay. Now, perhaps we'll come to straight through ratio in a minute. Now, to the extent that your evidence about this yesterday conveyed the impression that this could be a basis for performance management, that's not correct is it?---This?

PN1628

Yes. They can't be a basis for performance management can they?---Not these in this context particularly.

PN1629

MR ADDISON: Your Honour, once again I don't think this witness gave evidence ..... It was Mr Tainsh that gave evidence with regard to that?---Tainsh, yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1630

MR SKENE: Well, you asked him about it.

PN1631

MR ADDISON: I'm sure I didn't. I don't think anything turns on it, but I'm sure he didn't.

PN1632

MR SKENE: Well, in any event he can be questioned about it.

PN1633

Now, in your own document, the one we've just - TOYOTA2, you express the concern there in the first paragraph about what can happen if you participate in a performance management process where you can be held accountable to KPIs. In fact you say here that a person was issued a warning and luckily we were able to have it revoked?---Yes.

PN1634

Because your position is that people shouldn't be warned isn't it?---No, not at all.

PN1635

I see. Now, you accept though that there is a system under the agreement for award to flow from KPIs for employees in manufacturing don't you?---That's right, that's the plant KPIs.

PN1636

So if you go to clause 49 of the agreement, page 75, you'll see there that there's some KPIs for the productivity bonus?---Yes.

PN1637

Now, the KPI for manufacturing, there's two effectively. The first is unmanaged attendance being at three per cent?---Yes.

PN1638

And the second is a straight through ratio and, as you say, that straight through ratio is to be agreed?---That's right.

PN1639

That's right. Now, you're not saying that people can be warned for not achieving the straight through ratio are you?---I'm not saying - sorry, say that again. I'm not saying - it's only what I'm saying - - -

PN1640

People can't be warned for not achieving the straight through ratio can they? The straight through ratio - - - ?---It hasn't been discussed or agreed.

PN1641

But whatever, I'm asking you what your position is. There is a straight through ration?---Yes.

PN1642

If people don't meet it, if the plant doesn't meet it, the people can't be warned for that can they?---Then they don't get the bonus.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1643

They don't get the bonus, that's the consequence?---That's attached to the bonus.

PN1644

Yes, they don't get their money?---Right.

PN1645

But they can't be warned can they?---I wouldn't have thought so, no.

PN1646

Now, the consequences of a poor review of an assistant manager is different from that isn't it?---I'm not familiar with that, that's there.

PN1647

Well, you're aware aren't you that assistant managers can be - their remuneration can be affected by a poor review against their KPIs under balance scorecard, you accept that don't you?---Only as a result of what I've read in the statements.

PN1648

I see. So you said yesterday you wouldn't - well, your evidence yesterday is not that an assistant manager can't be performance managed for doing that. You just don't know either way do you?---I'm really not too interested in the assistant manager, what he does, what he doesn't do. I'm interested in the SGF.

PN1649

Yes, right. Now, you accept that the consequences of a poor review for an assistant manager are different from an SGF, you are interested in don't you?---I don't know about the assistant manager, only from the statements, they can be performance managed.

PN1650

That's different from an SGF isn't it? Accepting what's in the statements that you don't know about, if you accept that?---Well, an SGF can be performance managed as well.

PN1651

For failure to achieve KPIs?---Yes.

PN1652

Individual KPIs?---That's right.

PN1653

Individual KPIs?---I don't know about individual KPIs.

PN1654

If they participate?---Department KPIs.

PN1655

I see. So you say do you that an SGF that doesn't meet performance management targets of the department can be individually performance managed for that?
---Individually performance managed.

PN1656

They can get a warning for that?---That's right, he can get a - that's right.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1657

And Mr Addison ran you through the process, warning, second warning, final warning?---That's right.

PN1658

You accept that?---That's right.

PN1659

And your union wouldn't be concerned about that?---Well, we would be concerned, absolutely.

PN1660

But if the warning was fair - - - ?---If the warning was fair.

PN1661

The manager didn't achieve the - sorry, the SGF didn't achieve, didn't achieve the requirement, the department didn't achieve the requirement, then you wouldn't be concerned about an SGF being held accountable for that on a personal basis, is that your position?---Case by case. I'd have to see the - - -

PN1662

Well, no. It's fairly straightforward Mr Davis. It's not case by case. I'm asking you whether it's possible?---Ultimately he can be sacked. Ultimately he can be sacked.

PN1663

So you say that it is fine to hold - - - ?---I'm not saying it's fine.

PN1664

It's fine to hold an under performing SGF - - - ?---Accountable.

PN1665

Accountable for that, you say that?---Yes.

PN1666

That's your position?---That's right.

PN1667

I see. So if Toyota were to adopt that practice tomorrow - - - ?---It's there now.

PN1668

It's there now as far as you're concerned?---It's been there - - -

PN1669

This is nothing new?---That's absolutely right.

PN1670

There's been this ongoing debate about participation in this?---Yes.

PN1671

Individual KPIs are out, but if an SGF doesn't meet their department's KPIs, their KPIs aren't met then the SGF can be warned for that?---That's right.

PN1672

Well, I put it to you that's not the case and that's not your union's position Mr Davis?---Well, I can assure you it is. If someone is not performing then they have every right to be held accountable.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1673

Yes. But that's not what I'm asking you?---Every level.

PN1674

Say an SGF is an outstanding performer?---Right.

PN1675

Outstanding, a gun?---Then you wouldn't be giving him a formal counselling or anything else.

PN1676

Well, no. But you see, you would accept wouldn't you that even if he's a gun and his department KPIs aren't met then he can be warned for that?---Yes.

PN1677

You can be performing an outstanding aspect in every element of your role?
---Yes.

PN1678

But if the department is not getting there the SGF can be warned?---Well, if he's the reason why.

PN1679

No, he's not the reason, he's doing a great job. He's performing every aspect of his function?---Well, don't you think that's being totally unreasonable then?

PN1680

No, I don't. That's the difference between responsibility and accountability Mr Davis?---So if you've got a manger that's doing a great job, if the department's still not achieving - - -

PN1681

He doesn't get a bonus?---- - - even though it's not his fault you're still going
to - - -

PN1682

He doesn't get a bonus, he doesn't get it?---Well, I don't know. Well, if that's the way it works.

PN1683

Yes. And what's more he might be performance managed for it, because his objective is for the department to reach the department Mr Davis?---Do you think that's a fair thing to do?

PN1684

That's the nature of accountability. I'm not asking - I don't know whether it's fair or not?---So even if he's achieving all of his KPIs, he's worked within the guidelines that have been given to him, and you still want to give him a warning or sack him?

PN1685

Mr Davis, I'm asking you the question. You said to me that you can hold an
SGF - - - ?---You can.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1686

- - - to account for failing to reach the department objectives. Now, I'm saying to you that it's different for managers and for SGFs, and I'm saying to you - - - ?---It sounds like it, yes.

PN1687

It is. Now, for an SGF you accept don't you that for an SGF who is performing every aspect of their role well, they cannot be warned if the department doesn't reach it's KPIs, if it's not their fault they can't be warned?---Well, like I say, case by case, but if you're going to give them a warning something's his fault.

PN1688

No. Mr Davis, an assistant manager who is performing every aspect of their role, they're supervising well, but the department is not. The department is not. Maybe there's not good people there, who knows? The department is not performing, you're not getting it. The assistant manager might be doing a great job trying to get there but it's not there. That assistant manager can be held to account for that by a performance management?---Can he?

PN1689

Now, it's different for an SGF isn't it? An SGF can't be held to account in that way?---Of course he can.

PN1690

He can you say?---He can, absolutely.

PN1691

And you're not concerned about that?---I am concerned about it. Like I say, case by case. Show me the issue and we'll resolve it.

PN1692

I'm asking you whether or not you consider that an SGF who is doing a great job, a great job, can be given a warning if their department can't, do you accept that can happen?---I accept that it can happen. I can't accept that it would happen if he's doing a great job. But I accept that it can happen.

PN1693

So you're saying it can't happen?---Well, it can happen but it's got to be his fault, part of it's got to be his fault otherwise why would you be giving - - -

PN1694

Nothing is his fault, that's the difference?---Well, don't you think that's an unrealistic approach by the management?

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1695

No, I'm not. I'm asking you whether or not you accept that that's a difference. The nature of managerial responsibility Mr Davis, is that you're responsible and accountable regardless of whether it's outside your control or not. Do you accept that?---But how can you be if it's something that's outside of your control? I mean, if it's outside of your control you wouldn't be given it as a KPI or part of a balance scorecard or your personal performance review, or whatever.

PN1696

Mr Davis, do you accept that - - - ?---Sorry, I may be missing the point.

PN1697

It seems you are?---Sorry.

PN1698

It seems you are. The point is that an assistant manager is held to account not just for what they do but for the outcome that they generate?---Yes.

PN1699

Now, even if they are doing a great job in everything they're required to do, if it doesn't generate the outcome, if the department doesn't get there, if the business requirements aren't met then that person is not doing a good enough job. Now, do you accept that's the same for an SGF?---Well, that's his role and responsibility within that so it could be that he is not doing a good enough job, yes.

PN1700

Now, in your evidence in your statement you go through Mr Dobson's statement. Now, you accept I think that you haven't worked in either the GF or the assistant manager roles, I think you accepted that at the outset?---Not officially, no.

PN1701

And you make a whole lot of comments about an attachment to Mr Dobson's statement where he makes a comparison of what he says - - - ?---That's right.

PN1702

- - - in relation to some core responsibilities?---That's right.

PN1703

And I think essentially you say that he's got things in the wrong columns?---That's right.

PN1704

And you've never had a direct experience of working as a GF in that structure have you?---My role as a senior employee representative means I deal with all levels, so it's not made on my own, my own doings.

PN1705

I see. So this is what you see around the plant based on your participation as a delegate?---No. It's made as a result of the comments and remarks I get from the GFs, SGFs around the plant.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1706

I see. So this is based on the GF, SGF perspective?---That's right, from them.

PN1707

You've never had GFs or SGFs reporting to you have you?---Not in that structure capacity, no.

PN1708

And you can't really comment on the expectations that management has, that the manager of an assistant manager has of them can you, you can't really comment on that?---I can.

PN1709

You can comment on that?---Yes.

PN1710

I see. So you know what happens between an assistant manager and their manager do you?---I don't know what happens about an assistant manager, but I know what happens between an SGF and his manager.

PN1711

Okay. But you hear one side of that equation?---I could only hear one side of that equation.

PN1712

The manager is not coming to you and explaining to you about the SGFs and what they expect from them are they?---It has happened in the past.

PN1713

Happened in the past. But typically the basis for your assessment here is based on what you hear from GFs and SGFs?---It's from other SGFs and GFs, yes.

PN1714

Now, you can't really assess what the assistant manager's manager thinks can you?---No.

PN1715

No. Completely outside your - - - ?---I'm not Houdini, I'm only - - -

PN1716

No. You're not familiar are you with the competency framework under which Toyota assesses its managers and how it decides which manager is at which level, not aware of that?---I'm only fairly familiar with the AQF, Australian qualification framework.

PN1717

Yes. No further questions, your Honour.

PN1718

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How long will you be Mr Addison?

PN1719

MR ADDISON: More than quarter to one I think, your Honour.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XXN MR SKENE
PN1720

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. We're going to have to rise at 3.30 today. I was intending to shorten the luncheon adjournment to an hour.

PN1721

MR ADDISON: That seems reasonable to me, your Honour.

PN1722

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will resume at 1.30.

PN1723

MR ADDISON: If your Honour pleases.

PN1724

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before I do so though I should actually indicate, because it may affect future questioning. There's been some questioning about the use of the term accountable and responsible. My look at the dictionary suggests they both mean the same thing.

PN1725

MR ADDISON: Do you have to tell them that, your Honour?

PN1726

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I'm concerned that there's potential for confusion all round. I'll adjourn till 1.30.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.33PM]
<RESUMED [1.29PM]

PN1727

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Addison?

PN1728

MR ADDISON: Thanks, your Honour.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ADDISON

PN1729

MR ADDISON: Peter, you were asked some questions by Mr Skene at the start of his cross-examination with regards to appendix F3.1 and 2 of the 2002 agreement.

PN1730

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What page is it Mr Addison?

PN1731

MR ADDISON: Appendix F starts at page 86 I believe.

PN1732

The questioning then proceeded much nearer to the cross-examination. Mr Skene came back to that point in a different way. Mr Skene came back to that question in a different way, much nearer in the cross-examination, and referred you to clause 28.3 of the 2005 agreement. Can you just turn to 28.3, which is the flow chart, it's on page 36 of the green agreement. Have you got it?---Yes.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS RXN MR ADDISON
PN1733

Mr Skene I think has put the proposition to you that 28.3 in the green agreement somehow overrode appendix F in the blue agreement. Can I ask you to turn to page 112 in the blue agreement. There are two headings at page 112 and 113 in the blue agreement, and they are processes which are for the selection of acting team leaders on page 112, and the process of selecting permanent group leaders, general forepersons and senior general forepersons positions on page 113. Is 28.3 in the green agreement the same as page 113 in the blue agreement?---Yes, permanent, selection of permanent.

PN1734

Are they the same or substantially the same?---Page 36 in the 2005, 113 in the 2002 effectively the same, yes.

PN1735

Well, indeed, 28.3 deals with the subject matter of the 2002 agreement at appendix M rather than appendix F, that's correct isn't it?---Yes. Appendix M is the permanent and appendix L is the acting. Sorry, my - - -

PN1736

No, that's fine, I'm more than happy with that?---I might have thought he was talking about appendix F.

PN1737

I'm more than happy with that Peter, more than happy with it. Now, Mr Skene put another proposition to you, and the proposition that Mr Skene put to you was with regard to Mr Dobson's decision to change the organisational structure and the responsibility levels within the paint shop, and I think, and if I can just quote - and I'm sure he'll jump on his feet - but as I recall what he put to you, as my notes record, he put to you that nothing stops Mr Dobson from deciding what he wants in a particular place or in a particular work area, and once Mr Dobson had decided that it then became a classification question. You wanted to take issue with that, Mr Skene cut you off. Do you want to say what your issue was with regard to that proposition?---Yes. Well, Mr Skene referred to the responsibilities on page 5 of Mr Dobson's statement.

PN1738

Paragraph 18?---Paragraph 18, it says here his responsibilities, human resources development or people management, obviously those things would be a consideration given that Mr Dobson's level to understand the ramifications or implications of any decision he might make at that level.

PN1739

Sorry, can you just repeat that for me. Sorry, I missed that?---Mr Dobson has a responsibility which he's referred to at point 18 of his statement, stating that he at his level and all other levels have the responsibility in certain areas, human resources, development of people, management, et cetera. That level applies at every level and even at Mr Dobson's level he has to factor in the relationship with the shop floor, the relationship with the award, the relationship with the workplace agreement, that sort of thing, before he can actually say well, I'm going to do this.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS RXN MR ADDISON
PN1740

Okay. So I think what you're saying is that you need to take into account awards, agreements, et cetera?---Absolutely.

PN1741

Now, similarly you had a debate, I think you accurately describe as a debate with Mr Skene with regard to AMWU6 and AMWU7, which are the two exhibits, one that was presented yesterday and one this morning. I think you have AMWU7 there which is the grievance form that was tendered this morning. Do you have that one?---That's the 2000 one?

PN1742

No, the later one, the one that - - - ?---March 3, 2004?

PN1743

That's it. AMWU7 is the earlier one. Have you got 6 or 7 there Pat?---That one.

PN1744

That's 7, okay. And then AMWU6 was the document that was tendered yesterday afternoon?---Yes.

PN1745

With regard to the dispute in the body shop. I think you were trying to explain the series of events surrounding AMWU6 and 7, you were trying to explain how it all came about. Could you just go through that so it's clear for all of us, what the series of events were?---The series of events were that we had two general foremen in the shop, which I thought was terrific, and then I commented to the management about that, how it was effectively the way forward for Toyota, it was a great initiative. And then after a period of time Peter Mulhall became an assistant manager or was offered the assistant manager position which, if that's what he wanted to do that was his choice, and was happy for Peter in that respect. Then the structure indicated that Ron had actually been moved into the Kaizen role and the supervision of maintenance were effectively reporting to Peter Mulhall in his assistant manager capacity. So I spoke to Eugene, who was the manager at the time and - - -

PN1746

The department manager, the section manager?---The section manager.

PN1747

The section manager, yes?---The section manager at the time. And I said I wasn't happy with this, this is not within our awards and agreements, you cannot have group leaders reporting to assistant manager. He then said that he never actually wrote up the structure, but he did give me some reasoning behind it. So I then went to the senior manager Martin Nelson and expressed my concern.

PN1748

Okay, senior management. What level was Nelson?---He's the senior manager of the body shop.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS RXN MR ADDISON
PN1749

So he's the department manager is he?---No. He's the senior manager of the body shop.

PN1750

Now I'm getting confused. What does senior manager mean?---You've got to understand the Eugene is the manager for maintenance.

PN1751

Yes, he's the section manager?---He's the section manager for maintenance. Now, the department manager for the body shop looks after the production side of things, whereas the section manager for maintenance looks after the maintenance side of things, and the senior manager overlooks the whole - - -

PN1752

So Nelson is higher than the department manager?---That's right, yes.

PN1753

Okay. Yes, okay, fair enough. So you went and saw Nelson?---I went and saw Mr Nelson, Martin Nelson, and I said, Martin, this is a breach of the award, it's in breach of the agreement. And he gave me his reasoning for doing it, which I said, well, that's great, the Kaizen thing is a good move, but we cannot have group leaders reporting to assistant managers. We have no assistant manager in our structure, in our award, group leaders report to GFs. And he said well that was the way it was going to be anyway. So now I put the grievance, told him I was going to be putting in a grievance. Now, the grievance actually happened after Eugene Stas.

PN1754

So AMWU7, which is dated what date, sorry? I haven't got it in front of
me?---9.3.2004 to Eugene Stas.

PN1755

So as I understand what you've said, the events happened, you spoke to Mr Stas, you then put the grievance in, you then went and spoke to Mr Nelson?---The senior manager, yes.

PN1756

You told Mr Nelson it was in breach in the awards and the agreements?---That's right.

PN1757

Mr Nelson said what?---Mr Nelson said that - this was after some time that we actually got to meet, because they're flying around and to-ing and fro-ing all over the place. He said that - he gave me the reasoning behind it. And I said well, we do not have supervisors, group leaders reporting to assistant managers, the same thing as I said to Mr Stas, there's nowhere in our agreement in our award that a supervisor reports to assistant manager. Reports to an SGF or a GF. And after some debate he said well, the easy fix to this is if we just put Ron, that is the GF, back over here, that is the middle of the flow structure, and that would fix it. I said yes, that would be great. And my understanding was that when we left that conversation that that is what was going to happen. But understanding how long it takes to get structures of any kind I understood that there was obviously going to be some time before the structure got altered. Why I don't know. But then it just never got altered.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS RXN MR ADDISON
PN1758

Okay. Then AMWU6, I think that's dated 2005 isn't it?---18.8.2005.

PN1759

So you lodged that then did you, in 2005?---Well, when it became apparent from the paint shop proposal or proposition that Mark Dobson was trying to put forward there was no way that the structure was going to be changed in the body shop, so I then lodged this grievance.

PN1760

So is it your evidence that you raised the matter when the events occurred, you had discussions, you were given an understanding that it would be resolved satisfactorily?---That's right.

PN1761

And then when it became apparent that it wasn't going to be resolved satisfactorily you put in a second grievance?---That's right.

PN1762

Now, it was put to you by Mr Skene that the circumstances in the body shop where Mr Shields was reporting to Mr Mulhall, and that's the matter we've just been talking about, that that circumstance is also repeated in another place, which I didn't get down, but with a person by the name of Bazal?---Jamal Bazal.

PN1763

Jamal Bazal. Which department does he work in?---He's in body shop also.

PN1764

So that's the same shop, okay. Now, Mr Skene said to you that Mr Bazal is reporting directly to a department manager?---That's right.

PN1765

Have you done anything about that?---Yes. I actually lodged two grievances in relation to this. One in relation to the fact that the GFs are doing the work of the SGF, and one was in relation to the failure to back fill the SGF position and then move the SGF over to press shop.

PN1766

Okay. So there's an active grievance in place there?---Two grievances, that's right.

PN1767

Are the still active?---Still active.

PN1768

Do you know when they were lodged?---Pardon?

PN1769

Do you know when they were lodged? A ball park will do. Was it this year or last year?---Last year. It was when Frank was - the SGF was moved across to press shop.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS RXN MR ADDISON
PN1770

Okay, fine. Now, Mr Skene put a third proposition to you, which I'll probably muck this pronunciation up, but Mr Stilianou, is that right, Steve Stilianou?
---Steve Stilianou, yes.

PN1771

And Mr Skene put it to you that Mr Stilianou is also reporting to the department manager?---No. Steve is reporting to Jamal Bazal.

PN1772

So Mr Stilianou reports to Mr Bazal?---That's right.

PN1773

Who then reports to the department manager?---As does the other acting general foreperson.

PN1774

Okay. And is he catered for, Mr Stilianou, is he catered for in the grievance you've just described as well?---No.

PN1775

What do you mean no?---The acting capacity.

PN1776

He's in an acting capacity is he?---An acting capacity.

PN1777

So he's reporting to Bazal who is a GF?---He's a GF.

PN1778

A permanent GF?---A permanent GF performing the work of an SGF.

PN1779

Okay. So is it your evidence that Mr Stilianou is not reporting to a department manager?---That's right.

PN1780

Yes, thank you. Okay, I understand that now, thank you. Now, I've just got a couple of other quick matters. Mr Skene and yourself had a pretty vigorous discussion with regard to KPIs and performance and all of that, do you recall that? Can I show you a document. Can you identify that document?---Yes. It's in all the toilets at Toyota.

PN1781

Not where it was. Can you tell me what it is?---Yes. It's the manufacturing goals for the organisation.

PN1782

And as I understand it this is Mr Dobson's document, is that correct?---I believe so, yes.

PN1783

And these are the overall KPI requirements for manufacturing number 2?---That's right.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS RXN MR ADDISON
PN1784

And manufacturing number 2 is the overall umbrella organisation I guess which covers body shop, paint - no. I'm being told that's wrong. But it covers the paint shop, correct?---It covers the area of responsibility of Mr Dobson I believe.

PN1785

Okay. Which includes paint does it?---Yes.

PN1786

Can I tender that document, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #AMWU10 MANUFACTURING NUMBER 2 GOALS

PN1787

MR ADDISON: Thanks, your Honour.

PN1788

Now, after these productivity targets, or KPIs I think they're described in Toyota, as KPIs, after they're developed and disseminated what happens, how are they achieved?

PN1789

MR SKENE: Your Honour, I object to this.

PN1790

MR ADDISON: Okay, I'll withdraw. Leave AMWU10 then and I'll deal with it where I intended to deal with it in the first instance, so I'll come back to that at a later point.

PN1791

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I thought you were going to hip and shoulder Mr Skene.

PN1792

MR ADDISON: Just put AMWU10 aside Peter. You have KPIs do you
not?---Yes.

PN1793

And everybody has KPIs don't they?---That's right.

PN1794

And the KPIs are cascaded down from on high, is that correct?---That's correct.

PN1795

The president has a view or a goal or a target which is then cascaded down to senior management, who then express a view, which is AMWU10, and then it cascades down into the supervisory levels?---That's right.

PN1796

And then it cascades down to the team leaders, that's correct isn't it?---That's right.

PN1797

And every single person has KPIs?---That's right.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS RXN MR ADDISON
PN1798

Now, Mr Skene put a proposition to you and the proposition was this; if you were a manager, an acting manager, indeed was I think the term he used, if you were an acting manager and you were brilliant, you were a gun, you were absolutely wonderful, but your team for some reason wasn’t performing, then you could be punished. I think you said that you thought that couldn’t be right?

PN1799

MR SKENE: I object, that wasn’t - - -

PN1800

MR ADDISON: That is exactly what you put.

PN1801

MR SKENE: I didn’t say punished.

PN1802

MR ADDISON: My apologies, my apologies. You could have your pay affected, happy with that?

PN1803

You could have your pay affected if your team was not performing. I think your response to that was that wouldn’t be fair, I think is what you said?---I think he was talking about termination, wasn’t he? But yes, yes.

PN1804

Now, in terms of your KPIs, you also said to Mr Skene you can’t have a KPI and you can’t have it held against you if you can’t control that KPI. Is that correct?
---That’s pretty much it, yes. You can’t. You can’t manage something outside of your control.

PN1805

Okay. Now, you’re a group leader?---That’s right.

PN1806

And you have KPIs?---I do.

PN1807

If your group is not performing, how do you bring your KPIs up? How do you get the group to perform?---Through my - through my SGF or my GF, they’d be approached to say that, look, we’re struggling in certain areas, we need to sit down and establish how we’re going to improve in these certain areas. So then we might put together some plan, strategy or whatever, to enable us to achieve those KPIs and then what we’d do is we’d put the plan in place, monitor it, if it’s working, all well and good, if not, then we keep going until we ultimately get there.

PN1808

And at the end of the year, if your group hasn’t performed, does somebody come in and say, “Peter, your group hasn’t performed” and so they ask you why?---Yes, I’m accountable to my GFs.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS RXN MR ADDISON
PN1809

Yes. So your GF comes and says to you, “Why is the group not performing”?
---That’s right.

PN1810

Are you then given an opportunity to explain why you haven’t reached your level?

PN1811

MR SKENE: Your Honour, this isn’t an opportunity for Mr Addison to adduce further evidence-in-chief from Mr Davis. If they’re particular things that have been asked, and a good example is the question he asked earlier where I said he could explain and he had an opportunity to explain, he had a full answer. That’s what re-examination is about. This is traversing completely new territory. He doesn’t have an opportunity to lead evidence-in-chief now in relation to the matters that were raised in cross-examination. If he does that, we’ll be here all day, you’ll have to ask questions about these things.

PN1812

This isn’t stuff he said in evidence-in-chief. He was questioned on some of this stuff in cross-examination. If there’s particular things that require clarification, Mr Addison can ask a properly-faced question, but we’re really exceeding the normal boundaries here. I don’t want to keep objecting because obviously it’s in everyone’s interests that we get through this and I think I’ve given a fair bit of latitude, but if we go on like this, we’ll be going around and around in circles forever.

PN1813

MR ADDISON: Your Honour, I’m entitled to clarify matters that were raised in cross-examination and that’s all I’m attempting to do.

PN1814

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I’ll allow it.

PN1815

MR ADDISON: Are you given an opportunity to explain why your group didn’t meet the standard, the KPI?---Absolutely, and this is the beauty of the GF’s role, position, is because we’re in daily contact so he knows what I’m doing on a day to day basis and where I’m failing, where we’re achieving, so it happens on a day to day basis almost. So we don’t wait until the end of the year before we establish that things are going wrong. We pick them up on the day to day basis and we Genchi Genbutsu or Nemawashi or Kaizen, do whatever we have to do, to turn our KPI around to achieve.

PN1816

I’m not sure whether you were swearing at me or not?---Sorry, I though they might understand the Japanese terminology.

**** PETER JOHN DAVIS RXN MR ADDISON
PN1817

Okay. Now, given the fact that that occurs at your level?---That’s right.

PN1818

To your knowledge, does that happen throughout the rest of the system?
---Absolutely, yes. That is the way it works.

PN1819

So if people do not meet their KPIs, they get an opportunity to explain?
---Absolutely.

PN1820

Yes. I have nothing further, your Honour, thank you. Thanks, Peter.

PN1821

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You’re excused, Mr Davis?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [1.54PM]

PN1822

MR ADDISON: Your Honour, my next witness is Mr Kors.

<JOHN ANTHONY KORS, SWORN [1.56PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ADDISON

PN1823

MR ADDISON: John, can I ask you to repeat your full name and address just for the transcript purposes, please?---John Anthony Kors of (address supplied).

PN1824

John, have you prepared two witness statements with regard to this matter?---Yes, I have.

PN1825

Have you got a copy of them there?---No, I don’t.

PN1826

No? I’ll hand you a copy. John, can I ask you to just look at those two statements. The first is a statement which is dated 17 October and has 27 paragraphs, is that correct?---27 paragraphs, 17, yes.

PN1827

The second is a statement which has 12 paragraphs and is dated 24 November?
---Correct.

PN1828

Can I just ask you to have a quick look at those and I’ll ask you if you want to make any changes to any of the contents of those?---No, they’re fine.

PN1829

They’re fine?---Mm.

PN1830

Can I ask you, to the best of your knowledge, are the contents of both of those statements true and correct?---Yes, they are.

PN1831

Your Honour, I’d seek to tender those.

EXHIBIT #AMWU11 STATEMENT OF JOHN ANTHONY KORS FILED ON 26/10/05, DATED ON DOCUMENT 17/10/05
EXHIBIT #AMWU12 STATEMENT OF JOHN ANTHONY KORS FILED ON 25/11/05, DATED ON DOCUMENT 24/11/05

PN1832

MR ADDISON: Your Honour, just a couple of very brief questions.

PN1833

First of all, you say at paragraph 3 of your first statement that there’s a diverse range of equipment and machinery to maintain in the position you’re in?---That’s correct.

PN1834

Just briefly can you tell what that consists of?---Well, surplus to my previous shop and assembly, which I’ve been into all other shops to at least visit and to view and associated with other group leaders and general foremen, we actually have - some of the painting product is rather specialist, which is rather unique, but we also have the utilities department which contains boilers, air compressors, air dryers and the like and we also have a trade waste facility which only one other department actually has.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XN MR ADDISON
PN1835

Okay, thanks for that. I just want to take you to paragraph 6 of your original statement very briefly. You say in paragraph 6 that effectively you’re the senior supervisor of a shift, that you have to make all the decisions on your own. You refer to an escalation procedure?---Mm.

PN1836

Then in paragraph 6 of your second statement, you then make some more comments with regard to the escalation procedure and you’ve said you’ve tried to escalate by mobile phone, but have been unable to get a response and some occasions you’ve not received a response until after the event?---That is correct.

PN1837

Can you just expand on that a bit? Can you tell us of an incident when you’ve had this problem?---Yes. Once incident I had, and there have been actually more than one, not that I could actually recall every single account. At midnight, and I don’t recall the exact time and I’m not even sure if Mark was actually my manager at such time, the ovens actually broke down. They shut down on a fire alarm. Upon the - and what that actually does, it stops production cold. That would fairly soon, depending on the PBS buffer, which is the buffer between paint and assembly, stop potentially the plant, full stop. It certainly stopped the paint shop. Upon initial investigation of that breakdown, obviously the fire brigade’s called out immediately, automatically, by the equipment and due to the nature that it was midnight and due to the timeframe it takes to restart that equipment upon having such a fault, I advised - it was the fact that it was not going to be able to be ready to put back into production for afternoon shift. I escalated that to the general foreman on afternoon shift and I also rang my manager, or whoever it was at that time, to escalate the problem. In fact, I believe I would have actually rang Malcolm Tucker in that particular instance because such a nature has to go up the chain fairly high, as far as I remember, for such a breakdown that will impact on assembly. The fire brigade came out and we had to establish, obviously, whether there was in fact a fire within the oven or not. We then went through set procedures to determine such and even after that, it was quite a time until we knew what the fault was, so therefore it was going to take quite a while until I knew whether we could actually re-establish that oven for day shift, in fact, let alone afternoon shift. Afternoon shift, at such stage, it was known they would not run again.

PN1838

Yes?---We’d actually rectified the situation, had the oven up, probably by four, 5 am maybe, or at such time we knew that it would be up in time for 7 o’clock and I did not receive a call back until no earlier than 5 am in the morning, yet I made the call somewhere around the 12 pm, midnight.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XN MR ADDISON
PN1839

Okay. And this was - do you say this was a regular occurrence or - - -?---I don’t say it’s regular, however when an incident of such a large nature happens on the afternoon or night shifts, there is no guarantee that you will get a response, or an immediate enough response to assist with the decision-making. Hence why I have said what I did. The only other persons I can call on for assistance are the general foremen in the production group. As willing as they are to help, it is of no assistance to me when it comes to a mechanical or a maintenance-related breakdown.

PN1840

Yes, and the general forepersons in the production area would be at the same level as you on the organisational chart, would they?---No, they’re actually one level higher.

PN1841

One level higher?---Yes, we only have, to my knowledge, general foremen only on the afternoon shift.

PN1842

Okay. Thanks for that. Now, I just want to take you once again briefly to paragraph 7 of your first statement, and I think it’s paragraph 8 of your second statement. Is it? Is that right? I’m confused now?---That’d be correct. Yes.

PN1843

Yes, I think that’s right. These both relate to, as I understand it, shutdown periods; Christmas shutdown periods in particular?---That’s correct.

PN1844

You say that the planning and the scheduling and the consultation with regard to those matters were your responsibility as the GF?---Not sure - don’t know that I say the consultation was actually my responsibility, but certainly the scheduling and the planning was my responsibility.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XN MR ADDISON
PN1845

Yes, you’re right, you’re correct. My mistake. My mistake. Can you just explain to her Honour what that actually amounts to, the planning and the scheduling of the Christmas shutdown?---The planning and schedule of the shutdown entails groups such as the engineering group, and there are actually several engineering groups that would actually make plans to do new installations or modifications to equipment. It includes the plans that the maintenance department itself would put in place for repairs of equipment and also replacement, and therefore so - try and get my words right. It also entails, we also have a major requirement for cleaning tasks within the paint shop. We have major spray booths which require high pressure cleaning to be carried out as well as other types of cleaning tasks. For example, this Christmas, there is approximately 43 cleaners in our paint shop, this Christmas, every day on average. All of these groups do their own schedules and they actually send them all into me and from there, I try and mould those schedules with my own maintenance one, to ensure that all tasks can actually be met. The problem normally occurs that everyone, when they sit back in their own department and initially do their scheduling, they actually plan from the first day of shutdown to the last day of shutdown that they think they - they think they actually have it available to them, but the truth is that they may not have it available to them for that complete duration because there may be more than one task to carry out in that one particular area. So what I do is the shutdown and I actually put all those - mould those schedules into one and then I contact the relevant parties that are carrying out those tasks within our shop, to then re-do the schedule, or the schedules, with them to try and achieve their tasks. Last year, for example, I had - and sometimes you have to do that on the fly because the best of planning, you can still go astray because of the unknown, and so even every day you must keep tabs on it and several times I - well, I would say two times, not several, two times I had to approach people during the shutdown and actually move their schedules with them, even though they were reluctant to do so, to actually achieve the goals at the paint shop. The goals are obviously not only to carry out all the tasks, but to have the plant in an operable condition on the very first day of production. It generally is that - it does entail more things, like ensuring the safe work procedures are in place and many other finer details, but I think that might give the gist on it.

PN1846

Is the shutdown only at Christmas time or are there other times?---No. We - of late, and when I say of late, probably the last couple of years, we have also had a one-week shutdown in July and sometimes we will try and do a - let’s say a mini shutdown, if you want to call it that, at the Easter time, at the Easter break there. Sometimes they’ll call a shutdown, sometimes they won’t, it really depends on the scale of works that need to occur at such time.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XN MR ADDISON
PN1847

Would that be the responsibility of a GF as well?---That is normally the responsibility, in my time in the paint shop, that the GF has always carried out that task.

PN1848

So the GF does all the planning and all the scheduling for all of the shops?---In my time in the paint shop, that is correct.

PN1849

Yes, thanks. Now, I just want to take you, once again briefly, to paragraph 18 of your first statement where you talk about a five-year plan. You say in paragraph 18 that you plan and coordinate longer term (five-year plan type work) work, most of which is capital expense?---Mm.

PN1850

Now, Mr Taylor has responded to that in paragraph 43 of his statement and Mr Taylor says in paragraph 43 of his statement:

PN1851

In relation to the comments Mr Kors makes in paragraph 18 of his statement when he says that he planned and coordinated longer term work, I note that I’ve never seen any evidence -

PN1852

Et cetera. You then respond back to Mr Taylor’s statement in paragraph 10 - is it paragraph 10?---That’s correct.

PN1853

Paragraph 10 of your second statement, where you say that he says he may never have seen evidence of your five-year plan, but you confirm that you did do it. Could you just expand on that a little bit and tell her Honour what that five-year plan work was?---I was in fact asked by our department manager, Melvyn Tucker, to come up with a five-year plan for major expenditure items thereof. So I assessed the plant and condition. I also discussed these items with other relevant people such as technical officers and maintenance people, of what they believed were the most outstanding items or the most expensive items that would be due for repair or replacement in the next five years. On what they had told me and obviously what I knew already, I then assessed the equipment in real life, so we actually went and assessed the equipment and then I drafted a five-year plan which I actually gave to Melvyn Tucker. I don’t believe Mark was in fact in the paint shop at such time. So I don’t dispute that he may not have seen it at all. But I definitely know what I have done and I certainly have a copy of it

PN1854

We may have been a bit remiss with you, John, but have you seen the second statement of Mr Dobson?---No.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XN MR ADDISON
PN1855

No. I thought we might have done that. Certainly I've got another copy somewhere. Just bear with me and I'll see if I can get you - I know I've got another copy somewhere. Can I ask you just to have a quick look at paragraph 26 of DOBSON2 and I ask you just to read through that. That's the plan, do, check, act system which I think you'd be familiar with, wouldn't you?---Yes, I am.

PN1856

Can I just ask you to have a quick look at paragraph 26, just let met know when you've finished. Now, I don't ask you to comment with regard to the value judgments that Mr Dobson makes and I don't ask you to comment as to whether an acting manager or GF manager would do these things better or not but I just simply ask you, the five year plan stuff that you talked about, does that fit in with that type of approach, the PDCA approach, is that what you're talking about?---I'd certainly think so.

PN1857

You think so?---I think that determines where we actually need to budget for in the next five years and beyond.

PN1858

So you're looking at it from a plan, do, check, act approach to develop budgets, et cetera, yes?---Yes.

PN1859

Thank you. No, it's okay, just to hang onto that there, John, we'll get it all back eventually. Paragraph 27 of your first statement, you were told by management that the general foreperson's position would be advertised on the intranet?---Yes, that's correct, I was.

PN1860

What was the context in which you were told that?---The context I was told, because I was moving back - well, I was asked whether I would - it's hard to remember the exact words, that I was moving back to night shift but upon moving back to night shift because of the 12 month had nearly expired within the position of acting general foreman, then I was told that they would seek approval for a second GF within our department as my real general foreman, Simon, had moved over to Kaizen or Kaizen type activities.

PN1861

Sure?---That they would apply for a second position of GF which they would be happy for me to apply for.

PN1862

Now can I take you to paragraph 2 of your second statement, you say in paragraph 2, I think this is what you say, let me clarify, if I'm wrong please tell me I'm wrong but as I understand what you've said in that second paragraph is it was you that told Mr Taylor that the 12 months was fast approaching?---That is correct.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XN MR ADDISON
PN1863

If you hadn't old him that and you'd stayed in the position for 12 months would you have then inherited the position of the GF?---I don't recall what the WPA or the agreement says exactly however I believe that I certainly would have had to retain the general foreman's money from that point there on forever. Whether I actually would retain the title general foreman I do not know. I'm not a union rep. I'm not human resources that would read that book back to front, although I do have a fairly good understanding but not of that particular clause. But I did know that they would have to probably keep me on that money then forever and so therefore I raised it because there's always - the paint shop is a bit of a hot kettle sometimes and I'm sure HR could testify to that one because we do have the two senior union representatives within my department from the AMWU and the ETU, so hence I do know ..... and it's not - it wasn't just that, it was to have directions stability people need direction and a clear path and so unless I was going to be given one then there can't be one for those that work my subordinates, hence the best decision I thought was to (a), not get my bosses in trouble by letting the 12 months expire and raise the issue, and (b), just do the right thing, that's it, by all parties.

PN1864

Even though that might end up doing yourself a disservice?---Unfortunately some of us do ourselves may a disservice.

PN1865

Yes, all right, I apologise. I withdraw that. It was gratuitous and I apologise. There was that hiss from Henry. No, I have nothing further, your Honour. Thanks for that?---Thank you.

PN1866

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Skene.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SKENE [2.18PM]

PN1867

MR SKENE: Just bear with me one second, sorry?---No worries.

PN1868

You currently are engaged as a group leader on the night shift in the paint shop?
---That is correct.

PN1869

And you've held that job since about 1999?---Correct.

PN1870

And you started with Toyota just over 12 years ago?---That's correct.

PN1871

11 years ago is it?---11 or 12, I cannot recall exactly.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1872

Okay, that's all right. And you went through the process of starting as a team member, then you became a team leader until you were promoted to group leader?---That's correct.

PN1873

And you spent a period of time just talking about acting as a group foreperson - a general foreperson rather, GF?---Yes.

PN1874

In the paint shop for about 11 months?---Correct.

PN1875

And that's your only experience of working as a general foreperson within Toyota, isn't it?---No.

PN1876

You've previously worked as a general foreperson?---I've previously filled in for Simon on previous occasions.

PN1877

So you have other periods acting in the paint shop as a general foreperson?---Yes.

PN1878

And in total how much time would you have spent acting in that role over time do you think?---Maybe 12 to 14 months maybe.

PN1879

Yes, there's a few other short periods?---Yes, there's a few other short stints.

PN1880

So filling in for leave and things like that, is that what it was?---Yes, not many occasions, there weren't too many occasions.

PN1881

Now, under the propose structure you're going to report directly to an assistant manager?---I don't know because I haven't seen the proposed structure.

PN1882

You haven't seen the proposed structure?---No, I don't. I have not.

PN1883

But you understand, don't you, that that acting position that you were in, the GF position, is proposed to become an assistant manager position?---I am nowadays, yes, but I still have not seen that structure.

PN1884

I see. But you understand that under what's proposed you will report directly to an assistant manager rather than a general foreperson?---That has not been explained as such to me.

PN1885

I see?---To my knowledge myself and my fellow group leaders, none of the proposed or otherwise structure has been shown, explained or discussed or anything. It's all just grey and rumour control.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1886

So at this stage you would say that within the paint shop there's still a lot of uncertainty about this?---Certainly.

PN1887

When did you first become aware of Mr Dobson's decision not to maintain the GF and to have an assistant manager?---I don't believe I actually became aware of any such decision that he decided to do what you actually stated. I'm certainly aware of the decision by - and I'm not sure that it was Mr Dobson's.

PN1888

Yes?---It was certainly conveyed to me by Mark that - Mark Taylor, my manager.

PN1889

Yes, that that was what was happening?---That the decision had been changed to ask for a general foreman but in fact to ask for an assistant manager.

PN1890

So it was Mr Taylor who told you that?---Yes, and that would have been June/July on a rough guess I believe.

PN1891

And no-one is in that assistant manager position now, are they?---No.

PN1892

So it's still vacant and while it's vacant you're reporting directly to Mr Taylor, is that right?---Yes.

PN1893

So over the course of your normal day, in terms of your reporting relationship there's two sides of your role. There's the team leaders and things who report to you as a general - as a GF and then there's your relationship with Mr Taylor?
---Taylor.

PN1894

You accept, don't you, that in other parts of Toyota there are different structures through that transition from supervisory to management so just to clarify, in other parts there might be an arrangement where there's GLs, a number of GLs, then a GF that those people report to, then that person reports to an assistant manager. There might be other structures where there's GLs and then SGF and that reports to an assistant manager, another structure where there's the GL reporting directly to an assistant manager. Are you aware of those - - - ?---I'm aware there are many structures within Toyota, yes.

PN1895

And generally in, we'll take the paint shop for example, it's fair it's divided into two parts, the maintenance and the production side?---Yes.

PN1896

And there - - - ?---Sorry, I'm just trying to think if I haven't missed one but generally speaking you're correct.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1897

Yes, I think you did a little bit but fair enough. If you look at the chart, the organisation chart, between production and maintenance there's Kaizen in the middle there as well?---Yes, there is now.

PN1898

Yes, there is now, exactly, and that Kaizen function is about process improvement you might say, isn't it, business improvement?---The Kaizen currently and pretty much when it was formed was really for the new model which is a Goshi, similar to a Goshi team and that's their main project that I know that they're currently working on and in fact have only worked on since the formation of this Goshi team.

PN1899

Yes, and that's about a process improvement, that introduction of something new, it's about - - - ?---It's really interaction of the new model and the changes required to fix, for example, you have the cars set on dollies and on the table lifters and they have fixtures and they need all to be modified to suit the under body of the new model.

PN1900

So you look at your existing process and then you look at what you're going to need for the new one and this is about that transition?---Yes.

PN1901

Yes, okay. Now, taking Kaizen out of it for a moment and we come back to what you talked about a minute ago you've got production on the one side and maintenance on the other side, you would accept, wouldn't you, that there tends to be separate supervision within each of those streams so you have a maintenance GL and you have production GL, maintenance GF, production GF?---Yes.

PN1902

Separated lines of supervision, yes?---Yes.

PN1903

And you've only worked in the maintenance side of that equation, is that true?
---No.

PN1904

So you've worked in the production side as well?---Yes, I have as a team member when I first joined Toyota.

PN1905

As a team member. So as a supervisor though your experience of supervision is in that maintenance side, isn't it?---It is maintenance although we sometimes have production work for me because sometimes I request production workers to assist maintenance and so in that - - -

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1906

So if you have a need for some production workers then there's a supervision of them?---Yes.

PN1907

But that's within the maintenance framework?---Yes.

PN1908

I see. Now, within those different structures there are I think a series of different variations, as I said to you before, do you acknowledge that within those variations there are different supervisory skills required, different skills required in a production stream from a maintenance stream for example?---You've sort of made the question very long and referred to your previous question so - - -

PN1909

Okay, I will break it down. No, fair enough, that's fair enough. We talked in a minute ago about how there's different supervisory models throughout Toyota and sometimes you've got, you know, team leaders reporting to group leaders, reporting to GFs, reporting to assistant managers, sometimes you've got an SGF in the mix, sometimes you've got assistant manager directly, okay. Now, in different areas - I withdraw that. Do you accept that there is a different supervisory requirement between production stream and the maintenance stream, different skills are required?---I wouldn't say different. I might say there are additional skills that I would require that may be different to additional skills of production a supervisor might need for their area and that would depend on the area of expertise required for different production streams.

PN1910

Yes, so - - - ?---For example, if I may?

PN1911

No, go on?---When I was in assembly shop to be a supervisor of a particular line or process there it might be just fitment of parts and so I would personally think the skills are lesser required because without diminishing their roles, to make the fit and finish of those parts, whereas if you get a welding process, a paint process, or a press process, or any of the more technical aspects, then the production supervision still require a high degree of technical skill.

PN1912

That's right. So if you're supervising maintenance tradespeople for example you need to have, in order to supervise them as a GL, you need to have a degree of technical expertise of what they do, that a production supervisor wouldn't need necessarily?---No, that's what I just tried to explain. A foreperson, whether it be a general foreman or group leader who would be, for example, in charge of paint, as the place I currently work.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1913

Yes?---I actually rely on his technical expertise of paint process, right, and the defects which come from such or can come from such to actually enable me to hone in on where the actual equipment fault may be if it is in fact an equipment fault. So they actually - because I was in assembly for the first five years and now paint for six and so in other words I wasn't born and bred in the paint shop for example in my career and my career before this was nothing to do with paint, without their expert knowledge of that process we would certainly end up with more downtime in a lot of cases. If it wasn't downtime it would certainly be the quality defect problem would exist for a lot longer.

PN1914

So you rely on the people below you to provide information to you?---Yes.

PN1915

To enable you to make decisions about how particular issues within your day to day control are resolved, is that basically what you're saying?---No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying the supervision of production I rely on their technical expertise and what you're saying is correct, that I rely on my staff also, my subordinates, but I also rely on the expertise that the actual paint specialists actually have because without that knowledge if they're talking about - I can't even remember some of the paint defects, the language they talk in, but I actually rely on their expertise because I do not have that expertise and nor necessarily will my maintenance electricians or fitter and turners, they will not have that paint expertise knowledge. Painting in itself is another fully qualified trade, hence it is the production staff that actually attain and gain that knowledge through years of work.

PN1916

Yes, I understand that, that's right. So as a GL - now, would you accept that the amount of technical expertise in a maintenance area is greater than the amount of technical expertise in a production area, just yes or no?---Generally, yes.

PN1917

Generally, yes. Now, have you got a copy of Mr Dobson's statement there?
---There's still one here, yes.

PN1918

Paragraph 18 of Mr Dobson's statement, is that the second one?

PN1919

MR ADDISON: DOBSON2 or DOBSON1?

PN1920

MR SKENE: No, we're up to the first one, do you have that one?---Don't know, you'll have to look.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1921

That's the second one.

PN1922

MR ADDISON: DOBSON1.

PN1923

MR SKENE: Okay, paragraph 18. You will see there that Mr Dobson says that all employees of Toyota who perform manufacturing work, irrespective of their classification or seniority, are expected to illustrate functional abilities in a range of areas and then they're set out there in dot points, you see, and there's occupational health and safety, quality control, productivity, cost control and management, human resources development or people management and environmental impact?---Yes, I can see that, yes.

PN1924

Because those functional abilities apply across the organisation the same ones apply to the executive director as they do to a team member, are you aware of that?---Yes.

PN1925

And you would accept, wouldn't you, that what an executive director has to do to achieve those functional abilities is different from what a team member has to do?---In some parts, yes.

PN1926

And you would agree - well, it's not controversial, is it, to say that the executive director has a completely different job from a team member, you accept that?
---Yes.

PN1927

So what people have to do to achieve each of their functional abilities on the ground is different, isn't it?---Sorry, a rather broad statement, I presume so, yes.

PN1928

Now, in your experience as a group leader you accept that managers can supervise other supervisors as part of their role, do you accept that?---Could you just re-clarify, sorry?

PN1929

Well, for example, Mr Tucker?---Yes.

PN1930

As part of his job supervises you at the moment?---At the moment, yes.

PN1931

And in terms of what each job is required to perform, the scope of each role, that is something that Toyota decides, isn't it? So Toyota managers, Mr Dobson, we'll be specific, Mr Dobson decides what scope of role he wants to have in a particular area. You accept that, don't you?---No, not really.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1932

Not really?---No.

PN1933

It's not up to Mr Dobson to decide I need a manager there and a supervisor there, a supervisor there and a manager there?---I'm not saying it's not his role to do such, I'm not sure that it actually happens.

PN1934

I see, okay. That's fair enough. Now, in your statement when you talk about what you were doing as an acting general foreperson you go through a range of tasks that you performed and talk about a range of different - so we start at paragraph 4 for example, you talk about training there?---Yes.

PN1935

You say that part of your role is to deal with training of team members on equipment and safety in the Toyota way, et cetera. Now, you don't actually decide whether training is going to happen at all, do you? You get told training is going to happen and then you get to decide how to implement?---No.

PN1936

Do you accept that?---No.

PN1937

You say no?---No.

PN1938

You don't get to decide what the Toyota way is, do you?---No.

PN1939

And you don't get to decide whether or not there's going to be a completely new process going into your area like reasons, do you?---No.

PN1940

And so if a decision like that is made then you get told about it and you're then responsible for communicating that message to the people under your control, do you accept that?---In the resin plant example, yes.

PN1941

So there's no decisions that get made that you can say I need to train my people about yourself and there's other decisions that get made where you get told about the decision and then have to roll out the training that's decided, so they decide the Toyota's way is going to be this and it's then your responsibility to send that message, to communicate that message to your people, do you accept that?---Not fully in the way that you've worded it, so it will be my job to communicate. The plant management have decided to introduce a new resin plant and then probably from there it would be my decision on what training will need to be implemented for all my staff.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1942

So you get to decide, you can go to Tucker or Taylor and say to them I need five days here, take my people out of the system, there's a whole lot we're going to have to do here, you can decide that, can you?---I can ask for that. I cannot decide that, however - - -

PN1943

No, that's enough, you just have to answer the questions. So if you wanted to do that then it would be up to Mr Taylor to say okay, that's okay or not. So you would take it to him and request it and say look, I've looked at this, there's a whole lot of technical things that people are going to need to know or what have you, I need three days, you go and see Taylor and Taylor can say three days or not, maybe he can't. It may be that Taylor has to go to his manager and say look, I'll tell you what, I've just spoken to John Kors, he wants to pull people out of the process for three days, what do you think. So it might feed its way up the chain, mightn't it?---It may.

PN1944

And depending on the nature of the decision that's being made, it has to go different ways up the chain, doesn't it?---Depending on which decisions you're referring to.

PN1945

Yes, of course, that's right. So some things you can just decide yourself?
---Correct.

PN1946

And some things you can't?---That's right.

PN1947

Now, that scope is decided by your manager to an extent, isn't it?---Sorry, when you say that scope you're non specific, sorry.

PN1948

Yes, I am non specific. Whether or not you can decide something yourself or whether or not you need to go up the chain depends in part on what your manager's expectation is, doesn't it?---Yes.

PN1949

So if Taylor says to you look, you need to run that past me John, then you've got to run it past him, don't you?---That's right.

PN1950

Now, there's a decision making model within Toyota, I don't know what it gets called but the way it's been explained to me it's a sort of consensus based model, do you understand that?---Not really but - - -

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1951

I will tell you what I mean then you can tell me whether it's what you observed. So this process you've just been talking about where you get to make a decision and it's not within your responsibility then it gets fed up the chain until it gets approved, wherever it has to get approved and at each point in that process each of the managers involved has input into that decision and whether it works or not, so you can take something to Taylor, Taylor can look at it, if Taylor can decide he decides, if he can't he goes to his manager and there can be a discussion about that and ultimately each person in that chain signs off?---That may be the model or whatever you called it but it doesn't necessarily always work that way.

PN1952

I see. Now, you talk in your statement about scheduling?---Yes.

PN1953

Then you list a whole lot of things, training courses, preventative and predictive maintenance tasks, things like with new equipment, Kaizen, it's in paragraph 4 by the way, 4S plus 1, I'm not sure what that is 4M plus 1 activity, contractor repairs and maintenance. Now, like training, there are some things there that you have direct control of and there are other things that you don't that are external in place, aren't there?---Just let me refresh my memory, please.

PN1954

Sure?---Yes.

PN1955

So for example, replacing equipment, that's something that if it's significant, significant piece of equipment?---Being?

PN1956

Nothing in particular?---Costs figure?

PN1957

Yes, say it's something that's got to be externally sourced, okay, so a decision is made to get an externally sourced expensive piece of equipment, that's going to require to go through a chain, isn't it?---Something like a brand resin plant will, yes.

PN1958

Yes, exactly. So you get the resin plant and something like that you get tapped on the shoulder and says look, it's this decision that's been made, we're going to roll out a resin plant, you're going to need to schedule some things and then your role in that sort of thing is then to decide when the best time to schedule is?---Yes, that would be correct, or in the resin it's got nothing to do with me at all. However, I'll give you a different example, if they decide to put four new robots in the paint shop the engineers will actually make their own schedule and that schedule will fit into a Christmas shutdown for example and it will be my job to then discuss with them to reschedule. In other words, they may have to put two shifts on where they only planned to put one on because there are other activities we need to do within that defined Christmas shutdown period.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1959

Yes. Now, you have never actually reported to an assistant manager, have you?
---No.

PN1960

So you can't really say what it is that an assistant manager is going to do in that job, can you?---No.

PN1961

You don't know whether the assistant manager is going to do more than what's been done before or not?---I don't see how he could do more given that I've done the GF job last year. I don't think anyone could physically do more as such, not in a given hour of day and like a 12 hour at that.

PN1962

But the scope of that role might be different, mightn't it?---It may, yes.

PN1963

And the types of things that that assistant manager can do and decide might be different from what you could decide, mightn't they?---No, you're a general foreman.

PN1964

Well, you acting in that role, it might be different from what your experience was, mightn't it?---I wouldn't expect so in our particular paint shop department.

PN1965

But it's going to be up to Mr Taylor, isn't it, because he decides where those boundaries lie?---Under our current, what I've seen in the past five years, I wouldn't expect anyone below the department manger to make the decision in most instances, especially where it relates to budget or things of that nature.

PN1966

I accept that's how it happens now, but where the line is drawn for you with the things that you can do, we were talking about that before?---Yes.

PN1967

And you said Mr Taylor will tell you need to run that past me or not?---Yes.

PN1968

Now, with this new role Mr Taylor might say something else, mightn't he? He might say I'm not going to require that to be run past me, mightn't he?---That's correct, yes.

PN1969

Now, we have talked about scheduling and we've talked about training as two examples of things that are sometimes within your control, sometimes outside your control. Now, effectively - I withdraw that. I'm just trying avoid a way for me to go through them all, your Honour. That's true, that idea that some things are within your control and some things are outside your control, that's true of a wide range of decisions that you have to make within your responsibility, isn't it?
---Not all decisions are mine, that's right, of course not.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1970

And not surprising I guess, I mean, you know, otherwise you would be sitting in the president's chair I guess?---No, I'd just be the only working here, there'd be no-one else I guess. I've got actually got a worker called Ten Men.

PN1971

Now, on the night shift, you talk about when you're on the night shift and you say that - I'll just tell you exactly what you say, paragraph 6:

PN1972

I am the senior and only paint shop maintenance supervisor.

PN1973

So in other words, present on the site you don't actually have your manager, that's what you meant?---That's correct.

PN1974

Now, whilst your manager is not manager is not present on the site that doesn't actually affect the scope of the type of decisions that we were talking about, does it? You can't suddenly decide because he's not there that you're going to do a whole lot of training, you're still going to need to keep things going, aren't you?
---In relationship to training, training will all cross his desk just for the money.

PN1975

Because it costs money?---Yes.

PN1976

Yes, I see. Now, you say that you have to make all decisions on your own because the people you manage are on your own. What you mean there, are decisions about sort of the day to day running of the ship, the things that come up?---Yes, yes. The problems that crop up are all mine to deal with and in an immediate sense and the reason - whereas for example on day shift you will have not only the maintenance management, normally the general foreman, but you will also have a number of technical staff and engineers who can all come to the aid of the people that actually work day shift, where they are not there for the afternoon/night shift personnel.

PN1977

And Mr Addison asked you about an example where you hadn't been able to exercise the escalation strategy and we'll talk about that in a sec, but basically something happens and in this example that you gave there's a fire alarm that goes off?---Mm.

PN1978

Immediate response there is the fire brigade comes out?---Yes.

PN1979

But it causes a delay to the process, is that right? It's going to impact upon the production side because there's going to be a delay on your side?---Before the actual fire brigade even arrive, when the equipment actually faults out on a fire alarm the equipment automatically shuts down immediately. Being an oven, a gas fired oven, if and when it can be restarted it does a 45 to 50 minute purge time before it can restart.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1980

Yes, that's right. So there's going to be a stop in the process?---There's immediately one hour's downtime.

PN1981

The first thing you've got to do when there's a one hour downtime?---The first thing I need to do in the job role is actually to attend the scene to make sure the area is safe in this particular condition.

PN1982

Safe, confine it, yes?---Right, and then after that escalate.

PN1983

Escalate because there's more than an on hour stoppage?---Again, when you escalate you're normally also conducting a number of staff to do numerous checks.

PN1984

I'm not saying it's as straight forward?---You're a pretty busy person at that point in time.

PN1985

Yes. Well, I accept that. I'm not suggesting that it's not a difficult position to be in. But at the end of the day in terms of what should happen then?---Yes.

PN1986

The scope of your responsibility is limited to notifying the managers so they can make a decision about what should happen next, isn't it?---I presume that's what the escalation procedure is partly thereof for, not necessarily totally there for. I'm not really sure, I didn't write it. But yes, I presume part of it is so they can then make a decision, but one must get in contact for them to be able to make that decision.

PN1987

Yes. Now, depending on what happens with this escalation policy and I think you talked about this in the fire example, you have to go further up the chain, don't you?---Yes.

PN1988

And in the normal course there would be, depending on exactly what's happened, how long the stoppage is going to be, what the impact is, all those types of things, you'll have to go up a different way?---Yes, right.

PN1989

And those managers will all have input into what happens and then they'll tell you, won't they?---In the particular instance I gave I don't know that they particularly could.

PN1990

You couldn't get in touch with them?---Well, that too.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN1991

Yes?---But had I been able to I'm not sure that they could actually do anything other than make plans for other areas other than mine because I don't know
that - - -

PN1992

Or plan for what might happen next time. They might do that, mightn't they? What happens next time there's a fire alarm?---Yes.

PN1993

They sit down together, they have a chat about it and they decide?---Yes, it's really the emergency plan of what you do with all the other how many staff we have on the Altona site and the effect that our downtime will have on them. So I think some of it's so they can then readjust their plans, whether it be the car volume or whether the people in the assembly shop are staying overtime or not.

PN1994

What it is?---Yes, so they can actually inform them there's no overtime tonight and obviously they may have to put on other schedules to make up the numbers of cars lost.

PN1995

And would you accept that, you know, if they need to know something about what happened to inform that decision they will come to you, won't they, because you're the guy who's there on the ground, who knows what's happening who has generally got a pretty good idea about what the impact was?---Well, yes, there would be me that has to do the report or it will be that they will come and see, yes.

PN1996

So you provide information to decision making. But you don't actually make the decision, do you?---On the night I do, yes.

PN1997

On the night you decide what would happen but how in that process we're just talking about where those managers are deciding as to what next time that's not going to be your decision, is it? You're talking about overtime, you're talking about all those other things, they're not going to be your decisions, are they?---But that is not what I referred to. I'm sorry, I'm a bit lost because - - -

PN1998

Perhaps we're at cross purposes?---Yes, it's like there's two or three subjects you're sort of relating to yet I only related to what I do on site and what is expected of me when I am the only one on site.

PN1999

That's right?---I'm not actually trying to big note myself.

PN2000

No, I wasn't suggesting you were?---This is just factual and this goes for any other equivalent supervisor of any level that is the same predicament currently within Toyota.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN2001

Yes. Now, you gave some information about preparing a five year plan for capital expenditure?---Yes.

PN2002

Now, it's not actually your decision whether or not particular items of capital expenditure are going to be bought or not, is it?---No, it's not.

PN2003

What you are doing in that process is contributing your knowledge and expertise of what's there and what's going to wear out over the next five years to develop a plan of what needs to be replaced?---That's correct.

PN2004

So you don't actually set the budget either, do you?---No.

PN2005

And budgeting like that wouldn't be something that you participate in either?---All equipment, I don't set the budget, right, and I only participate in by passing the knowledge and information required for one to actually be able to use real data to set a budget.

PN2006

And your managers need that. Like the reason presumably Tucker has asked you to do this is because he needs to know your side of the story to be able to make that decision or to be able to influence his manager to make that decision, however high it's got to go up the chain?---Yes.

PN2007

Now, when we're back in that situation where you're there on your own and something happens and a call needs to be made?---Yes.

PN2008

You say in your statement:

PN2009

I've had to make decisions on my own account.

PN2010

Now, that's true where something immediate has to happen, isn't it?---Yes.

PN2011

But if something immediate didn't have to happen it would be back to the situation where whether or not you did something about it would depend on the nature of the decision and whether it was in your authority, wouldn't it?---Regardless of any of my superiors being there, be it day time, night time or any other time, if it's a decision that needs to be made immediately I'll make it regardless of whether I have the authority to or not and when I say that it won't be necessarily be an expenditure decision, it might necessarily not be one. If it is related to downtime or safety it is my job role as far as I best understand, right, for me to make that decision if there's an immediate effect, right, or immediate impact.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN2012

Yes?---If there is not an immediate impact, for example, the chain is wearing out but not worn out or has not snapped for example and they have snapped, then I would only then convey that data from our preventative maintenance schedule for example where we do measure and we graph.

PN2013

Yes?---So when we do that we actually pass the report to the manager so he can see the graph of the wear and then it is his decision to make to whether to buy that new chain or not. Whereas if we have a Topco B fan motor failure this instant, if all the matters are on conference somewhere and no reachable then the group leader today would if he doesn't have a motor on site because he'd normally try anywhere he can on site first, so another department or anyone like that, if he does not have anyone on site he will therefore call the nearest supplier, which we have regular lines obviously and he will ask for a motor confirmation order only, which means he is doing it on his own accord, under his own authority. He's not - he then afterwards hopes that the manager will pay for it and recognise the fact that he actually made the correct decision to restart the plant and starts the motor.

PN2014

Yes, that's right. About halfway through you talked about, you know, if you notice that something's wearing out you'll take it up to your manager and get your manager to approve it because there's that opportunity to do that rather than the need to make an instant decision. In that situation it's possible, isn't it, under the new structure that some decisions like that will go to the assistant manager rather than the department?---I'm sorry, but I haven't seen the new structure so I really don't know.

PN2015

You just don't know, yes. No, fair enough. Now, you talk about in your statement, just to come back for a moment to the Christmas shut, you say that you control shutdowns as the head person responsible?---Can you just refer me to that just so I can - - -

PN2016

No, fair enough. Paragraph 16 of your first statement?---I agree but I am referring to the paint shop as in the last sentence within that paragraph 16.

PN2017

Yes, so for 150 people, scheduling for 150 within the paint shop?---Within the paint shop only, not the plant Altona.

PN2018

When you say the head person responsible though you're not saying, are you that, Mr Taylor didn't have some responsibility to make the shutdown go well, he did, didn't he?---Both my managers had responsibility to share, however I was the person that sat in what they call the shutdown coordinator's chair.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN2019

Yes?---Right, and that is where all problems are addressed and preferably rectified.

PN2020

Yes, so like you said before, you know, someone will come along with a schedule, the schedule needs to be altered, you were the guy making those calls?---That's right.

PN2021

But whether or not overall how that process all went it's still nevertheless something that Mr Taylor is responsible for, isn't it?---Well, ultimately it goes even higher than that because everyone superior to me should carry some responsibility. Again they wouldn't put in that role if they didn't think I was responsible to carry such out, well, I wouldn't expect so anyway.

PN2022

So really Mr Taylor's responsibility in relation to that issue is different from yours?---In regards to the fact that I was sitting in the chair doing the day to day activities and handling every and all immediate inquiries and so forth, so on, then that's why I wrote what I wrote.

PN2023

And I don't think anyone is saying that you did a bad job. I mean you've been asked to do it again, haven't you?---That's correct.

PN2024

Now, you then talk about your time as a GF and you talk about carrying out NDT time keeping and checking attendance in paragraph 10 of your statement, reported daily?---Yes.

PN2025

And part of the reason you report on that is because your managers have a responsibility over that issue, don't they?---They would have, yes.

PN2026

So their responsibility, what they're asking you to do is to give them the data that they need to monitor that responsibility, isn't it?---You've sort of lost me a little bit, they need the data for whatever reasons they use it.

PN2027

They need to know?---Yes.

PN2028

So they've asked you to gather the data?---Yes.

PN2029

Now, what they use that data for is a different thing from what you do with it, isn't it?---I don't know.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN2030

You don't know what they do with it?---I don't know what they do with it.

PN2031

Exactly. Fair enough. Now, you then talk about - you're talking about your time, I mean, I assume we're on the same page here when we're talking about the time when you're a general foreman?---Yes.

PN2032

And you talked about tasking group leaders. I mean, that's one of obviously the principal supervisory things that a GF does, isn't it, managing the group leaders under their - - -?---One of the tasks, yes.

PN2033

And then you talk about managing the work list schedule to make sure that the tasks will be met on time and again that's just really about making sure that those people are getting their people to deliver in accordance with whatever's been scheduled?---Yes.

PN2034

You talk about some meetings that you go to and things and then in paragraph 13 you talk about communicating Toyota procedures and policies relating to the purchase of goods and materials. Do you see that?---Yes.

PN2035

Now, in relation to that, you're not responsible, don't have control over actually setting the policies and procedures, do you?---The policies and procedures are already set within Toyota.

PN2036

They're set and then your role is to make sure that your people - it's implementing them. It's making sure that your people are doing them?---The policies and procedures, even though they may be in the Toyota policy, they haven't actually been talked to the members so, for example, my team leader, when he goes to purchase a pump, we'll pick a $1000 pump, he would just go to where he thinks it's best to go or where we went last time, but what they don't do and this is not part of the policy, this is my own and I carry this over from the Department of Defence training, I'll actually ask him to get two quotes, so I actually taught them to actually go and get two quotes in certain instances where the expenditure is becoming higher on a certain given item and to this day, even though I haven't been on the shift as a GF to this year, approximately three months ago, one of those team leaders of utilities came back very happy with himself, reporting to the manager that he just saved $400 on his latest purchase of a part, right, simply because he's actually followed what I had actually been teaching or trying to teach some of my team members, et cetera, which do much of the purchasing, if not most of it, along with the group leaders.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN2037

Can we just come back to paragraph 13, though?---Yes.

PN2038

In paragraph 13 you talk about communicating Toyota policy and procedures and you acknowledge that they're said elsewhere and your role there is as you say, people haven't been talked to about those policies and procedures. Your role is to implement them, to talk to the people about them and make sure they're followed?---Yes.

PN2039

That's right, isn't it?---Yes, part of the job.

PN2040

Now, in paragraph 14 you talk about co-ordinating engineering and maintenance jobs to ensure that task deadlines are met. Now, again here with an engineering job, you don't decide, do you, whether the engineering job is going to be done at all? You get informed that the engineering job is going to be done and it's up to you to make sure that it gets done in the best way possible within your area?
---In what I said before, the schedulers will all come to me and I'll sit with the engineer to reschedule where necessary to fit it within the scope of whatever the shut-down time frame is, yes, and it is their decision whether they're going to install it or not is their decision, not mine.

PN2041

Now, in paragraph 17, I'm happy to announce, your Honour, that we'll be finished in advance of 3.30.

PN2042

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very good.

PN2043

MR SKENE: In paragraph 17 you talk about handling all questions and resolving all issues from team members that could not be dealt with by the group leaders vary from understanding the EBA through to personal problems that they may have, so that's kind of about the stuff that gets escalated up through the supervisory chain to you from the people within your area of responsibility?
---Yes.

PN2044

Now, there may be some questions there that you can't handle, that you've got to pass on, do you accept that?---Yes.

PN2045

Because ultimately at that top end still, there's some things that are going to come up that you can't decide yourself?---And misunderstandings or misinterpretation or non-understanding of in fact the EBA.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN2046

Yes, well, that's right, but to assist you to do that, for example, you attended some training, didn't you?---Yes, I did.

PN2047

About how the EBA works and things like that and that training was conducted by HR?---It certainly was.

PN2048

Now, in paragraph 19 you talk about approving all schooling applications, both internal and external. Now, there presumably you're talking about applications to do training?---Yes, that's correct. It was actually in these particular instances that was related to the trade training.

PN2049

Now, whether or not that training happens at all is not your responsibility, is it? Someone else has decided that people can do that type of training?---Well, it's in the award and the EBA, or I'm not sure if it's in the award, sorry. I believe it's in the EBA and it's in the Toyota policy as a section on trades training of how many hours each tradesman is allowed to do per year.

PN2050

But some other types of training applications have to - I think we said this earlier, that whether training happens at all, if there's a cost, it gets approved first, doesn't it?---That's correct.

PN2051

And if there's particular training that's been approved, then it's up to you how the people in your area can access it and how that's going to work having regard to your overall operational requirements. Is that fair to say?---Yes, I think that's a yes.

PN2052

Yes, okay?---It's hard to say in some ways that you word things.

PN2053

Yes, I think I have to cop that, Mr Kors?---I'm sorry, but you worded that long and I'm not an English scholar, but - - -

PN2054

No, that's fair enough?---And I agree in part, if nothing else, because I think the generality of your question was yes.

PN2055

Well, if you don't understand or if you think my question is confusing, just ask me to clarify it so we can be sure that we're at one?---Thank you.

PN2056

Okay, so then we talk about your role in paragraph 20 of compiling a monthly report to present to senior management where the GF, thanks for a good result or questions when results aren't good. Now, basically what the managers want to know there, isn't it, is exactly how things have gone on in your area of responsibility?---It's an overview of the departments or the maintenance department's performance for that particular month gone by.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN2057

So if something hasn't gone well, these managers want to know why?---Correct.

PN2058

And what they then do with that information in their job, again is that something that you know or don't know?---I don't know what they particularly do with that.

PN2059

But suffice to say that they have some responsibility over that that's different from what yours is?---I guess so. They've sort of got responsibility for what they do with the information from there on, yes.

PN2060

Now, in paragraph 25 you talk about dealing with conflicts and special requests from team members, union and management both within and external from the department, the various problems that one encounters can either be resolved at my level or in fact escalate all the way through to the Commission, so ultimately when things come up, there's going to be some things that you can deal with and some things you can't, isn't there?---Correct.

PN2061

And then there's going to be some things that Mr Taylor can deal with and things that Mr Taylor can't?---More than likely, yes.

PN2062

And then the next level of management and so on or in some cases we can end up here?---That's right.

PN2063

Now, Mr Taylor's responsibility in relation to those issues is different from your responsibility, isn't it?---Within the defines of the EBA, yes. It defines clearly I believe in there where everyone sits in the tree on responsibilities as far as the set procedure goes, yes.

PN2064

And you can't say, can you, where this new assistant manager role, where that role's boundaries are going to end?---No, I don't know.

PN2065

Mr Kors, I think you said you weren't familiar with the precise provisions of the enterprise agreement about the 12 months you spend in an acting role and what happens then. If you could just turn to paragraph 60.5 of the green book?---Do you know the page number?

PN2066

Yes, 86?---Thank you.

PN2067

Now, the reason I'm asking, it's almost a formality, I appreciate that you're not an expert on the precise words of the agreement, but you accept, don't you, that clause 60.5 doesn't create an entitlement for you to be paid into the future?
---Under this green book, yes, and now that I've read it, I believe I was incorrect with what I said before, that I was under the belief that I would have to receive that payment forever. I'm not sure what the blue book says as that's the award that would have been current at the time.

**** JOHN ANTHONY KORS XXN MR SKENE
PN2068

But you don't dispute, do you, that what you said earlier - you don't dispute the contents of that, presumably?---I don't dispute the contents of the green book, no. I'm not sure whether they differ or whether they're written exactly the same. I honestly don't know unless I refer to this one.

PN2069

Yes, well, if you go to page 21 of that one, you don't dispute that that's the same process essentially?---I think I should have read it last year. No, I don't dispute what the blue book says either and my earlier statement was incorrect and it shows how out of date I was, in fact, with both the blue and green books' definition under what I was referring to.

PN2070

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Addison, have you got more than five minutes' worth?

PN2071

MR ADDISON: Just one question, your Honour.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ADDISON [3.17PM]

PN2072

MR ADDISON: John, in answer to I think the first or possibly the second question you were asked by Mr Skene, you were asked how long you had the position of the GF in paint shop. I think you said 12 to 14 months - - -?---Three years.

PN2073

Over what period of time did you do the 12 or the 14 months, do you think?
---Over two years.

PN2074

So that's between 2005 and 2003 or 2002 and 2004?---2002 to 2004, because this year - - -

PN2075

2004?---Slash 5, because it was this year that I came back to night shift, so it was February this year, it was late January, early February that I moved back to night shift this year.

PN2076

So it's between 2002 and January or February of 2005?---Correct.

PN2077

Nothing further. Thanks, your Honour.

PN2078

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You're excused, Mr Kors.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.18PM]

PN2079

MR ADDISON: Your Honour, it's 25 past three, I think it's probably pointless to have another witness at this point of time.

PN2080

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It certainly is. Now, we are rocketing through this matter. I think we've only got another 13 witnesses to go, so one more day is not going to be enough. Have you gentlemen had a discussion about how many more days are going to be necessary?

PN2081

MR ADDISON: We did have a discussion yesterday. Do you want to do this on the record or off the record, your Honour?

PN2082

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We might as well do it off the record, I think.

<NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

PETER JOHN DAVIS, RECALLED ON FORMER OATH PN1011
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ADDISON PN1011
EXHIBIT #AMWU7 UNRESOLVED PROBLEM NOTIFICATION DATED 09/03/2004 PN1014
EXHIBIT #AMWU8 GENERAL FOREPERSONS LOST AT ALTONA PN1019
EXHIBIT #AMWU9 UNRESOLVED PROBLEM RESOLUTION PN1026
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SKENE PN1038
EXHIBIT #EXHIBIT TOYOTA2 TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY DIVISION, SAY NO THANK YOU TO THE PDR PN1616
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ADDISON PN1728
EXHIBIT #AMWU10 MANUFACTURING NUMBER 2 GOALS PN1786
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1821
JOHN ANTHONY KORS, SWORN PN1822
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ADDISON PN1822
EXHIBIT #AMWU11 STATEMENT OF JOHN ANTHONY KORS FILED ON 26/10/05, DATED ON DOCUMENT 17/10/05 PN1831
EXHIBIT #AMWU12 STATEMENT OF JOHN ANTHONY KORS FILED ON 25/11/05, DATED ON DOCUMENT 24/11/05 PN1831
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SKENE PN1866
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ADDISON PN2071
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN2078