|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Workplace Relations Act 1996 13706-1
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
9.50AM, THURSDAY, 08 DECEMBER 2005
Hearing continuing
PN1
MR M ADDISON: I seek leave to appear for the AMWU, with me
MR G LARKIN and MR P DAVIS and the delegates from the site.
PN2
MR H SKENE: I seek leave to appear on behalf of the respondent, Toyota.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted in both instances. Now, I've received lots of material in regard to this matter. Firstly, there was an outline of submissions of the AMWU of 26 October 2005 which I will mark as AMWU1.
EXHIBIT #AMWU1 OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS FOR AMWU DATED 26/10/2005
PN4
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Attached to that were numerous witness statements which I won't go all through because I assume we will come to them and we'll mark as we go through.
PN5
MR ADDISON: Yes.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is also, I've received on behalf of Toyota an outline of submissions which was received on 15 November which I will mark as Toyota 1 and also enclosed with that was other numerous witness statements which we will come to.
EXHIBIT #TOYOTA1 OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS FOR TOYOTA
PN7
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I also received a note from the AMWU dated 29 November 2005 indicating that the witness statements they filed on 25 November constitute in effect submissions in reply from the AMWU.
PN8
MR ADDISON: Your Honour, I think there were actually witness statements in reply?
PN9
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, the letter says, it's dated 25 November, it's under the name of Mr M Allen and it says:
PN10
The witness statements provided to the Commission on Friday, 25 November constituted the submissions in reply from the AMWU.
PN11
MR ADDISON: Right, so that refers to the witness statements that were filed in reply?
PN12
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN13
MR ADDISON: That's okay, thanks, your Honour.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So I'll just mark that piece of correspondence for the record as AMWU2, and of course there are witness statements in reply that were filed.
EXHIBIT #AMWU2 LETTER RE AMWU SUBMISSIONS IN REPLY DATED 25/11/2005
PN15
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There's also been filed this morning, I understand, another witness statement from Toyota and some attachments to a witness statement by witnesses for the AMWU. I can indicate to the parties that the material that was filed prior to today, I've had the chance to read, so they should base their submissions having regard to that. My intention would be to hear the witness evidence and then deal with submissions, unless there's any brief opening submissions the parties would like to make?
PN16
MR ADDISON: No, your Honour. We've had a discussion. I think we've agreed that we wouldn't bother with the submissions, we'd just basically get straight into witness evidence, deal with it that way and then submissions at the end. Just in terms of the attachments, you should have four attachments, your Honour, which we asked your associate this morning to make copies of. They seem to have been inadvertently left off Mr Tainsh's statement in response. There's a reference to them at paragraph 15 of the statement in response where he talks about the reporting structures and then mark attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4. I've made them available to Mr Skene just before the commencement of the proceedings, and we've highlighted the various parts.
PN17
Your Honour, you probably have one that's not highlighted. It may be more appropriate if we swap the two copies we've got and then therefore you'll have the highlighted one rather than the un-highlighted one. I've been through them with Mr Skene and he's now got the highlighted version too. So that's probably the more effective way to deal with that.
PN18
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just your reference to Mr Tainsh's statement.
PN19
MR ADDISON: Yes. It's the second statement, your Honour, not the first.
PN20
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, okay.
PN21
MR ADDISON: Your Honour, just in terms of housekeeping, Mr Skene and myself had a discussion last night and again this morning with regard to how we'd deal with this. We've got some of the witnesses with us. I understand Mr Skene will be making an application for witnesses to be excluded, and that's fine. However, I'd seek that Mr Eberworth and Mr Davis be excluded from that for instruction purposes. There are some witnesses that aren't here. We've agreed that, to minimise any disruption, we'd call them as are needed, so there might be some - but we don't expect to be very critical here. I think that's it.
PN22
Yes. The other matter that we discussed this morning, your Honour, maybe it's appropriate that it's on the record, is that we don't intend to take points with everybody. We're going to try and get through the evidence as quickly as possible. If we took every point with every witness we'd probably be here for a month. So we've agreed that we will be economical with time as best we can, your Honour. I guess that's it from where I'm at, your Honour. I don't know about Mr Skene.
PN23
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Skene?
PN24
MR SKENE: No. Look, I'm content with that, your Honour, just launch into the evidence and I think the intention is that the parties be taken on notice with the information that's in the statements as is the practice in cases of this type.
PN25
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN26
MR ADDISON: Did you want to make an application?
PN27
MR SKENE: Yes. I'd seek that the witnesses be out and I think that's what's proposed.
PN28
MR ADDISON: Except for Mr Eberworth and Mr Davis.
PN29
MR SKENE: Yes, with the exclusion of those instruction Mr Addison, we'd ask for a direction for exclusion.
PN30
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well. I direct that other witnesses in the case be excluded. Mr Addison?
MR ADDISON: Yes, with that done, your Honour, I'd seek to call, Mr Tainsh.
<ADRIAN TAINSH, SWORN [9.59AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ADDISON
PN32
MR ADDISON: Could I get you to just repeat your full name and address for the purposes of the transcript, please?---Adrian Tainsh, (address supplied).
PN33
Have you prepared two witness statements for these proceedings today?---Yes, I have.
PN34
Can I hand you a copy of the two witness statements. The first witness statement is a statement of 49 paragraphs dated 24 October 2005, is that correct?---Yes, that's correct.
PN35
The second statement is a statement of 27 paragraphs dated 24/11/05?---Yes, that's correct.
PN36
Can I ask you, with regard to those statements are there any changes you wish to make?---No.
PN37
No, and are the contents of those two statements true and correct?---To the best of my knowledge, yes, they are.
Thanks. I'd seek to tender them, your Honour.
EXHIBIT #AMWU3 STATEMENT OF ADRIAN TAINSH COMPRISING 49 PARAGRAPHS
EXHIBIT #AMWU4 STATEMENT OF ADRIAN TAINSH COMPRISING 27 PARAGRAPHS WITH ATTACHMENTS
PN39
MR ADDISON: I was just about to come to that, your Honour. If you want to mark the attachments as part of the witness statement, it might be better if I just get the witness to identify them now.
PN40
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, why not.
PN41
MR ADDISON: Can I just hand you four organisational instrument charts. Now, those four organisational charts are not the highlighted copy, but are they the organisational charts you refer to in paragraph 15 of your second witness statement?---Yes, they are.
PN42
I tender those with the witness statements, if I could, your Honour.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN43
Now, Adrian, in terms of the material have you also seen the second statement marked Charles Dobson which was filed in the Commission this morning?---Yes, I have seen it.
PN44
Have you got a copy of that with you in the witness box?---No, I don't.
PN45
Now, Adrian, you have been employed by Toyota for 18 years, is that
right?---That's correct.
PN46
And you are in the position of GF in the paint shop?---Yes, that's correct.
PN47
I just want to take you to a couple of matters, just fairly briefly. First of all, in relation to paragraph 21 of your second statement, in paragraph 21 you talk about levels of authority in terms of the ability to spend money?---Yes.
PN48
You talk about the M1, 2 and 3 levels?---Yes.
PN49
And you refer to other witness statements in the proceedings with regard to that. Are there other people apart from managers to your knowledge who have those levels of authority?---In the paint shop?
PN50
On the site?---On the site, to my knowledge there are.
PN51
There are, and who are these people?---Well, I know one being Gary Ebenwaldner and I don't - there is others but I don't know their full names, to be honest.
PN52
Well, not necessarily their names, but their positions within the company?---There has been GFs.
PN53
GFs?---GFs.
PN54
Now, with regard to paragraph 22 of your second witness statements, you talk about the head count, increases to the head count. I presume that's an increase in the size of the crew that you have?---The size of the crew, yes.
PN55
And you say that on almost all occasions, bar recently, you've been involved in the planning and justifying the head count increases
in the pain shop production?
---Yes, that's correct.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN56
Can you tell her Honour some of those occasions?---Some of those occasions?
PN57
From the year?---From the year 2000 to the year 2003, on every occasion that we increased the speed of the line, went volume up and we needed to employ new people. I would prepare the documentation to justify the head count increases and pass it to either the section manager or the department manager. The department manager was the one who always made the final approval in the pain shop, but then it still needed to be approved by directors and so on up the line.
PN58
So if you, for instance, came to a position where you said well, we need an extra three people?---Yes.
PN59
For the sake of the argument, in the crew because a new process was put in place or whatever, and you identified that. Who would approve it?---What type of approval? Final approval is, as far as I've been involved, was always the department manager but may I say during these proceedings we're going to get very confused because I talk about from 2000 to 2003 and I say department manager, but since 2004 there was a change in the non-award structure so the classifications changed. So a person that I'm calling the department manager back in 2000, 2003, was responsible for the whole building, the whole department production or maintenance. That person is now called a plant manager, yes, and now the person responsible for a section is called a department manager so. So in today's terminology, plant manager.
PN60
Now, just in terms of your witness statement you identified the difference between a section manager and an assistant manager and you identify that difference relying on the organisational charts, as I understand is your evidence?---I identify it based on (1) the organisational charts because at the same time there has been assistant managers and section managers in the paint shop structure, either side by side in different sections or - - -
PN61
Sorry, can I just stop you there. Can I ask you to go to those organisational charts and if I ask her Honour particularly to look through those organisational charts to demonstrate what you say is the difference?---So attachment (1), in the middle there's manager, Lee Meshford, who was a section manager at the time, and if you move to the left there's assistant manager, Niasi Certiobud. So Niasi was reporting in to the section manager. On the next attachment, attachment (2) - - -
PN62
Can I ask what the date of that first one is?---That was February 2000. That was actually - that was actually when assistance manager first got created. Prior to the year 2000 there were no assistant managers in Toyota to my knowledge.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN63
Yes. So this is the organisational structure that was in place in the paint shop in 2000?---Yes.
PN64
Can I ask you to move to the next one?---Attachment (2), we have again on the far left, Lee Mashford, section manager, and under him, Niasi Certiobud, assistant manager. So Niasi was reporting to Lee Mashford, which was the section manager. So I can't see how they can be the same position. That was in October of 2000.
PN65
That was the structure that was in place at that point in time?---That was the structure in place. In the maintenance area there was the manager. It's got Engineering Services Manager, he was the section manager, Malcolm Tucker.
PN66
Not an assistant manager?---No, section manager.
PN67
Can you look at the third one?---Attachment 3, we have again Lee Mashford, section manager, and on the left under the day shift box, again Niasi Certiobud, assistant manager, and on the right, on the afternoon shift, Carlo Vadala, assistant manager. Again - - -
PN68
And they both reported into the section manager?---They reported to the section manager.
PN69
Was that structure in place - - -?---That structure was in place in January of 2001.
PN70
Then the final one?---Then the final one is March 2003 where we don't have assistant manager reporting in to a section manager, but we have both an assistant manager in production, Steven Wright, and on the right in the maintenance area, Carlo Vadala which was then promoted to a section manager of maintenance.
PN71
Now, is that the structure that was in place immediately prior to this dispute arising?---No.
PN72
No?---No.
PN73
Not Mr Daffy is GF?---GF, yes.
PN74
GF, yes?---This was in March of 2003. Carlo Vadala was the section manager of maintenance. After that there is another structure which I haven't attached because - what I was trying to say - but Carlo has moved to production and there's been a few other changes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN75
But essentially is it the same sort of structure?---Essentially the same sort of structure, yes, with a few - - -
PN76
Okay. Now, Mr Daffy, who was the general foreperson in that particular area?
---In maintenance, yes.
PN77
Was he moved from that area prior to this dispute?---Yes, about 14 months roughly prior to the dispute.
PN78
And he was moved to the ..... section?---Moved to the .... section, yes.
PN79
What did you do once he was moved?---Initially when he was first moved I approached the plant manager and asked him why he'd moved. First, I need to go back a bit because the circumstances are funny. Simon Daffy went on leave for a month. During that month John Cause was put into acting GF in maintenance, while Simon was on holidays. When Simon returned, after one or two days Simon was moved across into close end and John Cause was put back as acting .... the manager because in all situations when they appoint an acting, they should go through a process which is in the WPA, which they didn't. So I approached them to say, well, how did you go about this, sir? He didn't follow it. And then he explained to me the reason why - why Simon was moved across.
PN80
Can you just - you said they had to go through a process which is in the WPA?
---Yes.
PN81
Which part of the WPA?---At that time the 2002 WPA was in - - -
PN82
At this point in time, your Honour, do you have a copy of the 2002 agreement? I think you do, which is the blue one?
PN83
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN84
MR ADDISON: Yes, and have you got a copy of the green one as well?
PN85
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have.
PN86
MR ADDISON: Good. I thought you had but I wasn't sure.
PN87
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm waiting for the red one.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN88
MR ADDISON: Sorry?
PN89
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm waiting for the red one.
PN90
MR ADDISON: So, this 2002 agreement?---Yes.
PN91
That was in force at that point in time, is that correct?---Yes, that's correct.
PN92
Okay, and the process, which process are you referring to?---Selection for acting positions.
PN93
Which is?---I can't recall which it was off the top of my head.
PN94
I'll give you a copy just so that we've got it there. As I understand it it's in the appendices. If I can take you to page 112?---Page 112, yes.
PN95
Is that the process that you referred to?---Yes, and the process clearly shows that there's a process to be followed and involves the supervisor, HR, the employee representative which would have been myself at that point of time, and that process wasn't followed initially.
PN96
So that prompted you to do what?---To approach the manager and ask him why wasn't the process followed, for a start, and it was subsequent to me - explain to me that he wasn't really aware of the process, so then I showed it to him. Unfortunately the decision had already been made, people had been told already, so I went and spoke to the other two candidates, which would probably have been eligible to fulfil that acting role and ask them how they felt, if they felt they were being disadvantaged, and they said, yes, they appreciate that they weren't asked initially but they really weren't interested in doing it. So there was no purpose in me lodging a grievance or anything. It was only going to create trouble and on the end of the day, the person that was selected was the only person who was willing to actually do the job anyway.
PN97
And that was Mr Cause, is that correct?---That was Mr Cause.
PN98
Now, you ultimately did lodge a grievance, though, didn't you?---Not at that point in time. That was when he first did the acting position for a month. When Simon Daffy returned we would assume that John Cause would have gone back t his group leader position and Simon Daffy would have continued on as maintenance GF, but within a matter of one to two days, it was decided that Simon moved to close end, which was a new role, it had just been created, it was just created there and then, and John Cause stay on as acting. Again, but, they did not follow the process for that section period of acting, which ended up lasting 12 months. But again, the other people weren't interested. It's no use me putting in a grievance and making a big fuss about it, if the only person interested was given the opportunity.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN99
Well, you said in your witness statement, in particular your first witness statement, you constantly raised the question?---That was later. At that time I did constantly raise the question. At the time, the reason that I was told that Simon Daffy was moved was that he probably didn't have the right skill set to fulfil that position and during the month that John Cause did the acting role, they did see good results and that's why they wanted to extend his acting period to increasing.
PN100
And Mr Cause acted in that position for how long?---12 months.
PN101
Was it 12 months?---Just under 12 months.
PN102
Just under 12 months?---Just under 12 months.
PN103
Then, is there a maximum span in any - - -?---In the agreement at the time there was a maximum span of 12 months, so I had discussions with John, informally, and with Malcolm, stating that you've got to decide what you're going to do with that position, is Simon going to have to stay there or not, is the job going to be advertised full time or not, because we can't go over a 12 month period. So John was taken off the acting so he didn't go over the 12 months and it took quite a bit of time for Malcolm to come up with a decision on what he was going to do, which I followed up again, at least three times a week, if not almost every day.
PN104
Yes, you say in your witness statement you became a bit of a standing joke?
---Well, yes, it was a joke. It was a joke in the paint shop. It was friendly, nothing harsh, but - and eventually he came back
to me and said yes, we're going to advertise the position as a full time GF replacement, and Simon will stay on in the Kaizen coordinator
role, not GF, Kaizen coordinator.
PN105
Can I take you to the 2002 enterprise agreement and can I take you to page 92 of the 2002 agreement?---Yes.
PN106
I'm not quite - 2002, yes. I'm not quite sure what - it's an appendix, I think. The actual clause is headed, Three Solely Group Clerical Supervisor Technical Employees, and that's on page 89. So I presume it's in that clause 3 or appendix 3. In fact, if I take you to page 92 and subsection (k), do you see subsection (k)? It says that supervisory positions, as they become vacant, will be advertised and filled in accordance with the internal recruitment policies?---Yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN107
The answer that was given to you by the paint shop manager - - -?---Plant manager.
PN108
Plant manager, is that the ..... plant manager of the .... plant manager?---I'm - he's always been plant manager. Before he might have had the title of department manager, but it's just a title change, doing the same job.
PN109
So he's in charge of the paint shop, the whole - - -?---The whole lot, the boundaries, everything in it.
PN110
The answer you were given that the position would be advertised for a permanent GF would be put in place, was that in accord with sub-paragraph (k)?---Yes, it was.
PN111
Is that what happened?---No, it didn't happen eventually.
PN112
Can you tell her Honour what then occurred?---What then occurred was, after - obviously you've got to justify every - even though to backfill a vacancy, you've still got to put in a justification for labour requisition, and it's got to be approved all the way up to the director. So they went through the process of doing that and Malcolm was saying that he had a hard time, because of moving Simon Daffy to .... to this new role, it was an increase in head count. So it was taking him time to justify it, which I kept in contact with him and asking him what was going on, but I did not apply any pressure as in, have you got anything today or tomorrow or anything. I understand the process takes quite a bit of time. It took quite a bit of time. My understanding, the labourer position got signed off by a number of people up the chain, but I think when it came - what I was told by Malcolm was when it came to Mark Dobson, that Mark Dobson would not sign it and later in, I think, the end of June, again, one day when I was walking in Malcolm said - I asked him what's happening and he said to me, you're not going to like the answer. I said why? He goes, you're not going to like it. Okay, just tell me, and he goes, they're going to replace him with a manager. So I said we need to talk about it because he was on his way home and I was on my way in which is actually basically at the gate and then I went on leave because the plant shut down for two weeks and when I returned we sat down and had a discussion about why the GF position wasn't being backfilled as per the agreement and the response that he gave me was not satisfying. All he said was that the scope of the role was bigger because it involves bumper bar and then I subsequently lodged the grievance that night.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN113
The grievances you lodged, can I - just bear with me one second. If I can just hand you a copy of this. I hand the witness a copy
of Mr Dobson's first witness statement, your Honour. If I can take you to attachment 4 of that witness statement, that's a problem
resolution procedure, PRP form, have you got it?
---Yes.
PN114
Is that the grievance you lodged?---That is.
PN115
And attachment 5 is the problem resolution, PRP form again and as I understand it, just based on the cross in the box, this is the response?---This is the response to Malcolm's response. So - - -
PN116
Sorry, say that again?---It's the response to Malcolm's response. So on attachment 4, the first half on the left, is my grievance to be issued. On the right, still on attachment 4, is the plant manager's response to my grievance and then this is the process, the PRP process, and then on attachment 5 on the left is whether I accept it or not accept it and obviously I've marked it across, not accepted.
PN117
So you get the response from Mr Tucker?---Yes.
PN118
Which basically is, as I understand from what he's got written there on the left, is that the company's is responding to business changes?---Business changes, yes.
PN119
And you don't accept that response?---Well, based on what he wrote, changing business conditions and we need to develop our structure and they're being changed, in my response, I outlined the reasons why I rejected it and that's basically because it wasn't in line with our award or WPAs at the time.
PN120
Now, can I ask you, in terms of the WPA that was in place at that point in time, the previous clause I took you to, subclause (k) of appendix 3, I think it's appendix 3, on page 92, part 3 of appendix F, I'm advised, is that the clause you were referring to in this response?---That's one of the clauses. That's a basic clause. That's a normal standard clause. We need to - all positions should be backfilled. There's some other things which I referred to also, which are the structural efficiency agreement which outlines the job definitions for general foreman, and senior general foreman, and also clause in WPA clause 90 which is a provision for if the company would like to change the structure, there's a process to follow.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN121
Yes, that's in clause 90. Where's that in the - - -?---In the 2005 - - -
PN122
The 2005 agreement. Was the 2005 agreement in place by then?---Yes.
PN123
Now, just in terms of that, have you got a copy of the 2005 agreement with you?
---No, I don't think so.
PN124
Have you got a spare, please. Clause 90 of the 2005 agreement, you say is the appropriate mechanism the company should have used if they were responding to business changes, is that correct?---If they wanted to change our structure, which the company, I might say, have made it clear to us that they've wanted to change our structure for the last at least three years during negotiations, various negotiations.
PN125
Can I just - - -?---It was agreed to in the 2005 WPA that this would be the mechanism to review it and change it.
PN126
You raised that with Mr Tucker or Mr Dobson?---With Mr Tucker.
PN127
And did you get a response?---No. They don't give you a response to the response.
PN128
Okay. So the response to the response is the final response, is it?---Yes. It then escalates to the next level, which is the senior employee rep, sit down with the plant manager and have a discussion.
PN129
And then it goes to the problem resolution committee?---Problem resolution committee.
PN130
And then to the Commission?---Then to the Commission.
PN131
Thank you. So all those steps have been gone through?---Yes.
PN132
In terms of you being the initiator of the dispute, I guess, when you raised clause 90 of the new agreement with the company, did you get a response?---I got the response that it's only ever - that clause is only about progression where it was made quite clear at the time of negotiations that they wanted to look at the whole classification structure, because they thought it was outdated, and they'd like to change it, and progression. But it was - it's been clear for many years that they wanted to look at our structure, and that was agreed.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN133
Can I take you to clause 2 of the new agreement too, just if you can have a quick look at clause 2. You will see that the previous agreement and the awards continue to apply?---Yes, yes.
PN134
Except where there's an inconsistency, you're pretty familiar, as an employee representative or delegate, with regard to this agreement. Is there anything in this agreement that you're aware of that overrides subclause (k) of part 3 of appendix F of the 2002 agreement?---No, nothing that I'm aware of.
PN135
So from that, on that basis, subclause (k) would continue to - - -?---Apply, yes.
PN136
Now, similarly if I can take you to clause 15.4 of the 2002 agreement, which is on page 27 of the previous agreement, there's a business structure change clause there, 15.4?---Yes, that's correct.
PN137
Did you raise that with the company too?---I did talk about that, but at the time the grievance was put in, the 2005 - - -
PN138
Agreement had come into effect?---Had come in and to me, looking at it, that clause 90 is more appropriate because it deals specifically with the structure.
PN139
So you would expect that clause 90 in the new agreement would take precedent over 15.4?---That's right. 15.4 to me is more broad. It can cover a lot of different changes, where clause 9 is very specific and talks about classification structure and progression.
PN140
Yes, no worries. Now, you also raised the award. Your Honour, do you have a copy of the award?
PN141
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. This is the '88 award?
PN142
MR ADDISON: Yes, your Honour. I've got it somewhere. Just bear with me, your Honour. Now, it's clause 3, supervisory definitions in appendix D of the award, can I just show you this document. Appendix D of the award, page 123 on the print I've got, your Honour. I presume they're all the same.
PN143
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN144
MR ADDISON: It's the following page after page 123 that I'm looking at which is subclause (3) appendix D, supervisory definitions. Have you got that?---No, I don't. I'm familiar with it, but.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN145
Sorry, I was presuming everybody would have the award, that's all. You raised that with the company?---Yes, I did. In particular I raised - is that the time we were talking about a general foreman's position?
PN146
Yes?---So Level 2, and what was outlined in the award was consistent with the work that had been - was being done in the paint shop maintenance area and that position should be held by the general foreman because of that.
PN147
How long does the general foreperson to your knowledge held the position that Mr Daffy was then holding or then vacated?---The Altona plant started in 1994. I was actually the first production person to be placed at that plant. I was transferred from Altona because of new technology in the area I was working in, they had to be there early. From the day I arrived David Horton was maintenance general foreman, S5 level, which is Level 2, and he was a general foreman in maintenance responsible for one shift, the first year, there'd been night shift operation, the first year, but '95 onwards it was three shifts, responsible till the year 2000, which is six years, and from 2000 to 2004, Simon Daffy was the maintenance GF responsible for the - - -
PN148
Okay, so you had ?---10 years.
PN149
You had a Level 2, general foreperson in that position for 10 years, you say?
---Since the plant was built.
PN150
And that's what you were seeking at that point in time to be replaced?---Because there was no indication to me by Malcolm of any higher level of responsibility. The only thing that was mentioned was - there's bumper bar too - so to me bumper bar is not a higher level in itself. It's just some more people to look after, you know.
PN151
And Mr Daffy was the maintenance supervisor, is that correct?---Yes, that's correct.
PN152
And in terms of the maintenance supervisor's level of responsibility in the paint shop, and I think this was part of the inspection, your Honour, so I'm not trying to lead the witness, but is it just the paint shop or is it beyond the paint shop?---He's responsible for the .... and maintenance of paint shop, facility inside, but also there's other areas which - sorry, under paint shop, which service other parts of the plant. For example, trade waste, waste from other plants, and utilities building, ridge services, I believe 80 per cent of the whole plant.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN153
And when you said utilities building, is that compressors, boilers?---Compressors, boilers.
PN154
Electrical supply?---There's substations.
PN155
Okay. So the maintenance foreperson in the paint shop?---Is responsible for all that for the last 10 years.
PN156
PN157
S5 level GF, thank you. And the bumper bar facility coming into paint shop as I understand it from the evidence that's been tendered, that's due to be complete in about April of next year, is that correct?---The painting section is.
PN158
And the resin section?---I believe June/July.
PN159
So it's during the course of next year?---Yes.
PN160
And in your - are you familiar with the plant?---No, I've never actually been in the plant because it's not actually finished at this point in time, so there's limited access to the plant. I'm a little bit familiar on the manning proposals, possible shifts, how many bumper bars they've got to put, because I prepared a presentation for the plant manager for bumper bar.
PN161
Right, and what's the increase in manning?---I haven't seen a final because they're withholding it, they're not releasing it, but the one I saw had approximately eight - eight more team members, trades team members and team members and team leaders, and two group leaders, but another 10 people, but they could have changed since I seen it last.
PN162
So the increase in terms of maintenance resources in paint shop to the best of your knowledge would be about eight people?---10 if you include the group leaders.
PN163
Yes, 10 if you include the group leaders. The current trade numbers in the paint shop?---I believe they're around 45.
PN164
So that would make it 55 people in total which would include - which would be five group leaders, is that right?---Five, yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN165
They would operate over a three shift system, the same as they currently do, is that correct?---The proposal of time I thought for resin was only a two shift.
PN166
Yes, but the plant will continue to operate three shifts?---The paint shop, yes.
PN167
Sorry, yes?---So, at that time in the discussions when he bought that up and he said, well, there's extra responsibilities, I said, well, I still think it fits within the role of an S5 and he goes no, there's extra responsibilities, I said okay, then. Not an S5. Let's look at the next level, S6. For the last five yeas whenever you mention the word S6 or Senior GS, nobody wants to talk to you there. It's just, you know, that can't happen and my - I've always asked, well, why can't it happen. Well, not making this GS any more and I say, well, it's in the award, why can't we make it, if there's work there. If the work falls under that position the person should be in there.
PN168
Can I take you to the new agreement again, the green agreement, the 2005 agreement and can I take you to page 156 of that agreement?---Yes.
PN169
You'll see at the top of page 156 of that agreement something called a spanner control?---Yes.
PN170
Just let me get this right because these words have clause numbers. This seems to be a glossary to the agreement. You'll see the spanner control is for a general foreperson and that goes into complexity, standardised issue, geographical requirements compartment or objectives and work order. How long have you been a GF?---Seven years.
PN171
So you're familiar with what GFs do?---Yes.
PN172
In your opinion the 55 people with the five group leaders, did that fall within the span of control of the GF?---Easily because I'm responsible for 75.
PN173
You're responsible for 75?---Mm, and I'm not - there's GFs around with more people reporting to them than me.
PN174
So you put to the company that you wanted the position replaced with a GF. The company has said, because resin and bumper bar are .... it's more complex, there'll be more people and you've said to them, well, all right, if that's the case, let's go to an SGF?---That's right.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN175
And the response was, that can't happen?---Yes.
PN176
Do you understand why that response was given to you?---I do understand because for the last five years I've been told many times. Unfortunately most of the times it was just between me and the manger at the time, that they don't want to make any SGFs and the reason is obviously a cost reason because of the remuneration they receive and it's ..... rate, and that's always what I've been hearing for the last five years.
PN177
There's evidence from Mr Dymock with regard to the classification review committee. You say in your responding witness statement that you attended last committee, I guess, for want of a better term?---Yes.
PN178
Can I give you a copy of Mr Dymock's witness statement? Can I take you to GRD1, which is a memo that deals with that matter and item 1 particularly. Now this deals with the meeting on 29 and 31 March '04?---Sorry - - -
PN179
You'll get there?---What was it?
PN180
GRD1?---1, yes.
PN181
I think that's it, I think that's the memo?---Yes, that's it.
PN182
And that one deals with the meeting that occurred on 29 and 31 March, representing the company and the AMW text:
PN183
Work party met to discuss and work towards the resolution of the outstanding issues -
PN184
blah, blah, blah. Did you attend on those days?---To be honest I can't recall whether I attended on those two days because - - -
PN185
That's okay. Do you recall these issues?---Because I work afternoon shift from 5.30 to 2 am. I'm not able to attend every working party meeting, although I did attend many. The part in my statement where I referred to the working party was specifically, I can very clearly recall attending the working party where the vision was presented, the vision document.
PN186
Right. Now, that's the document that's outlined at GRD2, is that right? That's the Vision TMCA Supervisory Structure?---Yes, that's correct.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN187
The vision document outlines, and I think Mr Dymock says simply that it is Toyota's view, do you agree with that?---That it's Toyota's view?
PN188
Toyota's view?---I think Mr Dymock is saying here in his statement, and he said a few times, that that is Toyota's position.
PN189
Yes?---My objection with that has been always that at the time of its presentment there was a sort of a stall in negotiations, or say, in the working party. So what the company is well, hang on a second, we're stuck. Give us a chance, let us show you something, just an idea, just a concept. Just a starting point ad they came with this. They presented it and was still - and they still said the same thing, it's a starting point and in fact those words came out of their mouth, even David Bourke, which was responsible of the working party at the time, clearly said it's a starting point and he said to me, it doesn't mean it's going to be that. He goes, it's something to start discussions, and since then but, they're referring to a one line clause in it and saying that was formal advice.
PN190
Can I take you to paragraph 16 of Mr Dymock's statement, the same statement you've got, just go back to the body of it, prior to the attachments, paragraph 16, which is on page 4?---Yes.
PN191
It's not the bit on page 4 that I'm particularly interested in. It's the next page, page 5, you'll see:
PN192
The vision for future supervisory structure -
PN193
and then -
PN194
This included Toyota's vision to simplify the supervisory structure, clarify the roles and responsibilities at each level of the structure and draw a clear distinction between award and non award levels of supervisory structures.
PN195
Then all the time to absorb the role of the SGF. In your time on the working party has any agreement on any of those matters been reached?---No, that was Toyota's vision, I agree. It's clearly documented, but at no time was it put as their final position. It was negotiation, it was talk, it was supposed to come to some outcome, which never arrived.
PN196
Well, certainly. There's a working party, there's negotiations within the working party with regard to certain of these matters have been put on the table by Toyota, there seems to be no argument about that, is there?---No.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN197
It seems that there are four objectives that Toyota want - - -?---Sorry, can I help you?
PN198
Yes?---There was negotiations. They got stuck. They said, hang on, let's pause for a second. We'll show you what our vision is. So this wasn't actually a document we negotiated or had a part in. It was just hang on, let's just show our vision and see if we can work to something from there. They presented the vision. We sat there, listened to it. There was not enough detail in it to explain how all these things were going to occur and we never got anywhere. We did later subsequently present a vision back to them. I'm not sure how it's been involved in these proceedings.
PN199
I accept that. There are four objectives that Toyota seem to be pursuing from 2 June 2004?---Yes.
PN200
To simplify the supervisory structure, was agreement reached between Toyota and the union members on that working party to do that?---It wasn't put forward as something to agree on. So it couldn't have been agreed on. It was put forward as discussion documents so, no, there's never been an agreement.
PN201
There's never been an agreement on that?---Because it was - it was put forward to be agreed on.
PN202
In terms of the working party, was there any clarity with regard to the roles and responsibilities of each level?---Sorry, can you repeat that?
PN203
In terms of the working party, was there ever agreement on clarity with regard to the roles and responsibilities of each level of the structure?---We worked through the group leader level which we gained agreement in the committee, but unfortunately it stalled when it came to GF and SGF.
PN204
Can I just to cut through this - - -?---So nothing formally came out of the committee, nothing formally came.
PN205
So nothing formal came out of the committee. Now, this committee was prior of course to the negotiations of the 2005 agreement, wasn't it?---Yes, it was.
PN206
Now, these matters which were raised and clearly put on the table on 2 June by Toyota, were they pursuant through the certified agreement?---I didn't participate all that much at the 2005 workplace agreement, so I'm possibly not - can't answer that.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN207
Okay, so maybe a better question is to ask Mr Davis?---Yes.
PN208
Because Mr Davis was on the negotiating party, wasn't he?---Yes.
PN209
Yes?---So I'd be saying hearsay, not something that I'd reached.
PN210
Now, in terms of Mr Dobson's second statement, which I think you've got?---Yes.
PN211
Mr Dobson gives evidence with regard to the distinction between the SGF and the assistant manager, I think you've probably dealt with that in your statement in response, but if I can take you to paragraph 11 of Mr Dobson's second statement. He gives an example in paragraph 11 of, I guess what he's trying to say is the difference between the responsibilities of an SGF and a manager and he talks about clause 31.2 of the certified agreement, that's the current certified agreement. Can I take you to clause 31.2? Have you got it? It's on page 52 of the current certified agreement?---Yes.
PN212
You will see there is a table, is that right? Bear with me, yes?---Yes.
PN213
There's a table there which deals with, I guess, disciplinary matters and he's referring to the warnings issued and it talks about first and second and final written warnings.
PN214
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What page are you on, Mr Addison?
PN215
MR ADDISON: Page 52, your Honour.
PN216
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, thank you.
PN217
MR ADDISON: Clause 31.2. How long did you say you've been a delegate?
---For the last four years I would say.
PN218
And you've been involved in disciplinary procedures before?---Yes, I have.
PN219
What level of manager would issue a warning?---One warning, always the department manager, plant manager.
PN220
Assistant managers, have they ever issued warnings to your knowledge, written warnings, that is?---I haven't been present and none of the people that I work with have been issued by an assistant manager.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN221
When the agreement was explained to you, as it must have been, prior to it being endorsed, what was the understanding of the level of management that would be issuing warnings?---Final written warning?
PN222
Well, any warnings?---Well, different levels have different levels of accountability for different warnings. From first written warning, it would be conducted by a GF or a manager which I understand to be assistant manager. Second written warning, GF, SGF, or manager, I understand again to be assistant manager, and the last one, final written warning I understand to be a plant manager.
PN223
Now, can I take you to paragraph 21 of Mr Dobson's - maybe I should ask you a question first. It seems that your grievance which
you put in 2004, whatever it
as - - -?---2005.
PN224
I guess we should find that out really. But your grievance that you've put
in - - -?---July 2005.
PN225
11 July 2005, has progressed on as well?---Yes.
PN226
Originally the answer was yes, you're right, we'll ..... not a problem, we'll advertise of the position, and then it seems, on the evidence that we have before us, that Mr Dobson determined that that was not a problem?---Yes.
PN227
It seems that on this witness statement, at paragraph 21, that Mr Dobson made a decision that he needed greater management capacity to manage the .... et cetera and it was his decision because he says, "it was a major factor in my decision to create the assistant manager position into play." Did he talk to you about that at any point?---Personally?
PN228
Yes?---No, not personally, no.
PN229
Did he have Mr Tucker speak to you about the rationale for his decision at all?
---Never clearly.
PN230
Never clearly?---I couldn't get a clear understanding of what the difference was. We never got a job description. We only got the job description after we came to the Commission so I can't understand how they decided it was an assistant manager and then they didn't have a job description. We come to the Commission and then they need to make one. So how did you determine the extra duties back when you made the decision if you had to make this assistant manager job description after?
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN231
Right. In terms of - - -?---That's why I never got - was able - they never able to give me any clear understanding of what the role they believe encompassed.
PN232
So it's never been explained to you by Mr Dobson or Mr Tucker what the rationale is for making this position, or determining that this position should be of assistant manager?---Not .....
PN233
Okay. Can I then take you on to paragraph 26 of the witness statement. Mr Dobson talks about plan do it check it. Are you familiar
with that process?
---Yes. I learnt that process, I think, in the first year that I started at Toyota, as a team member. So yes, I've been using
it for the last 18 months and every team member is taught this, team leader, group leader, yes.
PN234
So everybody is expected to do it?---Yes.
PN235
And as a supervisor you do it?---Yes.
PN236
Mr Dobson says that a manager would do it more effectively than a supervisor, do you agree with that?---I'd have to disagree strongly with that.
PN237
Well, Mr Dobson says in paragraph 26 that if a supervisory position was introduced to the paint plant maintenance area, the PDCA would be carried out less comprehensively and at a slower rate than if a manager was responsible for the process in that area. Now, the previous position was a supervisory position, wasn't it, in the maintenance area?---Yes, it was.
PN238
So in fact the introduction is the introduction of a management position, isn't it?
---That's correct, yes.
PN239
Mr Dobson says that a manager would dedicate more time to the PDCA. Do you agree that that would be the case?---I don't think that the manager has the capability to commit more time to that plan to check action, because plan do check action, you've got to have a good grasp of the situation, you've got to see the situation, you've got to touch it, feel it, plan check, that's what it's about. Plan, do it, check it, action it. You know, managers spend the majority of their days at meetings away from the shop.
PN240
Yes?---You know, and they come back and relay information to us and we primarily do all the planning, doing, checking and action.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN241
If I can take you to paragraph 21 as well, if I can take you on to the next page at paragraph 21. Mr Dobson says, just in light of what you just said, that he's confident that an assistant manager can provide direct supervision of group leaders on any single shift to meet the requirements for direction supervision in this area?---Sorry, what paragraph was that?
PN242
28?---28.
PN243
Which is the next page?---Yes, yes.
PN244
Would the assistant manager be doing that in fact, would the assistant manager be directly supervising?---I don't think he would be able to devote his time to directly supervise them, if he was to perform a manager's role. If he was to perform a GFs role, yes, he could.
PN245
Good, good. And the GFs role is the direct supervision of the work, isn't it?
---Yes, group leaders, team leaders, team members.
PN246
And part of the GFs role is to plan, do, check, action, is it not?---Yes.
PN247
Can I just take you to paragraph 37 of Mr Dobson's second statement. Mr Dobson says in paragraph 37:
PN248
If the supervisor in charge of the department has been hired, for example, as they are in a production area, it may have been appropriate to have both the GF and assistant manager appropriately managerial requirements and supervisory requirements of the different areas.
PN249
In terms of maintenance, do you agree with the statement that Mr Dobson makes there, paragraph 37, this is the basis of his decision?---No, I don't agree because he states that if the supervisory requirements had been greater. Well, for the last 10 years the GF, the supervisor in that area, has had to work at least, I'd say an average of 60 hours a week at minimum to perform his function and supervise and keep the plant running. So he's saying that there's not enough supervisory work, where there was too much work for one person, I believe. Consistent, week in, week out, weekends, because every weekend there's work, so there's a lot of work there.
PN250
Now, the GF in maintenance supervise three shifts as well?---That's correct.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XN MR ADDISON
PN251
You do that too, don't you?---No, I don't.
PN252
No, you just do the afternoon shift?---Afternoon shift, yes.
PN253
That's okay. And the supervisor in maintenance in paint shop, I think we've already said, has a broader responsibility, isn't just paint shop?---Yes.
Yes. I think that's all I need from you, Adrian, thanks very much for that. I'll hand you over to the tender loving care of Henry. If the Commission pleases.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SKENE [11.05AM]
PN255
MR SKENE: Now, over the course of your evidence Mr Addison asked you to look at the dispute notifications which you put in under the problem resolution procedure, do you recall that?---Yes.
PN256
And the first of those, do you still have a copy of Mr Dobson's statement there - sorry, not Mr Dobson. Yes, Mr Dobson, I'm sorry?
PN257
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Which one is it, Mr Skene?
PN258
MR SKENE: The first one, your Honour, and it's attachment - - -
PN259
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Attachment, sorry?
PN260
MR SKENE: Attachments 4 and 5, so if you start with 4. Mr Tainsh, if I could just take you to the second paragraph effectively, beginning with the word "Now". You say there that you would like to promote, assign or engage a manager or an assistant manager to maintenance area:
PN261
That's fine, that's not my concern. My grievance is not against any manager of assistant manager position, but if you propose that a manager or an assistant manager will be given the roles and responsibilities of the general foreman, which is an award covered position, and that will negate the need for a GF vacancy to be filled, then this is not acceptable.
PN262
Now, in a nutshell, Mr Tainsh, that's your complaint, isn't it?---Sorry, where managers underlined, you said maintenance, sorry.
PN263
Sorry, "to manage the maintenance area"?---"To manage the maintenance area," yes, so that's the key, is it, "to manage the maintenance area"?
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN264
Yes. This paragraph is essentially the nutshell of your dispute, isn't it?---To manage maintenance area, I've got no problem with manage, yes.
PN265
Yes, so but if the assistant manager steps into a supervisory capacity, then you're concerned by that?---Because it's in contradiction to our awards and the EBA.
PN266
We'll come to that, but your concern is that an assistant manager, you say, cannot do supervisory functions, that's your concern, isn't it?---No, you're being too broad.
PN267
I see. Well, perhaps I'll put it more precisely. You say here if they're given the roles and responsibilities of the general foreman, which is an award covered position, and that negates the need for a GF vacancy. So in other words, if the supervisory work that's currently performed by a GF is absorbed into part of an assistant manager role, that's your concern, and that's what prompted the dispute, isn't it?---No. It's not part of the job. It's the whole job because there's nowhere else for it to go.
PN268
So you say it's the whole job. Now, if we can just turn over to the next attachment, the way you articulate it there at the bottom of that attachment, it's set out, we say, it's about just after halfway down the page and you say:
PN269
I'll reinforce my concerns again. The job functions of the GF in maintenance S5 Level 2 are still there in the maintenance group and will always be there. They cannot be removed in just one area without the function being passed to someone else and the GF is a link in the chain.
PN270
Now, just to go down to the next point that you make you say:
PN271
It should be noted that GF has not disappeared from the overall structure.
PN272
Well, I'd like to correct you on that point. The fact is that this grievance, the grievance is about the maintenance GF and the maintenance structure. Then there's a series of numbers which, correct me if I'm wrong, but team member, team leader, group leader, general foreman to manager. The chain would clearly be broken and the GF would be nonexistent in the overall management structure if what you propose were to eventuate. So your concern, as you articulate it there, is that the chain would be broken. Do you accept that?---When I say chain should be broken, in other words there's work to be done, yes, so where's that work gone, that's my concern.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN273
The way you articulate it there, if what you say is that you need to have a GF between a GL and a manager, that's what you're saying, isn't it?---No. What I'm saying is if there's work to be done, which I said further up, and it falls under the definition of a GF, then the GF should be doing it. If you remove it, things won't get done.
PN274
Now, you accept, don't you, that as part of their job an assistant manager can supervise other supervisors?---To be honest, like I said before, the assistant manager was introduced into Toyota in the year 2000. There was no real explanation to anybody on what their job was going to be.
PN275
Yes. Mr Tainsh, this part of the process, you just need to answer the questions that are put to you?---Yes. But are you saying do I accept it? I can't accept it because I don't fully understand it.
PN276
So you don't accept that as part of an assistant manager's role they can supervise other supervisors, you don't accept that?---Obviously they can.
PN277
Thank you. So as part of an assistant manager's role, they can perform the supervisory function. What's in dispute here is essentially
what you said earlier, whether or not that's all they're doing, ie they're just doing the duties of a GF, or whether or not they're
doing that plus something more. Do you accept that?
---Sorry, can you repeat that?
PN278
Yes. Accepting that an assistant manager can perform supervisory functions for other supervisors as part of their role, what's in dispute here is whether or not that's all they do, ie they just do what a GF does, or whether they do that plus something more?---I don't understand the question. Can you simplify it?
PN279
Well, let's perhaps go to your statement to simplify it. In your first statement you talk about this distinction - it might be your second statement. It's paragraph 19 of your second statement, actually, Mr Tainsh. Here you say, "Further, while the assistant manager will perform some supervisory functions," have you got that there, you don't have your second statement?
PN280
MR ADDISON: Yes, he has. You should have them both.
PN281
THE WITNESS: Do I?
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN282
MR ADDISON: You should have them both.
PN283
THE WITNESS: Which paragraph, sorry?
PN284
MR SKENE: This is paragraph 19. Now, you say there that while the assistant manager will perform some supervisory functions, there is insufficient supervisory work to justify keeping a supervisor, you're quoting Mr Taylor, and then you say in response to that, "I disagree again," and I think this is you talking now?---Yes.
PN285
I disagree again as supervisors, both GF and SGF, as outlined in the Toyota award level definitions are responsible for management functions. Now, contrary to the above,
PN286
You say:
PN287
Management roles historically have been pure management.
PN288
Now, by that you mean that they don't perform a supervisory function, but rather supervise to the GF does, don't you?---Mm.
PN289
That's what you're saying by pure management, is that right?
PN290
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have to answer, you can't nod?
---Sorry?
PN291
MR SKENE: When you say pure management, you mean that they're not performing that supervisory function that a GF does in your chain?---That a GF does? No, they don't perform - I object.
PN292
Now, you say that historically they've been pure management. Now, that's not strictly true within Toyota, is it?---What are you referring to?
PN293
Well, there have been cases in Toyota where group leaders have reported directly to assistant managers, and assistant managers have supervised them where the link in your chain is broken, that's happened in the past, hasn't it?---In which area are you referring to?
PN294
Well, are you familiar with Peter Mulhall?---I've heard of him, yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN295
Well, Peter Mulhall is an assistant manager in the body shop?---Yes.
PN296
Performing a maintenance function in the body shop. Peter Mulhall, since January 2004 has been an assistant manager with group leaders directly reporting to him performing those functions, that's right, isn't it?---Yes. It may be right, but I'm not fully aware of all the circumstances, because I work in the paint shop.
PN297
Yes, fair enough. So you can't say categorically what happens in the body shop?
---No.
PN298
It's outside your scope of knowledge, is that right?---In the body shop?
PN299
Yes?---I have some understanding from what is passed on to me, but I can't give the full story. I'm not there, or involved in the issues.
PN300
I see. Now, you've been employed in the paint shop though for quite some time, haven't you, 18 years, so basically your whole time at Toyota has been in the paint shop?---Yes.
PN301
And initially you were a team member, a team leader and then you were a group leader?---Yes.
PN302
And now you're a GF?---Yes.
PN303
And you've been a GF since, I think you say 1998?---Yes.
PN304
And all the time you've spent as a GF has been on the afternoon shift, hasn't
it?---Yes.
PN305
In the afternoon shift, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've written down here 5 o'clock start to 2 am finish, is that right?---5.30 to 2 o'clock.
PN306
5.30, is it?---5.30.
PN307
And can I just take you to paragraph 2 of your second statement, have you still got that there? The second last sentence there you say that the GF and the SGF are accountable for the performance of the section as they see fit. What do you mean by the word accountable, what does that mean?---Held responsible for.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN308
And can you see there's a difference between responsibility and accountability?
---There is. Obviously - - -
PN309
What is that difference?---Between responsibility and accountability - - -
PN310
Yes, I'm just wondering what you mean when you say accountable?---You can be held responsible for something so there comes a - somebody will come and say, oh, you're responsible, but accountable I think is not only responsible, but you're accountable to do something about it, to fit it, to - you've got to go back and make sure it happens. It's on you, where you can be responsible for something and if it goes wrong, somebody else comes in and fixes it for you.
PN311
Do you think that it means as well that, whether you're responsible for something and whether you're accountable for something, is whether or not you could be held to account if what it is that you're accountable for, doesn't happen, do you accept that?---Yes, I think I'd accept that.
PN312
So you can be responsible for something without necessarily being accountable, what flows from that may not happen?---Yes, yes.
PN313
And you can also have, do you think, different levels of accountability. You can both - people can be responsible for the same thing, but can be accountable for it in different ways, do you accept that?---Obviously you could be accountable in different ways, yes.
PN314
So, for example, and this is a pertinent example in this case, a GF and an assistant manager may both be responsible for something but they may be held accountable for it in different ways. So, for example, an assistant manager is held accountable perhaps to a greater extent than a general foreman, do you accept that?---No, I can't accept that.
PN315
Well, if you're both responsible for something, one difference might be that the remuneration of a general foreman is not affected by a failure to perform, what you're responsible for, is it?---Of a general foreman, no, not directly.
PN316
And an assistant manager's remuneration is different, isn't it?---It's different, yes.
PN317
And it's affected by the performance, there is an at risk component that is affected by performance, isn't there?---Well, I'm not an assistant manager, so - - -
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN318
Sorry, what did you say?---I'm not an assistant manager, so it's a bit difficult for me to say yes, it is affected, because it would only be hearsay again.
PN319
You've never held that position?---No.
PN320
So you don't know really how that remuneration process - - -?---I've been told. I've been told, but here - I'm not here to speculate. As far as I know, your remuneration will not be reduced, but you may not get as big a pay rise or any pay rise.
PN321
So it can be affected?---It can be affected, yes, from my understanding.
PN322
And you accept, wouldn't you, that that's been held to account in a different way?
---Yes.
PN323
Would you also accept, and we're going to spend a bit of time perhaps talking about these differences because, to some extent, it's what the case is all about. So would you also accept that the type of accountability that an assistant manager has, the breadth, if you like - perhaps I can put it a different way. Would you accept that the perspective of an assistant manager is broader in terms of those responsibilities than a GF?---In my knowledge, my experience it varies from position to position, department to department.
PN324
Yes, okay. So that's right. So within Toyota there are lots of different ways that supervisory structures are set up, aren't there, so in some cases you have - I've given you the Peter Mulhall example, you have group leaders reporting directly to an assistant manager. In other cases you've got group leaders reporting to a GF, in other cases you've got group leaders reporting to SGFs, in other cases you've got a group leader reporting to a GF in one part, and an SGF in another, and both those people link up to an assistant manager. I mean, there are a wide number of different variations of that combination, aren't there, Mr Tainsh?---Yes, there is differences.
PN325
And the scope of who does what and exactly how much time they spend doing supervisory and management is different according to those structures, isn't it, those different structures?---I believe it is, yes.
PN326
So when you said a minute ago that it varies from position to position, that's really what you meant, isn't it?---Yes. I didn't really explain myself, but you stopped me before when I tried to explain something.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN327
Mr Addison with the transcript will explain. Now, where you have your relationship with - your assistant manager is Mr Vadala, Carlo Vadala?---No.
PN328
He's not. You say he's the section manager?---Well, I don't say it. He is a section manager.
PN329
He holds the job title of section manager?---Yes, that's correct.
PN330
And you say that that's a different position substantively from assistant manager, do you?---My understanding and what I've seen in Toyota since I've been there, yes, there has - it has been different.
PN331
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Tainsh, the microphone actually doesn't amplify. Leave it as it was, but you don't need to go near it to speak. It'll pick up anyway.
PN332
MR SKENE: Now, you're aware, though, aren't you, that both section managers and assistant managers are classified as what's called a remuneration grade, Grade 4?---Yes.
PN333
And you're aware, are you, that that remuneration band, that remuneration level has a band, salary range, some will get paid less in that range, some will get paid more?---Very aware.
PN334
Very aware of that, so do you say that Mr Vadala is different substantively from an assistant manager because he gets paid a little bit more in that band, is that your position?---I don't know how much he gets paid.
PN335
No, but you accept that they're both Level 4, assistant manager Level 4 and Mr Vadala is a Level 4, don't we?---Mr Vadala is an executive 4, yes.
PN336
Now, you say that they're not substantively the same in terms of what they do. I'm just asking you is the reason that you say that because you think that Mr Vadala is higher up in that remuneration band than some other assistant managers, is that right?---It might not be the case, no.
PN337
You just don't know?---No, there's some other factors, I believe, yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN338
So it may be seniority, he's been around for longer?---No, no. What I mean by that is there may be some assistant manager that earns more than a section manager because of the time that they got promoted to assistant manager, the salary they were on, as an award person, was high, so they had to put them up high to give them allowance. That has been the case before in the paint shop.
PN339
I see. So someone who is coming out of award conditions might go into the top of the band so they don't lose money by making that change?---Yes, that's right.
PN340
I understand. It's not that though - that's not the reason that you say that Mr Vadala is substantively different from an assistant manager, is it?---No, that's not the reason.
PN341
Now, you say in your statement that - is it because there's a different job type?
---Are you asking me why I believe it's different?
PN342
I'll just keep asking the questions, we'll get there. He can ask me why?---Yes. So what are you asking me, that's all I want to clarify?
PN343
Well, is it because he's more senior than - - -?---More senior?
PN344
Yes?---No.
PN345
Is it because he's got a different job title?---It's one part of the reason. It's a factor, yes.
PN346
Is it because you say he does different things from an assistant manager?---Yes, I would say.
PN347
You think he does different things. He's going to say that he doesn't do anything different, that his job, as a section manager, is exactly the same as an assistant manager. You wouldn't say that he's wrong about that, would you? I mean, you couldn't really know, could you?---I couldn't know 100 per cent what he's doing, no, in particular.
PN348
Now, in paragraph 5 of your first statement, I think it is, yes. I'll just take you to that. Actually just before we deal with that, I might just ask you about the attachments to your statement attachments that you put on to your second statement, those organisational charts. Can you just turn to them? Have you got those, your Honour?
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN349
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN350
MR SKENE: Just flicking through them because this is about, I think, what part of the reason you're saying there's a difference because assistant managers over time have sometimes reported to section managers, that's basically what you're relying on here, isn't it?---It's another factor, yes.
PN351
Now, in February 2000 you reported to two people on this, the section manager there who's sort of in the middle of the page, is that Masud?---Yes.
PN352
And there's an assistant manager reporting to that person?---Yes.
PN353
This departmental manager there, Bourke, that person would now be called a plant manager?---That's correct.
PN354
So that's the position that's currently held by Malcolm Tucker?---Yes, that's correct.
PN355
Now, skipping through, we then go to October, I think this is October 2000, this next one, and then we have both the section manager, or the same type of structure that represented different - the lines are the same, assistant manager feeding into the section manager. Now, it's not unusual, is it, for managers to report to other managers at the same level, that's not unusual, is it?---It is in my time in Toyota.
PN356
Well, I put it to you that it happens all the time, that E4s report to E4s throughout Toyota?---Not while I've been in the paint shop, I haven't seen that.
PN357
You haven't seen it, okay. In any event here it's clear that there's sort of an assistant manager reporting to a section manager and the distinction is not completely clear, but there's no question that's the reporting relationship, flicking through it we now get to a position in 2001 where again that's maintained, you have two assistant managers, and that's Mr Vadala who is in the middle of the page there on afternoon shift. Are you on this chart?---Yes.
PN358
Where are you exactly, sorry?---Under the day shift, GF shift interchange.
PN359
At that point you were reporting to that assistant manager, Mr - - -?---Niasi Certiobud.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN360
So that was a time when there was the assistant manager and the change upon you and the section manager and then the department. There were quite a lot of management levels there, do you accept that?---Yes.
PN361
Now, the most recent one that you've put in, in 2003, indicates that the assistant manager is now on the same level as the section manager and this is the time that Mr Vadala looked after the maintenance group, I think you were still over here in the production side reporting to Mr Wright, yes, there you are there, yes. Now, at that time those positions were essentially on the same level, weren't they?---Well, one was in production and one was in maintenance.
PN362
Yes, but other than that division, they both report to the same person?---Yes.
PN363
Mr Tucker who at that time is the department manager. Now, that department manager position would now be called what?---I'm confused to be honest.
PN364
Well, so am I. The point is, isn't it, that in 2004 shortly after that, there is this restructure and I think you mentioned in your evidence that all the management positions in manufacturing went through a review and a different structure was determined. So for example - do you agree that that happened?---Yes, that did happen, yes.
PN365
So for example, where previously there had been department managers and general managers and that title was consolidated to - divisional managers and those managers, those titles were consolidated to divisional manager. You had all sorts of - there was senior department manager versus department manager. That was consolidated to - I think this is the one that you pointed to - plant manager, are you aware of that?---Yes, there was quite a few changes.
PN366
A lot of changes and from that time on the title, assistant manager, was used to refer to a lot of jobs that previously had been effectively section manager, wasn't it, are you aware of that?---It was never communicated to us.
PN367
No. I'm just asking, within your knowledge - - -?---I'm not aware of it, no.
PN368
You're not aware of that having happened?---No.
PN369
I see. And we go back to those things, the attachments, as far as you're aware, after that restructure there hasn't been an occasion, at least within your scope of knowledge, where you've had an assistant manager reporting to a section manager?---No.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN370
If we could come back to paragraph 5 of your first statement. There you say that you were totally unsupervised or directed and make
decisions on your own?
---Yes.
PN371
Now, by that you mean during the afternoon shift after your manager goes home there isn't someone on site that you directly report to?---Yes.
PN372
So during the afternoon shift you're responsible for the day to day running of that shift?---Yes.
PN373
But it's not completely true to say that you work totally unsupervised, is it?---I believe it is true in the context that I've said.
PN374
In terms of the supervision that you do receive you accept, don't you, that you have regular meetings at the end of Mr Vadala's day and at the start of your day to talk about things that are happening on shift or things that are happening on the department?---With who are you referring to?
PN375
I'm talking to - you have regular discussion - - -?---With Carlo Vadala?
PN376
With Carlo Vadala?---Twice a week.
PN377
Twice a week, say?---I don't have direct discussions with him. It's a group of people.
PN378
There are meetings?---Yes.
PN379
But in addition to those meetings you speak to him, don't you, about things that happen outside those meeting frameworks, you're not saying that you don't ever speak to him outside those meetings, are you?---Well, we talk whenever we see each other. Everybody's friends.
PN380
That's right, and you probably see each other, what, just about every day?
---Almost.
PN381
And you have a bit of a discussion about how things are going formally or informally?---To be honest there's not generally that much discussion. Only if they have a problem, if there's a problem during the day, well, then there'll be discussion as then to - - -
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN382
How that affects your shift?---Yes.
PN383
This is how the day shift has run, we've got some products, or whatever, I see. So if any issue arises you have a handover discussion to enable you to perform that supervisory function on the afternoon shift. So you're going in, in other words, properly informed?---On some occasions, not every day.
PN384
And you accept that you work well together with Mr Vadala, don't you?---Yes, I do.
PN385
You would accept that where targets need to be communicated, that that would be one of the things that he would tell you during the
course of these discussions?
---If they would need to be discussed, obviously he would tell me, yes.
PN386
And then your role is to day, okay, how am I going to take that target and make it happen on the shift?---Yes.
PN387
Now, the next thing you say is that there is minimum direction provided from the running of the shift itself and I think Mr Vadala in his evidence says that he regards you very highly, he thinks you're a very good GF. So I don't think that that's particularly contested. You are there supervising the shift, but you say that you make in those circumstances decisions on your own in paragraph 5. Now, whether you would make a decision on your own would very much depend on what happens, wouldn't it?---If something needs to happen to make a decision, yes.
PN388
And whether or not you just say, I can handle that, or whether or not you say that's got to be fed up the line depends on what the event is, doesn't it?---Unfortunately there's no lines to feed.
PN389
There is an escalation procedure, you recognise that, don't you?---Which one are you referring to?
PN390
Well, in paragraph 7 of your statement you say that in the event of a serious accident or breakdown greater than an hour, then there's
a procedure to
escalate?---Mm.
PN391
You call your manager?---Mm.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN392
Now, the reason you call your manager is because that person needs to have input into the decision in those circumstances, isn't it?---Yes.
PN393
And that escalation procedure doesn't end just with that manager, like, in your case with Carlo, but depending on the incident, it might be something that you talk about and it's worked out, or it might go further up, that's right, isn't it?---I don't know what happens on the other end of the phone call.
PN394
Yes, because Carlo might make calls as well?---Yes. I don't know that.
PN395
Yes, correct. So at the end of the day what Carlo's role is in that procedure is difficult for you to say categorically, isn't it? So given what you do and your knowledge of what Carlo does, you would accept, wouldn't you, that Carlo does a different job from you, in your situation, the production situation?---Yes.
PN396
It's very different. So coming back to Mr Dobson you would accept, wouldn't you, that Mr Dobson is the manager with overall responsibility for the part of the manufacturing operation where the paint shop is located?---Yes.
PN397
You were informed, I think, through Mr Tucker, you said, rather than directly, but you were informed that Mr Dobson had made a decision to change the management structure of the paint shop and that's what provoked the dispute, do you accept that?---Not - no. Can I explain why?
PN398
Yes, you can say no if you don't agree, you should say no?---No. I said can I explain why?
PN399
No?---No.
PN400
Now, you did have some discussions with Mr Tucker though, didn't you, about what the reasons were?---Yes.
PN401
So during your evidence a minute ago I think you were asked whether the reasons had been explained by Tucker and you said they were never explained clearly, but there was a discussion about what the reasons were, wasn't there? You just weren't satisfied?---There was a discussion but they weren't as clear as they appear to be today.
PN402
Yes. Perhaps that's unsurprising, that's the benefit of litigation, Mr Tainsh. In any event you became aware that under the new structure the GF would become - what previously had been performed by the GF, Mr Dobson decided should be performed by the assistant manager, that was essentially the decision?---Yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN403
Now, the reasons that Mr Tucker gave you for that decision, whilst not comprehensive, I accept that, were essentially the same reasons as have been put forward today, weren't they? It's a broader role, there's going to be this bumper bar responsibility - - -?---That was supposed to clear - yes. Exactly what your words are now.
PN404
Now, you didn't accept that that was in fact a broader role?---No.
PN405
And the reason you didn't accept it was a broader role is because you say that everything that it had to do was things that a GF could do, or within the scope of a GFs responsibilities under the award?---As far as I was aware.
PN406
Yes, and then, I think following some argy-bargy in the disputes procedure, you said, all right, well, even if it's more than a GF, it's not more than SGF, is that right?---That's correct.
PN407
And at the heart of that, of why that concerns you was that you felt that it was an attempt to reduce award coverage within the plant?---Reduce award coverage of an award position.
PN408
So perhaps if I put it a slightly different way. You thought that award covered duties were being absorbed into a management role?---Yes.
PN409
Now, what you said as a response to that was the GFs duties are still there, keep the GF. If you want a manager, put in a manager
as well, is that basically right?
---In my statement, are you saying?
PN410
I'm just saying was that your position?---Yes.
PN411
Now, in paragraph 5 of your second statement, and you're talking there about Mr Vadala's evidence and he's talking about the key performance indicators and he says, "The key performance indicators are pretty much the same. However the basis for managing the KPIs is different. The SGF is only responsible for supervising group leaders and team members," and then he draws a contrast and he says, "SMs responsible for the whole of the department. SGFs, GFs, GLs, TMs and often have more than one shift for which they're responsible." Now, you make the point there that he's telling himself that it's either a GF or an SGF position because they only supervise, this person would only supervise a GL and team members as part of their responsibility. Now, that's why you say that what an assistant manager would do in this new paint shop position is a GF role, isn't it?---Sorry, can you repeat that?
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN412
That's why you say that what the assistant manager would do in the new role in the paint shop is effectively a GF role?---That's - referring to this statement?
PN413
Yes?---No, I was commenting on this statement, on the - - -
PN414
So you accept, do you, that in fact assessing whether or not it's an assistant manager role or a GF role involves an overall assessment of all the things that that person is going to do?---Well, what the - the things that the person is going to do, yes.
PN415
So you would assess things like the complexity of the role, the complexity of the responsibilities, the level of the accountability, what the company is ultimately expecting the position to do, what is the function of the position. They are the types of things that you would assess?---Yes, but it wouldn't be in my job to assess it.
PN416
Now, you accepted a minute ago that what you do is not the same as what Mr Vadala does and you accepted before that that it's possible to have the same responsibilities but be held to account in a different way. Now, in Mr Dobson's first statement, have you got a copy of that there, I think we were referring to it a minute ago? If I could take you to paragraph 18 of that, Mr Dobson points out there that all employees of TMCA who perform manufacturing work, irrespective of their classification or seniority, are expected to illustrate function abilities in the following areas, and he lists them, Occupational Health & Safety, quality control, productivity, cost control and management, Human Resources development and people management and environmental management. Now, if you don't know this, tell me you don't know, but that's because Toyota has a philosophy of standardising management responsibilities and supervisory responsibilities and performance and production responsibilities throughout the entire organisation, are you aware of that?---I can't say I'm aware that the intentionally ..... everybody, no.
PN417
Are you aware that everybody has those same functional abilities as part of as part of their role?---In different ways, yes.
PN418
Yes, so, and that's right, isn't it, that obviously, if everyone's going to have it, you're going to have an executive director that's got it and you're going to have a team member that's got it, they're all going to need to manifest those things differently, aren't they?---Yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN419
Now, if I could just pass the witness a document. I was thinking long and hard, Mr Tainsh, about how I was going to ask you these questions and I decided I'd try to do it visually, so bear with me. We've got these shared functions on the side there that we just talked about, safety, quality, productivity, cost, human resources and environment. Now, I accept for present purposes that there's a dispute about where the role in the paint shop fits, because we've got to put that to one side, but think more about your relationship with your section manager, Carlo, okay? So you're stepping up here and across the bottom we've got - and this is supervisory positions only, but team leader, group leader, SGF/GF and there might be, obviously different levels of content depending on whether an SGF or a GF, it's potentially the same, assistant manager, department manager, plant manager, stepping across the page there at the bottom, and the other matrix indicates whether you are responsible for doing those things or whether you're responsible for planning to manage them. Do you understand what the document's trying to represent? I accept it's - - -?---I do understand, yes.
PN420
Would you generally accept that as you progress up the page in respect of those functional abilities, what happens is the doing component reduces and the planning component increases?---I can't agree.
PN421
You don't agree with that?---I don't agree with the document.
PN422
I see. But just in relation to the question, do you agree that as you progress through the supervisory change from team leader to group leader, to GF, to assistant manager, to department manager, to plant manager, that the actual doing component of demonstrating these things on the ground and making them happen on the ground which is your role, reduces and the amount about generally the area to make it happen, indirectly, as you say, they're not on the shop floor, that that amount increases, would you generally accept that proposition?---No.
PN423
I see, thank you. You do accept that Mr Vadala does a different job from you?
---Yes.
PN424
Do you accept that there is a greater planning capacity in his assistant manager role, his section manager role, than there is in your GF role?---Different.
PN425
You would accept that he has a broader responsibility for planning?---Yes.
PN426
So as between you and Mr Vadala, the diagram is true, the amount - - -?---No.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN427
You don't accept that?---No, because - can I say why?
PN428
Yes, all right?---I can?
PN429
Yes, go on, why not?---Because I'm not represented clearly on this and neither is Mr Vadala, to my understanding.
PN430
I see. Well, if you just confine your answer to Mr Vadala and we'll put the diagram away. Maybe it's not as helpful as I thought it would be?---Yes.
PN431
We might come back to it a bit later. As between you and Mr Vadala you would accept that his planning content is more than your planning content? Sorry, you have to answer?---Yes, sorry. I forget.
PN432
Now, you've earlier accepted that an assistant manager can supervise other supervisors as part of the assistant manager's role?---It's part of the assistant manager role.
PN433
Yes, it's part of the assistant manager's role, part of their responsibility is to supervise other supervisors, you accepted that earlier?---Did I?
PN434
Yes?---I can't remember in what context.
PN435
You accept, don't you, that part of Mr Vadala's role is to supervise or oversee your work, don't you?---Yes.
PN436
Now, if we're talking now about the role in the paint shop, okay, so we don't actually know what this role is going to do yet, but we've all been arguing about what it will do. You've got one view, I've got another view. Would you accept that if that role was doing something additional, if it were, that's not to say that it doesn't, but if it were, would you accept that it could be a broader role than merely a GF or an SGF role?---No.
PN437
So the moment that there is supervision of GLs, the SGF/GF role can do everything?---No.
PN438
Would you accept that if the assistant manager in addition to supervising GLs had the right to dismiss employees, I'm not saying they do, but if they did, would you accept that that was no longer a GF role?---I don't see, no.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN439
So it doesn't matter how much more the assistant manager does than what - than just supervising a GF - sorry, supervising the GLs, it doesn't matter how much more they do, there's still a GF or an SGF role?---I can't see how they're related.
PN440
You can't see how they're related. You don't accept that an assistant manager would supervise GLs?---Assistant manager can supervise GLs? No.
PN441
You don't accept that. So in other words the moment a component of the role is supervising a GL, then no matter what else they do, it will always be a GF or an SGF position?---Sorry, can you just repeat it?
PN442
The moment this role is supervising GLs, then no matter what else they do, no matter how broad the role is, it is a GF or an SGF role?---I have to answer yes or no? It's very broad. I don't know how to answer that, because no matter what - - -
PN443
You do accept then that in some conceivable circumstances, the additional duties would be such that it would cease to be a GLs role and it becomes a manager's role?---No, I can't, no.
PN444
You can't perceive any circumstances where that would happen?---No.
PN445
Would you accept that if there were different levels of accountability, then the role could be more complex such that it was different, it was no longer an SGF or a GF role?---No.
PN446
And if the expectation of the performance of the role are greater, to perform in that role you have to do more, would you accept that in those circumstances it would cease to be a GF or SGF role?---If you have to do more than?
PN447
Merely supervise GLs?---No.
PN448
You would accept, wouldn't you, that whether it's a GF or an SGF role or an assistant manager role, this new HR role, you would accept, wouldn't you, that it's up to Mr Dobson ultimately to decide how broad he wants the role to be?---I think, yes.
PN449
And you would accept, wouldn't you, that the agreement doesn't restrict Mr Dobson from deciding how broad he wants the agreement to be?---No, I don't agree.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN450
You don't agree. The agreement does restrict?---Yes.
PN451
And in your evidence-in-chief I think Mr Addison took you to page 92 of the 2002 Altona EA, so we might just come back to that for a minute. Now, if I can just ask you to go back a couple of pages, because we're going to need to have a look at this. If you go back to page 86, you see that this is an appendix of working party recommendations which have been included into the agreement, okay. Were you aware that that's what it was?---Yes.
PN452
And stepping through it, you turn to page 89 and we deal there with the salary group and there's a range of recommendations there, salary group, and Mr Addison then took you through a whole lot of those things, he took you through to (k) which is the vacant supervisor position, do you see that?---Yes.
PN453
And it says there that supervisory positions, as they become vacant, will be advertised and filled in accordance with internal recruitment policies?---Yes.
PN454
So this process is done in accordance with internal recruitment policies, you accept that?---Yes.
PN455
You're aware that the internal recruitment policies are set out in the agreement, are you aware of that? If I could just ask you to turn to page 112. Here it talks about a process, this is appendix I, of the selection of an acting team leader, acting group leader, acting general foreperson, acting senior general foreperson, so the type of supervisory positions that are in contest here. Now, to best read this, I think you have to turn it on its side, yes, right, good. Now, you'll see the first box there is that a need has to be established?---Yes.
PN456
Now you would accept, wouldn't you, that you only fill the vacant position if there's a need?---Yes.
PN457
Now, in the current restructure of the paint shop the situation was, and just bear with me because you've got - and perhaps, your Honour, if you could turn to attachment 1 of Mr Dobson's first statement. Now, this is, if you like, an updated version of the type of charts that are attached to your statement and this one was effective in August, so this represents, if you like, what Mr Dobson decided the structure would be. Now, if you go over to the middle of the page and right in the middle of the page there, there's a role called Kaizen and project activity coordinator and below that you've got S. Daffy and his title is activity coordinator. Now, he previously was the GF in the role that is immediately below on the right hand side of the page, TBA Assistant Manager Maintenance which is the role here we're debating, wasn't it?---Yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN458
And then there was this period of time when Mr Kors - and Mr Kors is a GL who is reporting into that position. Mr Kors was acting in that role, so that's where those people are now effectively?---Yes.
PN459
Now, you would accept, wouldn't you, that the number of people who are classified as S5 in that structure is the same as what it was before Mr Dobson made his decision?---Yes.
PN460
So there's been no reduction in head count overall?---No.
PN461
Now, what you are saying should happen is that this position, the assistant manager position, should be remaining as a GF position regardless of whether there's a need for other management support?---No, that's not what I'm saying.
PN462
You're saying that if Mr Dobson wants to put an assistant manager in there, he can, but he has to keep a GF between the GLs and Mr Tucker?---Because the work function is that of a GF, at least a GF now, we've come to. At the time I thought it was GF, that's why I said that. And now, we've come to SGF.
PN463
You would accept, wouldn't you, though, that if that were a GF position there would be an increase in the number of S5 people in that structure?---No.
PN464
You would not accept that?---No.
PN465
You would not accept that if that position was occupied by a new GF there would be an overall increase of one?---Overall increase, yes.
PN466
Yes, overall increase of one in that structure, what that page represents?---The whole page, yes.
PN467
Yes, the whole page, indeed. Now, Mr Addison took you to the award. Have you still got a copy of that with you?---Yes.
PN468
And if I could just ask you to go to the same page as Mr Addison, 124?---I've already got - - -
PN469
You've got the extract. Okay, you're going to need more than the extract, so I'll actually hand you a copy of the award. Your Honour, do you have a full copy?
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN470
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've got a full copy of the award, yes.
PN471
MR SKENE: I think we're short a copy, your Honour. I think I'll survive, so I might just hand over mine. If I name things incorrectly - - -
PN472
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then we'll yell at you.
PN473
MR SKENE: It's because I don't have the document.
PN474
So if you just start at page 124, just go back one, there's two tabs there I think, yes. So the first tab page. So that's the award structure that Mr Addison took you to and there's on that page the three levels of supervisor, Level 1, 2, 3 which takes you from GL to GF to SGF?---Yes.
PN475
Now, there is a process in the award about progression within levels, did you know that?---Yes.
PN476
Go over the page. Under 5 we deal with progression from Level 1 to Level 2, "Subject to the employee meeting the following criteria and on promotion by the company of designated position". Promotion from Level 2 to Level 3, which I what you say this position should be, a Level 3, an SGF. Do you see that the first requirement there is promotion by the company to a designated position?---Yes.
PN477
So you accept - - -
PN478
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hang on, Mr Skene, I don't. So where are you?
PN479
MR SKENE: Sorry, page 125, your Honour.
PN480
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.
PN481
MR SKENE: If you just look under 5, 5.1 is Level 1 to Level 2 which is GL to GF.
PN482
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: My page 125 is different.
PN483
MR SKENE: Perhaps go over one more page then. It's a heading, Progression Between the Levels, your Honour, and it's two - have you got the Supervisory Definitions?
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN484
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've got the Supervisory Definitions which is marked 3.
PN485
MR SKENE: We're looking for 5, so we want to turn over the page, it's two pages over in my print, after Application of the Classification Structure.
PN486
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I have nothing like it.
PN487
MR SKENE: All right. Is that the simplified award, your Honour? I actually had trouble with this myself. It's still called the Toyota Award 1988, despite simplification which happened in 1998, so the loose leaf - - -
PN488
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think I've got the old one.
PN489
MR SKENE: It may be. The first copy I printed out of it was the old one.
PN490
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I think I have print of the old one because the first thing says, "This award should be referred as the Toyota Australia Vehicle Industry Award 1988."
PN491
MR SKENE: I see. Unfortunately, the award, whilst it was simplified, the name wasn't updated, so it becomes confusing. They're both called the 1988 award, but one is simplified and one is not. So in any event, I've only got a couple of questions to ask, so perhaps if I just ask them and then I'll pass my copy to you.
PN492
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that's fine.
PN493
MR SKENE: So you accepted, don't you, that for progression from Level 2 to Level 3 which is the GF to the SGF, there needs to be promotion by the company to a designated position, you accept that, don't you?---That's what it says, yes.
PN494
Now, you accept, don't you, that that means it's up to the company to decide whether a particular position should be designated as GF or SGF?
PN495
MR ADDISON: Well, your Honour, I think I'll object to that question. I mean, it's a question of the interpretation of the award. This witness isn't legally qualified and I think it's an inappropriate question to ask. Are there words in the award, and the award will speak for itself and there'll be submissions with regard to what that means now. But I don't know that this witness' evidence with regard to that matter can assist your Honour. If your Honour pleases.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN496
MR SKENE: Your Honour, given the witness was taken to the award and asked questions about how the award survived, I just wanted to ensure that he was aware of that process. But if he can't answer, I'm content to deal with it later, that's fine. Do you want to have a look at it, your Honour?
PN497
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I wouldn't mind. I want to see what I've actually got. Thank you. I've got to say, Mr Skene, this is quite bizarre because I've got the same print number, but a totally different version. Anyway, we'll talk to the Registry about that.
PN498
MR SKENE: As I say, it depends what you click on, your Honour, you get a different award.
PN499
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Excellent.
PN500
MR SKENE: In any event, I think Mr Addison said not much turns on the point, so that's - - -
PN501
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN502
MR SKENE: Now, in paragraphs 36 and 37 of your first statement?---Yes.
PN503
You talk about a conversation you had with Mr Dobson and you say that - - -?
---No.
PN504
In paragraphs 37 and 38, I apologise. 37 you talk about a conversation you had with Mr Dobson?---No. It was a meeting. It wasn't a direction conversation.
PN505
You say that Mr Dobson said things to you at that meeting?---To everybody.
PN506
Yes, a meeting that you were present at, and you say that he said that they hadn't been totally honest with you with their intentions over the years now. I put it to you Mr Dobson didn't say that?---I put it to you that that's what I heard and there was another 20 people there, so we can ask them if you want.
PN507
Well, were the other witnesses in the proceedings there, the other witnesses in the proceeding?---No.
PN508
You're the only person giving evidence in this proceeding that says that was said?
---It was - that meeting happened in the paint shop and I'm the only person here from the paint shop.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN509
Now, that meeting happened reasonably recently. You remember Mr Dobson's exact words, do you?---Very clearly.
PN510
And if Mr Dobson were to say that he didn't say those things in his evidence, you would say that he's mistaken, would you?---What are you referring to exactly, so I can be specific and sure?
PN511
Mr Dobson says he didn't say at any stage during that meeting, admitted or otherwise, he didn't say the words, the company has not
been totally honest with their intentions over the years, he simply did not say that, did he, Mr Tainsh?
---No, he did.
PN512
He used those precise words?---Not the precise - hang on. There was words on either end, but yes, those words, from company, had not been totally honest with their intentions over the years.
PN513
If Mr Dobson says he didn't say that, you'd say that he's mistaken or he's not telling the truth?---They're the words I can recall.
PN514
I see. Now, you then describe something else Mr Dobson said in this meeting in paragraph 38, you quote, there's been an external company audit by the Hayes Group, it was identified that the senior general foreperson, the assistant manager's positions were the same/similar, and the company didn't need both positions. I put it to you Mr Dobson didn't say that either?---He did say that.
PN515
He did say that?---They're my words what he said.
PN516
He told you that - - -?---No, not me.
PN517
He said at this meeting that the SGF position had been assessed by Hayes Group, did he?---Yes.
PN518
Well, that's never happened, Mr Tainsh, are you aware of that?---I'm not aware of whether it happened or not. I only wrote what he said.
PN519
And Mr Dobson didn't say the positions were the same. He said that they're similar, didn't he?---I recall same.
PN520
So you've got same/similar, did he say same and similar, did he say same, which his it that you recall?---I recall same/similar, that's what I - both words.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN521
Both words?---Mm, because it was more than once.
PN522
Well, Mr Dobson says that he didn't say same and that that doesn't reflect what he thinks. Now, if Mr Dobson gives that evidence you'd say that he's mistaken about what he said in that meeting, would you?---My understanding this is what I remember he said.
PN523
Now, let's not talk about the new paint shop position, for the minute, we'll talk about other GF and assistant manager positions within the company. Now, the obvious one that you're aware of - sorry, assistant manager/section manager that you have a reporting relationship to Mr Vadala or a section manager, so that's the relationship that you're most familiar with. Now, you accept, don't you, that there are things that an assistant manager, like Mr Vadala, has to go that a GF or an SGF doesn't do?---No.
PN524
You don't accept that?---No, because Carlo's not an assistant manager.
PN525
You accept, don't you, that Mr Vadala as a foreperson has to do some things that you don't have to do?---Yes.
PN526
And you accept, don't you, that other assistant managers within Toyota do things that their GFs and SGFs don't do?---I prefer not to speculate on what others do.
PN527
Within the scope of your knowledge, Mr Tainsh, do you know that assistant managers - you see them around the place, do you know that they do something different from a GF or an SGF?---From what I see, they do the same thing as the SGFs.
PN528
Now, you would accept, wouldn't you, that the role of an assistant manager in relation to discipline is different from the role of a GF and SGF?---I can't answer these questions because you're banking a GF and an SGF together and they're two different levels.
PN529
Let's just talk about, for present purposes, let's just simplify this. If I talk about an SGF, do you accept that an SGF can do everything that a GF can do?---Yes.
PN530
So if I just talk for present purposes about an SGF then?---Yes.
PN531
And it's the difference between what an SGF can do and what an assistant manager can do, that will also be a difference between what a GF can do and an assistant manager can do, won't it?---Sorry, I lost that last bit?
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN532
Well, if I asked you questions about just the difference between SGF and assistant manager?---Yes.
PN533
And you accept that there are things that an assistant manager does that a senior general foreperson doesn't do, then they will also be things that a GF doesn't do, won't they?---Yes.
PN534
Well, do you accept that there is a different role of discipline between an assistant manager and an SGF?---No.
PN535
Have you got a copy of the agreement there. If you go to 31.2, page 52. Now reading through that process there's a distinction drawn between SGF and GF and manager, isn't there?---What do you mean by that?
PN536
Well, I mean that under this table there are some things that a manager can do or has responsibility for that a GF and an SGF doesn't do, you don't accept that?---I can't see that, no.
PN537
Well, if you look at the final written warning box you will see that's conducted by a manager?---Assistant manager, you mean?
PN538
No, I'm asking you about whether it's conducted by a manager, you can see that, can't you?---Yes, but what do you mean, what do you - - -
PN539
I'm asking you about whether there are things in this table that a manager can do?
---Yes, some managers, yes.
PN540
Some managers?---Mm.
PN541
So you say that the reference to manager there doesn't include an assistant manager?---That's my understanding.
PN542
I see. Now, you're aware, though, aren't you, that assistant managers are involved in disciplinary processes in a different way from GFs and SGFs, you'd accept that, wouldn't you?---Assistant managers, no.
PN543
And you wouldn't accept also that assistant managers have discussions with their departmental manager and their plant manager about outcomes that GFs and SGFs aren't involved in?---I told you, if you bring GFs and SGFs - - -
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN544
All right, well, let's just talk about SGFs?---No, I don't think there's any - - -
PN545
You say that an SGF does exactly the same thing as an assistant manager in that process?---Yes.
PN546
And that their responsibilities are exactly the same?---Yes.
PN547
I put it to you that that's not the case, Mr Tainsh, and I put it to you that assistant managers are involved in doing parts of this process that SGFs aren't. Do you disagree with that?---Yes.
PN548
Now, you're aware, aren't you, that Toyota has wanted in the past for SGFs to be more involved in discipline, are you aware of that?---No, not particularly SGFs, no.
PN549
Are you aware that there's a position that's been put in negotiations by the union that union members won't be involved in giving
warnings to non union members?
---Different point of discussion, I think, in - - -
PN550
In fact, it's an element of the log of claims that was put to Toyota, isn't it?---Yes, 2002, I think.
PN551
That's right, and what the claim advanced by the union was, was in fact that SGFs, being union members, would not issue warnings.
That was the claim, wasn't it?
---I can't recall. I'd have to see it. No, that's not the claim.
PN552
That's not the claim?---No.
PN553
So you say that no union member to issue warnings doesn't mean - - -?---No union member. You asked me if it said SGF. It doesn't say SGF.
PN554
But does the reference - I'm sorry, your Honour, I'll just read it. It's under Warning Processes, it says:
PN555
Final warnings are issued by manager. First written warning issued by manager. Agreement on definition of gross misconduct, and no union member to issue warnings,
PN556
And it's the 2002 log of claims. You accept, don't you, that the claim that no union member is to issue warnings means that an SGF
is not to issue warnings?
---That was the claim, yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN557
And that was the outcome, wasn't it?---No.
PN558
The outcome was that SGFs don't issue warnings, wasn't it?---I can't recall to be honest. I'd have to check.
PN559
Just go back to 31.2, that final written warning box at the outcome of the negotiations, so what was agreed to in 2005, it's the same thing in 2002. Let's just look at the 2005 one, 31.2, I took you there a second ago. The outcome of that negotiation was that a GF would be involved to a certain point, being the second written warning point, and then, but when it came to final written warning, that had to be done by a manager. That was the outcome, wasn't it?---That's what it says, yes.
PN560
So you accept, don't you, that a SGF and a GF don't issue final warnings under that process?---Under that particular process, it says no.
PN561
And that's the process?---Yes.
PN562
Now, you're aware, aren't you, that assistant managers do issue warnings?---Not final, I haven't seen.
PN563
So you can't say whether an assistant manager has issued a warning in the bumper bar area at Port Melbourne for example, under exactly the same clause?---I can't say that, no.
PN564
Now, you accept, don't you, that assistant managers are required to participate in performance management processes in a different way from SGFs?---Yes.
PN565
And you also accept, don't you, that they participate in performance processes in a different way from GFs?---Yes.
PN566
And you're familiar, I take it, with the balance score card system within Toyota for managing performance?---Familiar to a degree.
PN567
You don't personally participate in that, though, do you?---Never been asked.
PN568
You say you've never been asked. You were involved in the negotiations of work place agreement of 2005, though, weren't you?---I stated before that I wasn't able to attend most negotiations.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN569
So you don't now, do you, what the union's position was in relation to people participating in the balance score card for the purpose
of those negotiations?
---Balance score card?
PN570
Yes?---No, I'm not aware.
PN571
Well, you were asked some questions about the attachment to Mr Dymock's statement, was the Toyota vision. Have you got Mr Dymock's statement there? It's at attachment 2. Now, just stepping through tat - have you got that, your Honour?
PN572
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN573
MR SKENE: This is the presentation, text working party report back. Now, just stepping through that, the first thing it talks about, the purpose, which is stated to be the provided vision, and you've given evidence that this is an agreed document and it was presented to you as being just an idea, I think you said. It talks about developing a structure. Now, on that slide on purpose, the purpose of this working party was to undertake a review of the supervisory structures within Toyota, wasn't it?---We were reviewing the job descriptions at each level.
PN574
And you got as far as the GL?---Yes.
PN575
And you've got a PD essentially for the GL?---Yes.
PN576
And then you came to GF, SGF and assistant manager and I think you said, "We got stuck". So this was the Toyota coming back with, this is how we'd like to get unstuck, do you accept that?---That's not the words that they used, no.
PN577
I'm sorry, it's to provide a vision for the future, they've accepted it in those terms?
---They said that was the vision.
PN578
So they set out some background stepping through this, talk about some discussions that happened on 29 March. They say what the vision is, which is to drive, reward and recognition and .... of your copy, but that's at the top of this pyramid type tree under the slide vision. The elements of that are then explored. The first element:
PN579
The Toyota production system and Toyota way.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN580
And they talk about a team group based hierarchy as a supervisory function, it's a global standard and the Toyota way defines how Toyota employees are required to do that world wide. So I don't think there's anything particularly controversial there. Next you turn over to roles and responsibilities and here the company recognises that there is currently an overlap in supervisory roles and a lack of clarity in relation to the supervisory roles and responsibilities. So I think that you would accept that that was something that was accepted by your side of the table too, wouldn't you?---Which, that - which lines in particular?
PN581
The second dot point?---That's the company, so I can't comment about the company.
PN582
But did your side of the table, your side of the working party, did they acknowledge that there was this overlap and lack of clarity?---I think we had a different view.
PN583
I see, so you didn't agree with that?---It was clear for us.
PN584
You felt it was clear, right. The company says it wants the number of supervisory roles within the structure to be less complex, and then it says, in the second last dot point, "The position of the Senior General Foreperson is to be absorbed over time." Do you see that? Part 3, Performance and Progression. The companies states a range of things that it wants to put into practice to reflect the Toyota way. It says that there is currently little incentive for promotion and progression and the benefits will be reviewed on a relativity basis. It talks about up-skilling the team leader. So the bottom supervisory level and up-skilling the group leader. And those AQF4s - what does AQF4 stand for?---It's Australian Qualification Framework - - -
PN585
So it's upgrading each of those positions by one level within that framework. Now, the next page towards recognition talks about the method of acknowledgement of demonstrated performance. It recognises the current competency skill system is inadequate, or the company recognises that, I'm not saying that the union did. The employer representatives did, but the company then say this, and this is the third dot point:
PN586
The company want to reward and recognise individual performance contributions with linkages to KPIs and BSC.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN587
Now, if we just turn at the moment, the next page is Next Steps and it talks about getting some feedback from the text. Okay, and if you turn over to JRD3, the document is dated June 2004, it talks about things reconvening et cetera, and then if you turn over to JRD4, this is the text working party report back to management. Now, were you involved in the presentation of this?---No, I wasn't there on the day this was presented.
PN588
Did you provide input into it?---No, I didn't.
PN589
Are you aware that it was - you accept, don't you, though, that this was the text that was issued on the issues that were raised?---Yes, obviously it was, yes.
PN590
So just stepping through, the format of the presentation reflects the Toyota presentation, so to start with purpose. Though, of course, the content changes because there are differences in position. If you just turn over to the background, please, it explains the context of this, which is essentially uncontentious, which is that following negotiations in 2002 there were some outstanding issues in relation to text employees, and working parties were established including this access to, and this had the task of clarifying the uncertainty associated with the roles and responsibilities of the group leader position and access to them in the generic job framework. Turning over the page there is then a vision slide and the headings, going through them, are essentially the same, although the content again has changed. So it's standard practice of team group based work is acknowledged, but it seems to me on the basis of structural efficiency agreement, and if you then turn over to roles and responsibilities, the union's position is the number of levels within the supervisory structure is to be maintained, that's as you understand the position, isn't it? Number 2, yes?---Yes.
PN591
They accept the job description at each level is to be clarified and clearly defined?---Yes.
PN592
And they say that the position of the senior general foreperson is to be maintained as per the 2000 Toyota and previous agreement?---Yes.
PN593
So that recognises that, subject to business requirements, if there's an SGF in the position, that role would be maintained, do you accept that?---Yes.
PN594
Now, turning over to the question of competency skills, the text also recognises little incentive for promotion and progression and the position though for promotion is said to be, in the second dot point here, "Progression from Level 1 to Level 2, subject to the completion or upon promotion by the company to the designated position." So it has to be designated position, doesn't it?---No.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN595
Well, you accept that that's the union's position and they say progression from Level 1 to Level 2, upon promotion by the designated
position or completion?
---It's two separate points, as it is in the award.
PN596
I see. So you either complete it or you're promoted?---Mm.
PN597
Now, the award and recognition you guys say is to be based on completion of the competency skills increments as per the award and structure of the agreement, as well as on a progression basis and a vacancy basis. Now, there's no room in that for the balance score card, is there?---I don't know, there might be.
PN598
That's a different system from what's been proposed by the company, isn't it?
---Did it have balance score card in the other one? I didn't see - - -
PN599
It had balance score card?---I didn't see it.
PN600
Just go back to the earlier one then, the Reward and Recognition relied on in the earlier one, it's number 4, second last dot point?---Okay, yes.
PN601
And so you accept that that's a different model?---It appears to be on the surface, yes.
PN602
And you're aware, aren't you, that when the negotiations for the 2005 agreement commenced, the union said as a threshold issue, the employer representatives said as a threshold issue, until you confirm that balance score card is a voluntary process for those supervisors, SGFs and GFs, we won't negotiate?---I wasn't there, but my understanding, no, that's not correct.
PN603
You don't agree with that?---No, I don't agree.
PN604
But you don't have any direct knowledge as to the - - -?---I wasn't there at the time.
PN605
In any event, you accept, don't you, that for SGFs and GFs, the current practice is that balance score card is a voluntary process?---Like I told you before, nobody's ever told me anything about balance score card. So I don't know whether I'm supposed to do it voluntarily or I'm supposed to do it. All I know is what I've - the information I've gathered on my own.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN606
So you're aware though, aren't you, that in terms of performance development and performance management, you are not required to perform
a balance score card?
---Yes.
PN607
You don't do that at the moment?---No, I don't.
PN608
Now, in terms of your ability to assess the assistant manager, you obviously never worked as an assistant manager, you can't say directly what an assistant manager is required to do in terms of long term planning, for example, can you?---For three years I did every bit of an assistant manager's job, paperwork, planning, everything.
PN609
You can't know that, can you, because you - - -?---Yes, I did.
PN610
You were classified as an assistant manager?---No. I did the work of an assistant manager.
PN611
So for three years you say you did that work?---Yes.
PN612
You were performing above your duties as an SGF?---It was given to me by the assistant manager.
PN613
So things were delegated to you, do you say?---His work.
PN614
His work was delegated to you?---Yes.
PN615
Now, you were accountable within the business for that, were you?---No, not for the work. Obviously he was accountable.
PN616
Who was this assistant manager?---Niasi Certiobud.
PN617
And you say, do you, that you were required in that role to do everything that an assistant manager did?---No. Any bit of planning, paperwork, report that he had to do - - -
PN618
Just answer the question. Do you say that you had to do everything that an assistant manager had to do?---No, not everything.
PN619
So Niasi did other things, didn't he?---Yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN620
Now, you did some of the job maybe, but you didn't do all of it then, did you?
---No.
PN621
So it's not true to say that you did everything that an assistant manager does, is it?
---I didn't say that, no.
PN622
I see, all right. So you don't actually see much of what Mr Vadala does during the day either, do you?---No.
PN623
And you can't say what training he attends, for example, you can't?---What training he attends, no.
PN624
And you can't say what meetings he attends?---No, he's a section manager, but.
PN625
I understand you say that, but you can't say what meetings he attends as a section manager?---No.
PN626
And you can't say what his interactions are with his boss, can you?---No, not daily.
PN627
So you accept though, don't you, that there's another side to the relationship on the one hand that you deal with Mr Vadala about things, and on the other side Mr Vadala has to do with his boss?---Yes.
PN628
And Mr Vadala's role is set by his boss, you accept that, don't you?---Yes.
PN629
And the expectations of that role, what Mr Vadala is expected to perform, is obviously set by that boss as well?---Yes.
PN630
And you accept, don't you, that those expectations by Mr Vadala are different than the expectations that are on you?---Yes.
PN631
You were asked some questions about purchasing and the policies in relation to purchasing and whether a GF has authority to purchase things?---Yes.
PN632
You were asked some questions about some levels of authority, M1 to M3. If I can just pass the witness this document. Your Honour, I can indicate that we're getting there. There is quite a bit more though, so I don't know - - -
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN633
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is this a convenient time?
PN634
MR SKENE: Well, I'm about to start going through in a more micro level each of the things that we say are different, so it might be a convenient time.
PN635
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It sounds like it. I'll adjourn until 2.15.
<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.42PM]
<RESUMED [2.23PM]
PN636
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Skene.
PN637
MR SKENE: Thank you, your Honour.
PN638
I think before the break, I had just handed you a document, Mr Tainsh. Just before we start with that, have you spoken with anyone about your evidence over the break?---Spoken?
PN639
Spoken to anybody about your evidence?---No.
PN640
Now, the document that I've handed you, have you seen that document before?
---No.
PN641
You haven't seen it before?---No.
PN642
At the top of the document it says Requisitions and it then talks about "Our policies and purchasing procedures" and about a quarter of the way down the page, there is a paragraph that begins, "All requisitions". Can you just read that paragraph to yourself, please. Just down to the word "benefits"?---Yes.
PN643
Now, you acknowledge that that permits a - and the words here are "section manager" - to be designated as M1 on ..... that's what that says?---It's what it seems to say.
PN644
It doesn't permit, contemplate, that a GF or an SGF will have that approval, does it?---Doesn't exclude it.
PN645
It doesn't permit it, does it, Mr Tainsh?---It doesn't talk about it, no.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN646
It talks about:
PN647
Requisitions must be fully authorised by the managers responsible.
PN648
It doesn't talk about supervisors, does it?---No.
PN649
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What is SAP? Do you know what the SAP is?---SAP? It's a sub-system. Requisitioning system.
PN650
MR SKENE: It's a computer program for tracking logistics, your Honour.
PN651
Now, you as a GF, you don't have approval to make purchases under that system, do you?---No.
PN652
Now, in your evidence you said that you thought that Mr Ebenwaldner had that authority?---Yes.
PN653
You can't say, though can you, whether other GFs have that authority or not, can you?---Only one other GF that I know for certain, which was David Horton.
PN654
Was whom, sorry?---David Horton.
PN655
I see. But the prevailing practice is that GFs don't have that approval, isn't it?
---I'm not sure about the practices. I only know about my shop.
PN656
Within your shop?---Within my shop, no.
PN657
No. You give some evidence in your reply statement about recruitment and purchasing and labour requisitions. It's in paragraph 6 of your earlier statement. The second statement. Now, would you accept that Toyota has a collaborative model of decision-making?---I don't think I'm in a position to comment about that. I don't know.
PN658
Perhaps I can elaborate; would you accept that as a general rule, when decisions get progressed up the chain, there's the originator which may be you, as a GF, to create a document, you say "This is what we want" and then that passes through each chain of responsibility above you until it gets to the point where a final decision can be made?---Yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN659
Do you generally accept that as the model? So often when you look at these things, you see the person who has created the document and then it goes to their manager, that person signs it; it then goes to their manager, that person signs it; it then goes to their manager, that person signs it; it then goes to their manager, that person signs it, until it gets to a point where it's signed off?---Yes.
PN660
That's generally the system?---Yes.
PN661
As part of that process, there is a system of discussion and consultation at essentially each level, isn't there?---It's too broad.
PN662
It's too broad? Well, you're familiar with the term, and forgive me for my pronunciation, but Nemawashi?---No.
PN663
Not familiar with that term?---No.
PN664
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Maybe you need to spell it to make sure.
PN665
MR SKENE: Fair enough. It's N-e-m-a - was it my pronunciation? Nemawashi? Have you ever heard that term?---Sort of heard it, yes.
PN666
That's the process, isn't it, where managers consult about - and supervisors too, perhaps - how a decision should be made?---My understanding of Nemawashi is just consulting. It doesn't mean managers or - it's just consulting with all parties that have an input or have some relevance to the issue.
PN667
So it might be what happens is that the request is generated, there's then a discussion about it, so a general foreman, for example, might say I think that we need to requisition a contractor here or arrange some labour, and then there'll be a discussion about that between the supervisor and the assistant manager or a section manager, depending on who you report to, and then that section manager goes and has a discussion and basically the idea takes shape until it gets to a point where it's approved. Would you generally accept that's the norm?---Sometimes it happens like that. Sometimes it doesn't.
PN668
Sometimes it does?---Yes.
PN669
Yes, but would you say that's the prevailing model?---Prevailing, yes.
PN670
Now, as part of that model, when you generate a request of this type, you identify a need within your area of responsibility and you request it, you can't approve it on your own, can you?---No.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN671
No. At different times, depending on the decision that's being made, how far up the chain it's got to go, varies doesn't it?---Depending on what it is.
PN672
Indeed. And under the concept of Nemawashi, each person can provide their input to change that idea or potentially to veto it. So you provide your feedback to Carlo, Carlo might say, look, I don't think that's going to work. It's not going to meet this requirement or that requirement. That can happen, can't it?---Could happen, yes.
PN673
And then Carlo might love your idea, but he might take it to his department manager who says, let's really workshop that in light of something else or whatever, and he might decide that's not going to work. That can happen too, can't it?---I - I don't know what he's going to do.
PN674
I see. All right. So part of this concept is that each person can express up the chain a contrary view, isn't it?---Anybody can express a contrary view.
PN675
And they're not bound by the decision or the recommendation of the person below them necessarily, are they?---No.
PN676
Ultimately, from a GF perspective in this type of requisition, we're talking about a labour requisition here, the GF's role is to provide insight into what's actually required on the ground, would you accept that?---Yes.
PN677
So what's needed to meet that operational need on the shift, as it were. Now, other managers come at that question from a different perspective, don't they?---I don't understand what you mean.
PN678
I'll try and get a bit more specific. You're looking at the operational focus. By the time it gets further up the chain, the focus is guided by other business-related factors, isn't it? It's guided by what happens in departments elsewhere, it's guided by what Toyota does overall, what Toyota's purchasing strategy is, there might be a whole range of considerations?---If we're talking about labour requisitions, I would say no, because usually we're given all the information that's - the boundaries, yes, so we've got to try and work within those boundaries. See, we already have the boundaries.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN679
I see. But you would accept, wouldn't you, that when you generate the request and it moves up the chain for consideration, different managers bring different perspectives and consider different issues in deciding how that should operate. That's part of the concept, that's their input?---Could be, yes.
PN680
So you generally accept that's what happens, or you don't know?---In - in - you're talking specifically in the cases I've been involved in?
PN681
Yes?---Well, in some of the cases I've been involved in, the assistant or section manager was not actually involved. The plant manager was asking me. I was providing it directly to him. So, it was like missed that loop.
PN682
So you work around Carlo?---No, I don't. The person comes to me, asks me to do this, I do it, I return it back to him.
PN683
Now, you don't - - -?---As instructed.
PN684
- - - know whether or not that person goes and sees Carlo, though, do you?---No, I don't. No.
PN685
No, but in the normal course, each person up the link, each link up the chain, would have an opportunity to assess and provide their input?---Yes.
PN686
Now, in your statement you talk about replacing equipment, in paragraph 6. It's about two-thirds of the way through that paragraph. You say SGF, GF and GL all make decisions to replace equipment when required. Now, when you say make decisions there, that type of decision is subject to the process we've just discussed, isn't it?---No. Not in many cases.
PN687
You would accept, though - so if you say it's not subject to that, it depends, does it, on what it is that's being purchased?---Yes, correct.
PN688
So for something that is significant, it would be progressed up the chain, wouldn't it?---Yes.
PN689
We have accepted a minute ago that the actual authority to approve purchases is not something that you have, is it?---Depends what kind of purchases. You were talking about the SAP system before.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN690
Yes, well within SAP?---Within SAP, if you're - - -
PN691
You don't have that authority, do you?--- - - - specifically - no. No.
PN692
So if it comes down to purchasing something you replace something, you can't do that, can you?---No.
PN693
No. If we come back to something that's significant, how far up the chain it has to go to be approved depends on how significant it is, doesn't it?---Yes.
PN694
In those circumstances, again each manager going up that decision, has an opportunity to comment about what it is that should happen and to bring their input to that decision. They might veto it or they might not veto it, they might support it, they might add to it, they might change it; all those things are possible, aren't they?---Was that a question?
PN695
Yes?---What was the question? I didn't - it sounded like a statement.
PN696
Too many things? Right. Where we're dealing with something significant and it's subject to the process where it moves up the chain - - -?---Up the chain, yes.
PN697
- - - then each manager in that process has a chance to provide their input, don't they?---In many cases it doesn't happen. It just jumps to the manager that has to make the decision.
PN698
Yes, but you don't know, do you, what that manager then does? Whether they speak to the other managers - - -?---I can only tell you what I know, and what I know is that many times it does jump. Correct.
PN699
Well, you say it jumps, but you don't know, do you, whether that manager - - - ?
---No, I just say what I know.
PN700
Yes. Now, you admit, though, that the prevailing practice is that that's not the case, that it moves up the chain. We see all those signatures at the bottom of the page?---For the SAP system?
PN701
For replacing significant equipment?---Yes.
PN702
Now, you say that SGFs, GFs and GLs all make decisions to replace equipment when required. Ultimately, whether they do that without consultation or with consultation, there is - depends on how significant it is?---Yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN703
So you can't actually make a decision to replace whatever you like, can you?
---Depends on the equipment. Or how we're going to obtain the equipment that needs to be obtained.
PN704
Yes. What it is?---So it could be worth more than $1000, but we can still get it out of the store.
PN705
If it's internally sourced?---Yes. It's still replacing equipment.
PN706
Now, in paragraph 6 as well, you talk about overtime. You accept, don't you, that assistant managers and SGFs/GFs have different arrangements for overtime, for additional hours?---Yes.
PN707
Effectively, for an SGF or a GF, overtime applies to additional hours and for an assistant manager it doesn't apply?---Yes.
PN708
Yes, and for an SGF or GF under the terms of - you can be required to work up to 20 hours, but not beyond that, and an assistant manager, there isn't that type of parameter in place?---Yes.
PN709
I'm happy to say we've truncated things over the break, so we're nearly done. Mr Addison took you to Mr Dobson's second statement. Do you still have that with you?---Yes.
PN710
During your evidence-in-chief, you talked about how things are within your production side of the business, on the production side of the paint shop?---I am, yes.
PN711
And the position we're talking about is in the maintenance side?---Yes.
PN712
Now you accept, don't you, that the type of supervision that is required is different in the two different areas?---Yes.
PN713
That's typically the case where you have a production side of the business and a maintenance side of the business. So, another area might be the body shop where that happens?---Sorry, I didn't really understand that. What you meant by that.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN714
You accept, don't you, that in other parts of the business, take for example the body shop, there is a production side and a maintenance side, and where that is the case, the supervisory requirements of the GF are different?---I think they're different in all areas, regardless of production or maintenance.
PN715
So it almost depends on individual performance? Is that right?---There is differences. They're different areas.
PN716
I see, but that doesn't affect the scope of the roles necessarily, does it? There you're talking about what people actually do.
Do you appreciate the distinction?
---No, I don't understand what you're getting to.
PN717
Well, you might have somebody who has - take, for example, an assistant manager. You might have an assistant manager that is not an effective performer, and if you have an assistant manager that's not an effective performer, that may be that that person is not performing the full scope of their role; that's why they're not effective. By contrast, if you have someone who is very good at their job, they may go and be performing outside the scope of their role? Do you understand what I mean?---I understand that, yes.
PN718
So to some extent, individual performance is not a good measure of the scope of the role, is it?---No, you're 100 per cent correct I think.
PN719
So I guess I'm taking to take that question of individual performance out of this. So if we just look at the scopes of the roles, in a production area versus a maintenance area, there is different work performed by GFs respectively, isn't there? If you don't know, that's fine?---I really can't see - it's a different area, but the actual - the basis, the tools, what you do, they're all the same.
PN720
But the structures - - -?---It's just how to apply them, because it's a different area in different things.
PN721
The processes are different though, aren't they?---Yes, that's right.
PN722
And the number of people are different, aren't they?---They're different from group to group, everywhere. That's my point.
PN723
I see. I understand. In Mr Dobson's statement, in paragraph 38, he talks about this issue and he contrasts the paint plant from the body shop and he's talking about the paint plant maintenance position. He says:
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN724
This is because a production function is based more on routine production functions than a maintenance area which requires significant technical expertise from the various people involved.
PN725
Now, you would accept, wouldn't you, that supervising people who perform maintenance involves different skills or different levels of technical expertise than production - - -?---Yes, different technical expertise, yes.
PN726
I see. Now, Mr Addison asked you about the process described in paragraph 26 of Mr Dobson's statement which is the plan, do, check, act system. I think he said, "I learned that the first day I joined Toyota just about"?---Well, after the first year or so.
PN727
Yes, so it's a pretty universal process and is it fair to say, Mr Tainsh, that it's a common way of measuring activities or requiring activities to be performed within Toyota?---Yes.
PN728
Yes. What Mr Dobson is saying here, as no doubt you can see, is that he assesses that he will get more improvement, a greater rate of that job cycle, the PDCA cycle, out of an assistant manager than he will out of a supervisor, and you disagreed with that?---Yes.
PN729
But the reality is that you can't really say, can you?---I only say so on the basis that prior to 2000, prior to assistant managers, SGFs were doing what I believe to be the same role. That's why I say two - - -
PN730
But you accept, don't you, that the maintenance area is different from the production area and your expertise is in production, not in maintenance, you accept that?---Mine, yes.
PN731
Yes, and you accept, don't you, that you don't know the other half of that assistant manager role, what happens between Carlo and Carlo's boss?---Yes.
PN732
The section manager?---Yes.
PN733
You don't know that; so ultimately, you're not really in a position to assess how much an assistant manager or section manager contributes
on that cycle, are you?
---I can - I'm only commenting from the side that I can see.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN734
Exactly. So you've got half the picture and based on your half, you get that - - -?
---I don't know if it's half, but that's your opinion.
PN735
Yes. You've got your part of the picture?---Mm.
PN736
And based on that, you're drawing some conclusions, but you accept you don't have the whole picture, don't you?---What happens - if they're talking to somebody else while I'm not there, how can I say that I know what's happening?
PN737
Yes?---If that's what you're basically saying.
PN738
Now, in paragraph 37 of Mr Dobson's statement, Mr Addison asked you about this evaluation and he said:
PN739
It may have been appropriate to have both the GF and the assistant manager to appropriately meet the managerial requirements and the supervisory requirements are different areas. The supervisory requirements are a bit higher.
PN740
And you disagreed with that as well and you thought well, basically the supervisory functions are the same. They've been there and
they remain - - - ?
---No. This talks about GF and the assistant manager and what I've been saying is that the SGF is equivalent.
PN741
No, this talks about both. If you read that paragraph - - -?---At the top? So which part of this are you talking about, in particular?
PN742
The bit that you don't agree with - - -?---Which bit is that?
PN743
- - - is the - I'm about to tell you what I think it is and you can agree with me or not. The bit that you don't agree with is the bit that says that it may have been appropriate to have both the GF and the assistant manager appropriately meet those managerial requirements, because you say an SGF can perform those managerial functions, don't you?---Yes.
PN744
Ultimately, though, you accept at the outset that what that balance is, what the scope of the role that needs to be performed there, is for Mr Dobson to ascertain, isn't it?---Sorry, I didn't understand that.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH XXN MR SKENE
PN745
What the actual job is that Mr Dobson wants done is up to Mr Dobson, isn't it?
---But he's got to work within the award and the agreements.
PN746
And then there's the question about where it fits within the framework?---Yes.
PN747
But how much managerial responsibility there is within a role and how much supervisory responsibility within a role is up to Mr Dobson to decide, isn't it?---I don't think it's up to him to decide how much management and supervisory in a role that we have an agreement that says this is what the person will do. How can he change it on his own?
PN748
But he's not changing it. He's not changing it. He's saying, I need more done, isn't he?---If he says he needs more done, that's up to him, yes.
PN749
Yes, and that's up to him, isn't it?---Yes.
PN750
Effectively - I withdraw that. Nothing further, your Honour.
PN751
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Addison?
MR ADDISON: Thanks, your Honour.
<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ADDISON [2.50PM]
PN753
MR ADDISON: You were asked a number of questions with regard to responsibility as opposed to a capability, do you recall that?---Yes, I think at the start.
PN754
Mr Skene put to you that you can be responsible and you can have job responsibilities with somebody else, but accountabilities may
differ and the way that you're held to be accountable may differ, and I think you agree with that?
---Yes.
PN755
Now, if a GF or if an SGF don't perform and don't uphold their responsibilities, how are they held accountable?---There's a procedure in the workplace agreement to deal with anybody who's not meeting the required standards.
PN756
Yes, and what's that process? You don't need to quote the process to me, just tell me what the process is?---Well, there's work habits and performance standards of behaviour, 49, and then obviously if the behaviours don't improve and we need to go to the next step, there's the counselling and disciplinary procedure.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH RXN MR ADDISON
PN757
Okay. So if you're a GF that is not performing, you are held accountable by - what, so you're counselled first?---First. Yes.
PN758
If the counselling doesn't work and you're still not performing, what happens next?---First written warning.
PN759
And if you're then still not performing, what happens next?---Second written warning.
PN760
And next?---Final.
PN761
And next?---Termination.
PN762
You get the sack. That's the accountability, isn't it?---Yes.
PN763
That's how an SGF or a GF is held accountable for his or her responsibilities?
---Yes.
PN764
Now, in terms of an assistant manager, how are they held accountable?---My understanding is they don't get as big a pay rise or no pay rise at all.
PN765
Indeed. Indeed. So there certainly are different accountabilities, aren't there?
---Yes.
PN766
If an assistant manager doesn't perform, his pay may be less?---Yes.
PN767
That's what your evidence is, and if an award-based supervisory person doesn't perform, he or she gets the sack?---Follows the procedure which starts with counselling and finishes at termination.
PN768
Yes. Thanks for that. Mr Skene asked you some questions with regard to the escalation process. He said to you that there was an escalation process. He put to you that, your statement, you'd said you'd made decisions on your own. He said to you that wasn't true. He said to you there was an escalation process and the escalation process allowed you to call the managers. I just want to take you to paragraph 25 of your second statement, can you just go to that? I know you've already said that this statement is true and correct, but I just want you to confirm paragraph 25, whether you still stand by the contents of that, and which is at least 50 per cent of occasions, there's no answer on the phone or the phone is turned off or you get the message bank, and as such, you must make decisions on your own accord:
**** ADRIAN TAINSH RXN MR ADDISON
PN769
Having worked afternoon shift for so many years, never having any manager on the shift, I became accustomed to the situation.
PN770
Is that correct?---Yes.
PN771
So it is true that the escalation process may work on some occasions and may not on others?---Yes.
PN772
Yes. Now, in terms of this - I'm just going to get this right, just bear with me. I'm not trusting your spelling. You didn't even spell it right. In terms of this Camawashi?---Nemawashi.
PN773
Is that correct?---Nema.
PN774
Cama?---N, N.
PN775
Nama?---Nema.
PN776
Nemawashi, Camawashi. In terms of this process, with regard to the current dispute, you are a stakeholder, are you not in this current dispute?---Yes.
PN777
You raised the issue?---Yes.
PN778
You put in the grievance, as per the agreement?---Yes.
PN779
Nemawashi, as I understand it, as it has been explained to you and I think you would agree with it, is a process by which all stakeholders in any matter get to consult?---That's correct.
PN780
Well, it didn't work on this occasion, did it?---No, I don't think so.
PN781
Well, did Mr Dobson consult with you prior to making his decision?---No.
PN782
No. Now, Mr Skene also took you to the processes for appointment, page 112 of the agreement. He took you there after dealing with subsection (k) of appendix F, Part 3, which is supervisory positions as they become vacant will be filled following the processes. Now, your grievance says there is a need for the - sorry, my apologies. Your grievance, you seek the position to be filled?---Yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH RXN MR ADDISON
PN783
On that basis, do you think there's a need to fill that position?---Yes.
PN784
Yes. Mr Tucker, is it initially said he would fill that position. That's correct, isn't it?---Yes.
PN785
And it was Mr Dobson's decision that changed that?---Yes.
PN786
Now, can I ask you, Adrian, what's your background? Have you got a trade background?---No, I don't.
PN787
No? So you started at Toyota as a team member?---Team member. Production team member.
PN788
Have you supervised tradespeople?---No, I haven't.
PN789
Is it normal for supervisors to be moved around in Toyota a bit?---Throughout the department, yes.
PN790
Throughout the department? Or throughout the plant?---Throughout the plant is not so common.
PN791
Not so common, but does it happen?---It has happened.
PN792
Yes. Would you be required to supervise groups, teams - I think they're called teams in Toyota - would you be required to supervise teams who are only of your background?---I think that's a bit hypothetical. I can't really answer that.
PN793
No? That's okay. That's okay. If it's hypothetical, it's hypothetical. It's okay, we'll leave that. Now, Mr Skene took you to a document which I still haven't seen. It's the log of claims document from 2000 I think it was, wasn't it?---2002.
PN794
MR SKENE: 2002.
PN795
MR ADDISON: 2002? He put to you a proposition that a claim had been made during the course of the negotiations of, one presumes, the 2002 agreement, that no union member would issue warnings. He put to you that that claim had been acceded to by Toyota, I think. It's true that union members do give warnings, isn't it?---Yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH RXN MR ADDISON
PN796
Yes. The agreement makes it clear that SGFs and GFs would give warnings; that's true, isn't it?---Yes.
PN797
Does that happen from time to time?---Yes. I think three, four weeks ago, I gave a first written warning.
PN798
Now, Mr Skene then took you to the proposition that SGFs and GFs don't use a BSC, balance score card. I think you said that you weren't sure about that, and nobody had asked you to?---Working in the paint shop, as far as I'm aware, and I'm pretty aware of what happens in the paint shop, being the delegate, none of the supervisors have ever been asked to fill out a balance score card.
PN799
Are you familiar with the PDR system?---Yes, I am.
PN800
What's the PDR system?---Performance development review.
PN801
Supervisors are involved in PDR systems?---They're supposed to be asked to participate and it is voluntary, however, whether they participate or not.
PN802
And the PDR is linked to, as I understand the evidence, the KPIs?---Yes.
PN803
Yes?---I believe so.
PN804
So the balance score card is also linked to KPIs?---Yes.
PN805
The KPIs are individual KPIs or group KPIs?---Department, then group, the cascades - - -
PN806
Cascade's there?---Yes.
PN807
The responsibility of each - I presume each and every employee is to assist to meet the KPIs, is that correct?---That's correct.
PN808
The tool - there are a number of tools available, one presumes?---Yes.
PN809
And those tools would include balance score card?---Balance score card is not the tool - I don't see it as the tool to achieving it, I see it as the tool to benchmark what you have to achieve.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH RXN MR ADDISON
PN810
Yes?---Yes, and then review and see how you're going, see whether you need to do other activities towards your capabilities.
PN811
So would you say it's fairly similar to that system which Mr Dobson describes in paragraph 26 of his - plan, do, check, act?---Plan, do, check, act. Definitely.
PN812
It's another tool, is it not?---Yes.
PN813
Yes. The PDR is also a tool for achieving KPIs?---It's more of a tool for reviewing your performance and planning your development, where you need to.
PN814
Review, planning, doing, and acting, yes? Now, Mr Skene then took you on a little journey with regard to assistant managers and various levels of accountability and responsibility. Basically drew you a picture and said, you know, if you want something new on the line, you would request it, it would then go up to the next person in the line and then either approve it or - I think there was a guy that would tell you it was stupid or - well, not his words, but tell you it was, you know, that you didn't need it and that that person would evaluate whatever he or she evaluated and then they'd pass it up to the next person up the line and then the next person and the next person. And I think Mr Skene asked you a question at the end of all that, saying that different managers would bring different perspectives. I think you agreed with that?---They could, if they were involved, yes.
PN815
Yes. It's true, is it not, that every person in such a chain would have a different perspective?---Yes.
PN816
Some of those may be useful and some may not, would you agree?---Could be, yes.
PN817
Now, the next thing that Mr Skene took you to was levels of authority, the M1, M2, M3. Do you recall that?---Yes.
PN818
There is, as I understand what was put to you, policy, this document - - -?---Yes.
PN819
This is a policy statement. It says:
PN820
All requisitions must be fully authorised by the managers responsible for the cost centre, recorded on the requisition -
**** ADRIAN TAINSH RXN MR ADDISON
PN821
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and then there are the levels of authority, 1 and up to 10 and then over 10. Is this what happens in real life?---No.
PN822
No?---I'm sorry, can I read - which part are you talking specifically about? The whole three sections?
PN823
Are all the positions fully authorised by managers and the relevant managers are listed, section manager, department manager and general manager. Is that what happens in real life?---In real life, no.
PN824
Do clerks within the SAP system, for instance, have authority to issue requisitions?---It appears that, yes, they do. Because they do approve some things.
PN825
I think you gave evidence that some supervisory personnel - I think you mentioned Gary?---Gary is one and as I mentioned before, the previous GF in the maintenance area, prior to signing the AFI, for seven years prior to signing the AFI, did approve things.
PN826
Yes, okay. So the policy is the policy, but other things happen that aren't in the policy, is that true?---Yes, that's true.
PN827
Now, Mr Skene also asked you a number of questions about not having the authority to approve things, and you said "Within the SAP system"?---Mm mm.
PN828
Mr Skene, I think inadvertently actually, I don't think he deliberately did this, but inadvertently seemed to cut you off. Is there another system where you can requisition stuff outside of the SAP system?---We can requisition things within the plant from the store.
PN829
Okay. So for instance?---For instance, simple one is a bell cup that fits on the auto machines, which a group leader authorises which is worth over $1000.
PN830
Okay. So you may have - - -?---Just a simple example.
PN831
- - - very expensive pieces of equipment within the internal stores and you are authorised to requisition - - - ?---Yes, with nobody else at all.
PN832
What about, let's say - - -?---Group leader.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH RXN MR ADDISON
PN833
When we did the inspection, we looked at some large dies and things. One presumes they're extraordinarily expensive. Would you have the authority to requisition them?---I've got no idea about the press shop.
PN834
That's probably not a fair question of you?---Can't answer that.
PN835
Let's say there's something more than $10,000, worth more than $10,000 in the paint store, the paint section store - - -?---Whatever's in the store, we can requisition - a group leader can sign out, whatever it is.
PN836
Regardless of the cost?---Regardless of the cost.
PN837
So this policy deals with sending Fred down to Bunnings to buy bolts, does it?
---Things that aren't on the SAP system or supplies, I think, that aren't on the SAP system, and items that aren't on the system,
non-standard items.
PN838
Non-standard items?---Or non-regular.
PN839
How often in real life would there be a requirement to deal with this?---Again, I can't really specifically comment on that, because in production, we have less exposure to this sort of thing.
PN840
Now, I just want to take you back to the - Mr Skene asked you a number of questions based on Mr Dymock's witness statement, do you recall those? He took you through the report-back from the techs' working party and the overhead projection slides, I presume they are, that Mr Dymock - the company slides. He then took you to the union response to those with regard to reward and recognition, at point 4 of the union response which is exhibit 3, I think. I think it is. Exhibit 4, my apologies. He took you through that and he said there was no position there with regard to - what did he say? He said there was no room for the balance score card approach in the union policy. Do you recall that?---Yes, I recall that.
PN841
Can I take you to the certified agreement? I take you to clause 10 of the certified agreement. You see there clause 10 deals with performance objectives, measures and reward?---Yes.
PN842
And it deals with achievement of KPIs and additional payments linked to KPIs?
---Yes.
**** ADRIAN TAINSH RXN MR ADDISON
PN843
Was this negotiated after the document that Mr Skene took you to and
Dymock - - - ?---This was negotiated afterwards.
PN844
That was negotiated after? So the prevailing position, as I understand it, is clause 10 in the agreement?---Yes.
PN845
Is that correct?---Yes.
PN846
Thank you. Mr Skene put to you on a number of occasions that you have no way of knowing the discussions that assistant managers have with their superiors, and I think you agreed with that?---Yes.
PN847
Do you have any way of knowing what the fitter in the body shop, what his or her discussions are with his or her boss?---No.
PN848
No. It's logical that you wouldn't know, isn't it?---Yes.
PN849
Yes. I have nothing further for this witness, your Honour.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You're excused, Mr Tainsh?---Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.14PM]
PN851
MR ADDISON: Your Honour, we were going to call Mr Kors next, but I think we've agreed that we will in fact call Mr Davis next.
PN852
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay.
MR ADDISON: With that said, I would seek to call Mr Davis, and that makes sense anyway, because he - - -
<PETER JOHN DAVIS, SWORN [3.15PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ADDISON
PN854
MR ADDISON: Can I get you to just repeat your full name and address for the transcript purposes, please?---Peter John Davis (address supplied) body shop.
PN855
Have you prepared a statement with regard to these proceedings?---I have indeed, sir.
PN856
Can I hand you a - do you have it with you?---I don't, no.
PN857
I'll hand you a copy of it. Can I ask you to have a look at that? Are there any changes that you would like to make to that statement?---Not at all.
PN858
Okay. With the exception of the R on the top which is for my own shorthand, is the statement true and correct?---It is.
PN859
Peter, you are employed by Toyota?---I am.
PN860
You are a - - -?---I'm a group leader.
PN861
Do you hold a position with the union?---I do, yes. I'm a senior delegate at Altona.
PN862
How long have you been a senior delegate at Altona?---Just over four years.
PN863
Now, that a senior delegate for the techs division, is it?---Technical and supervisory, that's right.
PN864
Yes. So in terms of being the senior delegate for techs, what does that mean in the practical sense? What are you responsible for, et cetera?---Generally if there's - if there are any issues around the plant related to administration issues, technical issues, supervisory issues, engineering issues, I'm usually involved in.
PN865
Okay. So you have a broad overview of what happens with regard to technical and supervisory issues in the plant?---That's correct.
PN866
Now, are you familiar - well, you would be by now, but when did you first become aware of the grievance that Mr Tainsh put in with
regard to the paint shop position which is - and I think you've got the statements there, I think you've got Mr Dobson's first statement
there? You'll see at attachments 4 and 5 of that, the history of the grievance. Have you got it there? I'm sure you would have?
---Quite a collection up here.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN867
Yes? No? It's a fairly thick one?---Yes, Mr Dobson.
PN868
Yes?---Is it the first or the second one?
PN869
The first one. The first Dobson, not the second one. The first Dobson is the thicker one of the two. It has a number of attachments at the back there?---Yes.
PN870
Attachments 4 and 5 is the history of the grievance that was put in by Adrian. Just refresh yourself. When did you first become aware of that issue?---I think it was about - probably around about a month before - - -
PN871
Right?--- - - - Adrian actually put in the grievance.
PN872
Have you been involved in the various steps in the process which has resulted in the matter coming here?---Yes. Since Adrian was unable to get any further with it, I was then requested to assist.
PN873
Okay. Now, the question of general foreperson - sorry, my apology. The question of senior general foreperson and assistant manager, that has a bit of a longer history than simply this matter, doesn't it?---Absolutely, yes. It's 2000, around about 2000.
PN874
Can I take you to the statement of Mr Dymock, and I take you to an attachment of Mr Dymock's statement. I hope I've got this right. Just bear with me. Have you got a copy of Mr Dymock's statement?---I do. Yes.
PN875
You do? It's attachment GAD6. Do you have that?---Yes.
PN876
That is a document which has stamped across it, "Document for Internal Discussion".
PN877
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: "Initial".
PN878
THE WITNESS: Initial discussion, yes.
PN879
MR ADDISON: Sorry? Initial discussion. My apologies. Mr Dymock says in his statement that he discussed that document with yourself and in fact says at the bottom of the document:
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN880
For initial/preliminary discussion between P Davis -
PN881
That's yourself:
PN882
D Bourke and G A Dymock.
PN883
?---That's right.
PN884
And that was dated 19/10/04. Can you tell the Commission how that discussion arose?---Well, this actually came about as a result of outstanding issues from the previous workplace agreement, whereby we were - we were supposed to be reviewing or looking at potentially reviewing the structures, somehow, way, shape or form, but unfortunately none of the actual discussions were able to get under way, so we were continuously requesting HR to support the discussions in some way, and although we managed to get, as is shown on a previous document, some kind of movement, this document only came about as a result of pretty much last-minute persuasions from the technical and supervisory division to the company, to give us some kind of document that would at least allow us to continue on with the 2005 workplace agreement as a result of their commitments in the 2002.
PN885
Okay. Where did that discussion go and did it - was this document ever agreed?
---No.
PN886
No? What did you do with the document after the meeting?---Well, I don't take things on myself to make decisions on, so as a senior delegate, I passed it amongst the delegates, amongst the workforce, to get their feedback and response on, and it was met with a great deal of despair from the workforce. The GFs and the senior GFs who basically said that it was - it wasn't a very good document at all.
PN887
Did you ask Mr Dymock how he'd come to develop the document?---I did ask Mr Dymock how he came to develop the document and he said it was through discussions with management.
PN888
With management; all right. Did you give the document to any of the senior general forepersons?---I did, yes. Absolutely, yes.
PN889
Had they seen it prior to it being given to them?---No.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN890
No? Okay. Now, I want to take you now to Mr Mulhall's statement. You haven't got it up there, Mulhall? Mr Mulhall is an assistant
manager, is that correct?
---That's correct.
PN891
As I understand it, Mr Mulhall is an assistant manager in the body shop?---That's correct.
PN892
Is that your work area?---That's my shop, yes.
PN893
I want to just take you to paragraph 11 of Mr Mulhall's statement. Mr Mulhall reports at paragraph 10, basically - sorry, 9, that he was promoted to the position of assistant manager. And then at paragraph 11 he says that he's informed that the promotion to assistant manager was motivated by the dual considerations of productivity and maintenance reform. It then goes on in some more specifics. Firstly, there was no need for the group leaders and their teams to be strictly supervised by two general forepersons. The need for management function was far greater than the need for the group leaders to be supervised in their work. This is consistent with his observations of the differences between his current role of assistant manager and that of his previous role of general foreperson. Secondly, this gave the opportunity for Mr Shields, who is another general foreperson as I understand it, to utilise his experience and concentrate on the Kaizen, or continual improvement aspects of the operation. Do you recall this happening, 18 months ago or so?---I do. Yes. I was quite taken aback with it.
PN894
Quite taken aback? Did you do anything about it?---Well, initially when they put the two general forepersons in there, I thought, gee, this is great. We haven't even had to jump up and down about this, haven't had to wave any flags or anything, we've got two general forepersons. My understanding was that they bought Peter down because Peter was more the people side of things and Ron Shields was more the systems side of things, so they said they needed someone to deal with the people aspect and someone to deal with the systems side. So I said, terrific. Sounds like a great initiative. This went on for a while and then I think Ron went to Japan. We're talking about some months after this actually happened. Ron went to Japan and then Peter Mulhall was offered the assistant manager position which Peter subsequently took, and then Ron came back from Japan, carried on with his Kaizen-type role which he was quite happy to do, being more systems orientated. Then a while after that, then I was approached by the manager about the reporting structure change, to which I objected because you don't have group leaders through an award structure. You don't have group leaders reporting to an assistant manager. And our discussion at the time ended to the effect - - -
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN895
Can I just stop you just for one second, and can I just ask you, which manager you were talking to at the time?---I'm talking about the senior manager, body shop, Martin Nelson.
PN896
Okay. Carry on. Sorry?---So I was sat in front of his desk and he was showing me the structure and I said, well, I've got some serious objections with the way you've put this structure together. He said, "Look, we could quite simply just fix this by just moving a line across to the centre here and that would fix your issue". I said, "Yes, it certainly would". He said, okay, and that was it. And my understanding was that was what was going to happen from that. Then I don't - Martin disappeared and things just generally sort of carried on around the place without realising that the structure in fact hadn't been changed.
PN897
You said you disagreed with the matter. There's a formal process in the agreement, isn't there, for raising disputes?---There is, yes.
PN898
Did you raise the dispute in a formal sense or an informal sense?---I raised it first in the informal sense with Mr Nelson, when I went back and saw Mr Nelson and he said to me, he said, "Have you got any notes to that effect?" So I was extremely disappointed because I try to work on a trust relationship with my management and when I found out that I'd effectively been hoodwinked, I wasn't too amused by that. So then I proceeded to actually raise a grievance which is still effective at this moment, relying on the outcome from this.
PN899
So there is a grievance still outstanding in body shop with regard to this position?
---That's right.
PN900
Now, is that grievance in the same form as that which we've just been to?---It is, yes.
PN901
It's in that - what's it called? Problem resolution procedure form?---That's right.
PN902
You don't have that with you, do you?---No, it's in my diary, which isn't with me.
PN903
Okay. Can you bring that tomorrow?---I can.
PN904
I seek leave, your Honour, at the appropriate time, to tender that? Obviously my friend might be able to recall Mr Davis and - okay.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN905
Now, were you involved in the negotiations for the 2002 certified agreement?
---Yes, yes.
PN906
You're familiar with the 2002 certified agreement and its provisions?---Yes.
PN907
Do you have a copy of that there? Yes, you do. Can I take you to page 92 of that certified agreement? In particular, subparagraph (k) which is on that page. Have you got it? Subsection (k) deals with vacant supervisory positions and reads as it's set out there?---Mm.
PN908
What was your understanding of the way that that clause was supposed to operate in the 2002 agreement?---As it reads.
PN909
As it reads? So does that mean the - - -?---When they become vacant, they get back-filled.
PN910
They get back-filled? Okay. I want to take you to - your Honour, would you just bear with me? Your Honour, I've just been handed a copy of the grievance that Mr Davis has just given evidence on. One of the other delegates had a copy. I only have the one copy, which I'm currently showing to Mr Skene. It may assist if we possibly get a couple of copies?
PN911
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mm.
PN912
MR ADDISON: Just quickly, if you could just identify - is that the grievance that you've just given evidence about with regard to
the matter in the body shop?
---That's unfortunately it, yes.
PN913
Yes. I'd seek to tender that at the appropriate time, your Honour.
PN914
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You don't want to tender it now?
PN915
MR ADDISON: I'll tender it now, yes. Sorry.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, your statement is 19 paragraphs long?---Yes.
EXHIBIT #AMWU5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR DAVIS
EXHIBIT #AMWU6 PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCEDURE FORM DATED 18/08/05 TOGETHER WITH ATTACHED BODY SHOP ORGANISATION CHART 2005
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN917
MR ADDISON: Thank you, your Honour. If we can get copies of that, your Honour, that would be helpful.
PN918
Mr Davis, you were involved, were you, in the negotiation of the current certified agreement, the extant one?---Yes.
PN919
The green one?---Yes.
PN920
I want to take you first of all to page 156 of that agreement, if I could? At the top of that, there is something which is explained as a span of control for a general foreperson. Were you involved in negotiating that clause?---I was until 11.15 on the 9th, yes.
PN921
Yes. Can you explain to the Commission what its aim is, what work it does?
---Well, what - - -
PN922
Maybe first of all if I could clear it up. It's something called a glossary. Do you know why it's placed there?---It was just the explanatory notes to go with what's actually on page - - -
PN923
Page 32?---Is it 32? That's right, 32, clause 25.
PN924
Clause 25 of the agreement on page 32 is a title, GF Span of Control and that is below clause 24 which talks about Group Leaders' Span of Control. Now, as I understand the terms of this agreement, the group leader is the first line supervisor, is that correct?---Pretty much, yes.
PN925
The group leader has a span of control, according to this, of 22 to 24 team members, is that correct?---Correct, yes.
PN926
And then the GF, which is the second level of supervision as I understand it, who supervisors group leaders, has a span of control of four to one?---That's right.
PN927
What does the four to one mean? What's the four and what's the one?---Four group leaders to one general foreperson.
PN928
Okay. So do I take it from that that a general foreperson will normally be in charge of four group leaders and 88 team members?---Thereabouts, yes.
PN929
Yes. My maths isn't brilliant, but even I can do that one. So is it then further defined by the span of control on page 156, is it?---The glossary, yes.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN930
Is that what the intention is?---That's right. It will assist.
PN931
Okay. So a general foreperson would normally supervise, or on average - I think it says average in here, doesn't it?---Yes.
PN932
Yes, and average span of control, so on average, a general foreperson will be responsible for around about four group leaders and around about 88 hands-on people?---That's right. That's what we managed to negotiate, yes.
PN933
In terms of the span of control in the glossary, that talks about a range of other criteria. Can you just explain to the Commission how that is supposed to work in connection with clauses 24 and 25?---It can be achieved to be less than four, as a result of establishing additional complexities, standardisation. That may be logistically or otherwise. Geographical requirements; you know, the distance one area may be from another area, and department objectives, which could be through balance score card, KPIs, Nemawashi's, all those sorts of things.
PN934
Nemawashi?---That's right.
PN935
Yes, okay. All right. Now, in terms of the certified agreements, as they are read together, was it the intention of the parties - if you go to clause 2 of the current certified agreement, that talks about existing - well, it says, let me quote it to you:
PN936
The agreement shall be read and interpreted wholly in conjunction with the awards and agreements as varied from time to time specified in law, which shall continue to apply to relevant employees, but shall not be incorporated into or form part of this agreement and will operate independently of this agreement by legislation or otherwise. Existing awards, certified agreements and other agreements binding on TMCE continue to apply, however, this agreement overrides any such instruments to the extent of any inconsistency.
PN937
Was it the intention of the parties that the clauses in this agreement, not overridden by this agreement, would continue to apply?---Anything that's salient in here, that's still apparent in this document or the '99, would still apply, yes.
PN938
Still applies. Now, I just want to take you again to Mr Mulhall's statement. As I understand it, he is an assistant manager in your work area?---Yes.
PN939
Yes. Can I take you to - before I get there, you're also a senior delegate and have been for some period of time in techs. You understand how the management structure works?---Yes.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN940
Do you have a reasonable grasp of authority levels in management?---I think so, yes.
PN941
Okay. Now, I'll take you to a few statements here.
PN942
MR SKENE: Your Honour, I've just had a discussion with my friend, and the purpose of preparing statements in the proceeding is obviously to avoid the need of traversing extensive examination-in-chief. There's a range of matters here that aren't included in the statement my friend is proposing to adduce. He of course had the benefit of all our statements before this statement was filed. It was filed as part of the statements in reply. Whilst we're prepared to give some latitude, at the end of the day, there's a whole lot of new evidence that's going in here that was quite capable of being included in the appendix and notes, not sure why it wasn't. In those circumstances, really, we would object to the scope of what is going on.
PN943
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What do you say, Mr Addison?
PN944
MR ADDISON: I say it's appropriate, your Honour. We're both guilty of not putting in statements strictly in accordance with the directions. In fact, my friend filed a statement this morning, the last statement was from Mr Dobson. I haven't objected to that and I don't object to that. Mr Dobson, in that second statement, makes some assertions about responsibility levels and accountability levels of assistant managers. That's supported in a more specific sense in terms of Mr Mulhall's statements. I've taken the opportunity of having Mr Davis in the witness box who knows the structure reasonably well, just to ask him some specific questions about authority levels.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN945
Now, I can do that through Mr Davis, or I can wait until I get Mr Edward in the witness box who has made some comments with regard to that in his witness statements. It was an opportune time to do it. If you rule that it's inappropriate, then I will withdraw, but otherwise I would propose to continue.
PN946
MR SKENE: Well, the second statement of Mr Dobson is a reply to the union's reply, your Honour. There are obviously no directions about that. It simply seemed to be an efficient way to put up-front the evidence that will be led in response to the statements in reply of the AMWU. Now, Mr Addison has had the benefit of Mr Mulhall's statement. I don't want to get overly-technical, but at the end of the day, if he wants to ask questions about Mr Dobson's second statement, of course he can. That's new and that's why it was given to him, but he now wants to traverse a whole lot of other evidence that he had the benefit of before the statement was filed. That's inappropriate, in my submission.
PN947
MR ADDISON: It's all right. I'll proceed on that basis.
PN948
You have Mr Dobson's second statement?---Dobson's?
PN949
Yes. Can you read paragraph 32 of Mr Dobson's second statement? It's the second statement?---Is that the one that talks of Mr Duffy or - - -
PN950
Paragraph 32 starts, "For example, where Mr Tainsh in paragraph 2 of his statement in reply"?---Right, yes.
PN951
Yes, got that? Mr Dobson says in that statement that the assistant managers' role is generally broader and that the accountability of an assistant manager is generally broader than that of an SGF or GF. Mr Mulhall will give evidence in these proceedings consistent with that statement. He will say, for instance, that in relation to strategic development and direction of a group, his group, that the decision-making is ultimately his alone. Do you agree with that?---No.
PN952
In terms of disciplinary matters, you would be involved with them on a regular basis, being the senior delegate?---Unfortunately, yes.
PN953
Unfortunately, yes. Unfortunately some of your members get themselves into a bit of strife from time to time. Do assistant managers give warnings to employees?---I'm trying to think. I've been around the traps a fair while now. I know of - I'm not sure if he was an SGF at the time or if he was an assistant manager, but there was one warning given by an assistant manager or SGF at the time in the press shop that I can recall, yes.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN954
And how long ago was that?---It was probably three months ago.
PN955
Can I take you to 31.2 of the existing agreement? This is on page 52. Been through that a few times?---Yes.
PN956
You were involved in negotiations for this agreement, I think you said?---I was.
PN957
You'll note the chart, for a better description, first written warning can be given by a general foreperson and/or a manager, is that correct?---That's correct, yes.
PN958
The second written warning can be given by a general foreperson and/or an SGF manager?---That's right.
PN959
Why does it say SGF and/or manager? Does that mean that they must both be present, or that either can be present?---The thinking behind all of this, as you've already said, I get involved in a lot of disciplinary processes around the plant. The idea was escalation, as far as the severity of the situation the person might actually be in. So the idea was to have the SGF and the manager there, which related to department manager, SGF and department manager, to reinforce the severity of the situation that the operator, team member, supervisor, may actually be getting themselves into.
PN960
Okay. So you're saying that the second written warning would be given by a general foreperson and/or a senior general foreperson
and a department manager?
---That's right.
PN961
Yes, your Honour?
PN962
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The heading at the top is Manufacturing/non-manufacturing?
PN963
MR ADDISON: And/or non-manufacturing, yes. Well, one presumes that would be engineering.
PN964
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's what I assumed the slash related to, in the table.
PN965
MR ADDISON: The slash means "and/or". I think it did when I did English in school, which was a long time ago, but that's what it means to me, in a straight reading of the English language, and/or.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN966
MR SKENE: You could argue that all day.
PN967
MR ADDISON: Well, we can get an English textbook, but that's what it means.
PN968
MR SKENE: So you say.
PN969
MR ADDISON: So I say. I see where you're coming from, your Honour. So you say the manufacturing for general foreperson, but in non-manufacturing, an SGF or a manager? Is that how you - - -
PN970
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, everyone else is more familiar with this document with me, I have to say, in this room, and there may be some agreement between the parties on - - -
PN971
MR ADDISON: I'm trying to get an understanding.
PN972
MR SKENE: Perhaps the witness can clarify his understanding, but my instructions are that manufacturing/non-manufacturing just means it operates throughout the plant, it's covered by the agreement in two areas, the manufacturing areas and non-manufacturing areas. There's then a separate division under here with respect to each step, in terms of who conducts the step and then who has an additional role in supporting the step. So that's how I'm instructed that it works, so a person is responsible for conducting a step, if they are under the conducted-by limb and they're responsible for supporting the step if they're under - supported by a step. So for example, under the final written warning stage, it is the manager, whatever that means and I accept that's contested, it's the manager that conducts that step, and there is a role, though, for support to be provided by a GF, an SGF or a senior manager.
PN973
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Regardless of whether you're in manufacturing or non-manufacturing?
PN974
MR SKENE: They're my instructions, your Honour, yes.
PN975
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So I'm the only one - - -
PN976
MR ADDISON: I don't think there's a lot of contest in that, your Honour.
PN977
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN978
MR ADDISON: In fact, I'd be amazed.
PN979
What Mr Skene has just put, is that generally your understanding?---That's right. We do have non-manufacturing areas. Finance, for example, where this would also need to apply, yes.
PN980
Okay. Now, I was just looking at the second written warning stage which is conducted by - as I understand it, the way this document was written, either by a general foreperson and/or by a senior general foreperson or manager and supported by a senior general foreperson and/or manager. Am I right on that, or am I reading it incorrectly?---No. The manager would never do it - do it on his own. The manager always does it with support, either from the SGF or the GF and at the lower levels, the group leader, but the - it's just a question of who's available at the actual time, whether it be the GF or the SGF, to support the department manager.
PN981
So you would always include the department manager at the second step, the second warning?---The idea was to escalate the severity, so we try and include the highest level possible.
PN982
That's fine. Can I ask in terms of that structure and the understanding of the negotiators, you were one of the negotiators?---That's right.
PN983
Was it envisaged that an assistant manager would be involved in that process?
---Never.
PN984
Never?---Never.
PN985
Okay. Now, I think you said that you became aware of the grievance which was ultimately raised by Adrian about a month before it was?---Thereabouts, yes.
PN986
Were you involved in discussions with the paint shop management about this position?---Only after Adrian had exhausted all avenues and we moved onto the next step, which was to get my involvement in the matter, which I did. I had some discussions with Malcolm Tucker, the manager of the paint shop.
PN987
Can you explain to the Commission what happened in those discussions, what was discussed?---In those discussions, it was quite apparent that management sought a higher level of supervisor than Simon was actually able to support them with. In fact, one of the concerns was that perhaps Simon just didn't have the grunt, to use some words that I've seen, the grunt that would support the management structure quite as well. So I suggested to Malcolm that in that case, the senior general foreperson would be the ideal position to fill that particular position with.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN988
You say at paragraphs 2 and 3 of your statement that you disagreed with the rationale outlined by Mr Dobson in his first statement?---That's right.
PN989
In terms of the span of control which we went through earlier, does the proposed position, either of an assistant manager or of GF,
fit within that span of control?
---It did as far as the actual numbers of supervision were concerned, but because they were on different shifts, it did make it
somewhat more complex, but nevertheless, understanding that it was possible to work in that way, we thought that the GF position
would still be a suitable position by which to fill that actual position, but because of the higher level of management support that
they felt they needed in it, that it was mentioned that Simon didn't have, it was generally an understanding and Malcolm actually
reiterated that he would - he would need to get back to me again on that in relation to the SGF actually filling the position.
PN990
In terms of that question of more than one shift, is it normal for GFs to have charge of more than one shift?---Yes, yes.
PN991
Is there any provisions in the agreement that relate to that question?---Yes. Any supervisor that is responsible for more than one shift is compensated with a 2.5 per cent increment.
PN992
Can you tell us where that is in the agreement because I thought I had it marked, but I haven't. I know it's in there, but I don't know where?---Supervisor responsible for - or dual shift responsibility - - -
PN993
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What page are you on?
PN994
MR ADDISON: I think he's looking at the index, your Honour.
PN995
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay?---Circled the index, your Honour.
PN996
MR ADDISON: Page 86. Yes, that's right. Clause 61. Have you got it? Clause 61? Actually, if you haven't marked it, I was just being silly?---186, just trying me out, is he? That's right, yes.
PN997
Okay. You say it's normal for people to get the additional skills in there, is it?---It is, yes.
PN998
Yes. Is it - no, I withdraw that?---Not a desired situation, but it's accepted.
**** PETER JOHN DAVIS XN MR ADDISON
PN999
Now, in terms of - I think - no, nothing further for this witness. I think it's spelt out in the statement here. I'll hand you over to - - -
PN1000
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Skene?
PN1001
MR SKENE: Your Honour, there are a few matters that Mr Davis has given evidence about today that I'll need to get instructions on before I can cross-examine him. Things like these recent discussions he claims to have had with Mr Tucker, I'm not in a position to respond to those things today, so I don't know what your intentions are. I'm happy to make a start, but it may not be desirable for Mr Davis to be under cross-examination overnight if Mr Addison has to speak to him about the conduct of the case. I don't know if Mr Addison has any views or, your Honour, what your preferences are.
PN1002
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I was going to sit until quarter past four, but - - -
PN1003
MR SKENE: If it's 15 minutes, your Honour, I can safely say, you know, I won't finish, but if you rather me cut 15 minutes out of it for tomorrow, then I can.
PN1004
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Addison says it's probably better to finish at the moment, so let's do. I will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow.
<ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY 9 DECEMBER 2005 [3.58PM]
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs
EXHIBIT #AMWU1 OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS FOR AMWU DATED 26/10/2005 PN3
EXHIBIT #TOYOTA1 OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS FOR TOYOTA PN6
EXHIBIT #AMWU2 LETTER RE AMWU SUBMISSIONS IN REPLY DATED 25/11/2005 PN14
ADRIAN TAINSH, SWORN PN31
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ADDISON PN31
EXHIBIT #AMWU3 STATEMENT OF ADRIAN TAINSH COMPRISING 49 PARAGRAPHS PN38
EXHIBIT #AMWU4 STATEMENT OF ADRIAN TAINSH COMPRISING 27 PARAGRAPHS WITH ATTACHMENTS PN38
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SKENE PN254
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ADDISON PN752
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN850
PETER JOHN DAVIS, SWORN PN853
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ADDISON PN853
EXHIBIT #AMWU5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR DAVIS PN916
EXHIBIT #AMWU6 PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCEDURE FORM DATED 18/08/05 TOGETHER WITH ATTACHED BODY SHOP ORGANISATION CHART 2005 PN916
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2005/2635.html