|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
1800
534 258
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Workplace Relations Act 1996 10616
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY
C2004/1848
s.113 - application to vary an award
APPLICATION BY AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR, HOSPITALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS UNION
(C2004/1848)
Security Employees (Victoria) Award 1998
MELBOURNE
11.07AM, TUESDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2005
Continued from 21/2/2005
Hearing continuing
PN320
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Nolan?
PN321
MR J NOLAN: Thank you, your Honour. Just a couple of housekeeping matters to deal with before we go back into the witness evidence and they are these, that, whereas we had originally tentatively proposed Messrs Ross and Donovan to give evidence, to be available for cross-examination on Thursday, that has now changed and just to get over any potential dispute about some or all of their evidence is really the nature of really of evidence-in-chief, we have agreed on some consent directions and also in that connection, agreed that both of those gentlemen will be called to give evidence on 31 March and that will allow these directions to occur in the meantime.
PN322
And we will confirm this to you in writing, we just do not have a hard copy at the moment, but the proposal is that by consent that the LHMU will file and serve any additional or amended contentions, the facts of law, depending on what is thought to be more convenient, which ties in the evidence of Ross and Donovan. We will do that by this Friday 25 February, but Chubb and the other employer parties will respond in kind, by 15 March 2005 and that we will reply by 22 March 2005, so that will allow those issues to be crystallised and then those witnesses will be called on 31 March 2005.
PN323
Also on 31 March 2005, EMA will call Mr Johnson for cross-examination and then we intend that Messrs Kerry and Fraser will be made available for cross-examination on 1 April. So we anticipate that those two days will be fully utilised with those witnesses. As I said to you, I have just given you the bare bones of what we propose for those directions, we arranged for an email sending all that out to go to you in due course, hopefully today. So that means that we will continue on with the tentative program as to the witness, except that day four now will change and we will get to advise the employers which of the other EMA witnesses, apart from Mr Johnson, we would like to be made available for cross-examination on Thursday. And we hope to be in a position to do that - or we will be in a position to do that this afternoon. So that is the housekeeping matters.
PN324
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: When you say by consent, that's by consent of all the parties, is it?
PN325
MR NOLAN: Yes.
PN326
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand.
PN327
MR NOLAN: Mr Quigley was consulted by Mr Wood about this and I think we had a general discussion while all of us were in conference yesterday afternoon, so I do not imagine anything had emerged that - - -
PN328
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.
PN329
MR NOLAN: Unless Mr Wood has something else to add to what I have said, it was our proposal to call the next the witnesses, Mr Petrovic and get back to the evidence.
PN330
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr Wood, did you - - -
PN331
MR S WOOD: No, your Honour.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Yes, call Mr Petrovic please.
<DUSKO PETROVIC, SWORN [11.11AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR NOLAN
PN333
MR NOLAN: Mr Petrovic, could you first of all state your full name and address for the record please?---It is Dusko Petrovic, (address supplied).
PN334
For the purposes of your evidence in this matter you had prepared two witness statements, do you have them with you in the witness box?---I do, yes.
PN335
The first of those is headed up witness statement of Dusko Petrovic and that is a statement of 14 paragraphs in length and it has some attachments, do you have that?---I have got it, yes.
PN336
Do you say to the best of your knowledge and belief the contents of that statement are true?---I do.
PN337
The second of those statements, the supplementary witness statement of
Dusko Petrovic, do you have that with you?---Yes I do.
PN338
That is another statement that consists of 14 paragraphs, is that the one that you have with you?---I do, yes.
PN339
And do you say to the best of your knowledge and belief that the contents of that statement are also true?---I do.
That is the evidence-in-chief. Could you mark those, your Honour?
EXHIBIT #LHMU10 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DUSKO PETROVIC.
EXHIBIT #LHMU11 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF DUSKO PETROVIC.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes Mr Wood?
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOOD [11.13AM]
PN342
MR WOOD: Thank you. Mr Petrovic, I think we met you when we did inspections of the Crown casino, was that right?---Yes that is correct.
PN343
You put in your original statement which has just been marked LHMU10 and Mr Greg Watson, who held a senior position at Chubb, responded to you did he not?---He did.
**** DUSKO PETROVIC XXN MR WOOD
PN344
Your supplementary witness statement is a response to what Mr Watson says?
---Correct.
PN345
Unlike many of the witnesses here who have put in supplementary statements Mr Petrovic, I do not think there is that much difference between what you and Mr Watson say and the differences are really quite minor, so I would rather hope that we could get through this cross-examination reasonably quickly. I do not mean to by asking you these questions, want to elongate the cross-examination but you are under oath and you are free to give these answers any way you see consistent with that oath. Do you understand what I am saying?---Yes I do.
PN346
In paragraph 2 of your supplementary witness statement, you are responding to what Mr Watson says, when he says he wrote the site operating procedures in 2000 when they were released. As I understand what the evidence is when you look at what you and Mr Watson say, is that there were some original operating orders, which were not approved by the VCGA in 1997, which formed the basis of what Mr Watson did in 2000 and they are the approved VCGA operating procedures. Is that right?---I do not know that the VCGA did approve the last standard operating procedures.
PN347
You just do not know whether the 2000 procedures were approved by the VCGA or - - -?---Well I do not know if both of them were approved then or if they were approved 1997.
PN348
You do not know either way?---Well I assume that they may have been approved in 1997 - - -
PN349
I do not want to know what your assumption is, we really want to know what you know Mr Petrovic?---Okay, what I know is I do not know what the VCGA had approved or not.
PN350
In relation to paragraph 3, I think there is a slight typo in your supplementary witness statement, you referred to a date in relation to the cloaking of bags which was only introduced after September 11 2002. That should be 2001?---That should be 2001, yes.
PN351
I understand the distinction post September 11 2001, as opposed to before it, is that the cloaking of bags is now mandatory whereas previously it would be voluntary, is that right?---For the most part.
**** DUSKO PETROVIC XXN MR WOOD
PN352
In paragraph 4, you give some evidence in reply to Mr Watson's comments about the west end precinct. As I understand the west end precinct that is the area where McDonalds, KFC, fast food retail outlets are based, which is quite near the car park. Is that right?---That is correct.
PN353
I do not understand the basis upon which you make your statement:
PN354
There are very more violent incidents in this area, much more so than other areas.
PN355
You may well have a basis for which I am unaware. Can you tell the Commission what the basis to be making this statement was?---Well I have attended a great number of many violent incidences in that area, as opposed to other general areas of the casino. The chairs that were used for patrons there for the fast food outlets, were required to be bolted down due to their use as weapons in quite a few of the violent incidences.
PN356
As I understand it there was discussions about bolting the chairs outside KFC to the slab. Those chairs could not be bolted down because of the slap operates, it is a floating slab, is that your understanding or you just do not know?---I do know, that was an excuse that was given to us at the time. However, we do not believe that Crown explored all of the possibilities of bolting the chairs down or having fixed seating. There was already fixed seating there for the stools so they could have just done that.
PN357
So your answer to my question is yes, and you have gone on to give some other evidence that you do not believe that there were engineering difficulties in the solution that was proposed, is that right?---Well the chairs were bolted down. So I believe that there were alternative solutions.
PN358
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But you had been told, had you, that they could not bolt them down?---We had an occupational health and safety meeting where we were told that that was Crown's reasoning for doing that, and the cost also, because they said that if they were to do that it would cost close to half a million dollars and they did not think the cost was justifiable.
PN359
So who told you that, a representative of Crown was it?---No, that was our site manager at the time, he was passing on the information from Crown's, senior security manager.
**** DUSKO PETROVIC XXN MR WOOD
PN360
MR WOOD: Getting back to my question, your basis for saying there were many more violent incidents in this area, much more so than other areas, is based on your own personal observations. Is that what you are saying?---My personal one's and reports that I have read from other staff in the area, so, who work there.
PN361
And have you done a statistical analysis of those reports? Have you looked at all the reports that have been filed by all the security officers all through Crown and done an analysis to see whether or not this area produces more reports than any other areas?---It was not my - - -
PN362
I am not asking for an excuse Mr Petrovic, I am not asking for an excuse, I am just wanting a yes or no answer to a very simple question?---No, I am happy to answer it.
PN363
MR WOOD: Thank you. In relation to paragraph 5, of your supplementary statement, you say:
PN364
Officers are now expected to also write a written warning when patrons are illegally parked.
PN365
When you say a written warning, what do you mean? A warning - what does this document say?---The document's - notepads, and basically say you have been illegally parked, requesting not to park illegally or in such a manner in future or words to that effect.
PN366
What does it warn you of if you continue to park illegally?---It does not actually give you a specific - - -
PN367
It is a note that you are parking illegally?---To request that you refrain from parking illegally again.
PN368
In relation to paragraph 7, of your supplementary statement, there may be some confusion between what Mr Watson, says and what you say in relation to his reference to the staffing when the Casino operated, you would accept that is a possibility would you not?---Sorry, could you repeat that?
PN369
Perhaps I will do it this way, Mr Watson says in his statement:
PN370
The staffing levels have not varied in any significant way since the Crown Complex opened in May 1997.
**** DUSKO PETROVIC XXN MR WOOD
PN371
That is the Southbank complex rather than the Northbank complex.
PN372
Any variation could be minor in response in response to aligning resources to volume changes and patronage and the constant closure of casino access points.
PN373
In other words, staffing levels have decreased in response to the volume of patronage at the Crown Complex decreasing. You say in response to that:
PN374
The Mr Watson says staffing levels have not varied much since the opening of the casino, this is not correct, staffing levels have not remained the same, I would say they have at least halved. Patronage has not dropped by 50 per cent in my estimation so the change in the staff will not align to the usage of the casino.
PN375
Do you accept that when the casino opened in May 1997, that there were a number of people who came to visit the casino because it had just opened?---Yes, that is correct.
PN376
You accept don't you, well perhaps you do not know, that the numbers of patrons during those initial weeks and months that the casino was opened, are much greater than the numbers of patrons that have been typically coming through the casino for the six years since the end of 1997?---I do not believe that to be true.
PN377
You do not believe it?---No.
PN378
Because Mr Watson, will say that in response to what you say at paragraph 7, that the permanent staffing has only decreased in a minor way and that is because patronage has been steady for the last six years or so, but some casual employment at the very beginning when the casino opened in May 1997, has dropped off as the volumes steady themselves. Do you agree with that or you just do not know?---I do not agree, basically.
PN379
In relation to paragraph 10, you give some evidence in the last sentence:
PN380
Employees wanted permanency, higher weekend rates, public holiday rates and sick leave and hence started talks with Crown to introduce an EBA.
PN381
And you are the senior delegate or is there no differentiation between the delegates at the site?---I am not the senior delegate but we have several delegates, one of whom has been doing - or been in that position for quite a considerable amount of time and was involved in the original EBA negotiation, so I would probably consider him to be the senior delegate.
**** DUSKO PETROVIC XXN MR WOOD
PN382
What is his name?---Con Vamavakos.
PN383
Does he work there any longer?---He is currently not working, he suffered a facial injury as a result of a violent confrontation from patrons, so he is not there at the moment.
PN384
How long has he been off work?---I believe the incident took place on 27 December, just after Christmas and he has not been back to work since. He needed surgery to correct a wound that he suffered as a result of a bottle being struck across his face.
PN385
Anything more?---No.
PN386
Are you sure?---Well if you like - - -
PN387
I would just like you to answer my questions?---I believe I did - - -
PN388
MR NOLAN: Well he did.
PN389
MR WOOD: You do not answer my question, you did not make any attempt to answer my question Mr Petrovic. You went off on a spiel of your own about an injury - - -
PN390
MR NOLAN: Well I object to this, this is now reduced to an exchange between the advocate and the witness. He was asked about whether he was a senior delegate or not, he said he did not consider himself to be the senior delegate because this other gentleman was the senior delegate. Then he was asked what happened to the other bloke and he has told him and how this could possibly degenerate into an argument.
PN391
MR WOOD: I was asking him how long he had been off work.
PN392
MR NOLAN: Well how long he had been off work then, he has explained it in terms of the answer. I mean there is nothing to dispute about the answer I would have thought.
PN393
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He gave a date when the incident occurred and said that he had been off work ever since and he had had surgery.
**** DUSKO PETROVIC XXN MR WOOD
PN394
MR WOOD: Yes, and he went on to say some other things.
PN395
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN396
MR WOOD: But the point of my comment - - -
PN397
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.
PN398
MR WOOD: Mr Petrovic, so at the moment you are the senior delegate?---No, as I said I believe Con Vamavakos would have fallen within that category or that title, even though we do not specifically have that as a formal title.
PN399
As I recall things when we went on inspection late last year, you were the one that did most of the speaking on behalf of the delegates when we went on the inspection, is that a fair comment?---I did not - I would not say it is a fair comment, I do not recall who spoke nor whether it was myself or Con Vamavakos, but both of us were present during the inspection.
PN400
Whether or not you are the senior delegate, you made the statement you made in paragraph 10 on the basis of your discussions with
the employees at Crown?
---That is correct.
PN401
And you think, I assume, that you have a good understanding of what the employees at Crown want?---I assume that I would.
PN402
And when you say employees wanted permanency, you are saying that employees wanted permanency at the time the EBA was introduced?---That is correct. At the time all the employees were casuals.
PN403
Given your status as, so you are not the senior delegate, but a delegate with some seniority who has some knowledge of what the employees want, do you think the employees still want permanency?---Do they still want it?
PN404
Yes?---I think the ones who have not been given permanency, yes they want it.
PN405
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, the ones that have not been given it?---Yes, there is quite a number of casuals on site also.
PN406
Yes?---Who have been there in that position for over 12 months.
**** DUSKO PETROVIC XXN MR WOOD
PN407
MR WOOD: Would you find it strange if someone suggested that employees at Crown, did not want permanency?---Would I find it strange?
PN408
Yes?---Well I guess it is an individual matter. I would say that the majority of employees would want permanency, otherwise I would have negotiated to the contrary in the last EBA.
PN409
You might not know much about employees in the security industry generally, but what do you say about the employees in the security industry generally in relation to the desire for permanency?---Well it very much depends on what the duties are of those employees of the industry. A lot of the guys who work at pubs do not have permanency, a lot of them have day jobs and work in pubs on weekends or nightclubs. Others who work 40 hours a week in that role would like permanency.
PN410
In paragraph 11 you say that employees in the nightclub area are not required to do three restraints training sessions per year and yet you say:
PN411
I believe that they are in accordance with the EBA.
PN412
Have you read the EBA Mr Petrovic?---The most recent one, yes.
PN413
Have you read the clause that deals with restraints training sessions?---I believe I did at the time.
PN414
Can you recall what it says?---Not off the top of my head, no.
PN415
The Chubb guards who work at the casino, on level 3, outside the nightclub area, do not go into the nightclubs as a general rule, is that right?---Well there is a general rule that they don't, but if the nightclub security require assistance, they do attend the nightclub to assist.
PN416
And as a general rule the security guards on level 3, first come into contact with someone who has been ejected from the nightclub, when they see them in the foyer area of level 3, is that right as a general rule?---Could not give you a percentage of when that happens. A lot of the times we get told by one of the nightclub security staff that they have ejected somebody in back of house, so not the general area but the back of house corridors, so our staff go to the back of house corridors and remove the patrons from there.
**** DUSKO PETROVIC XXN MR WOOD
PN417
We will call it the foyer or back of house corridors, as a general rule the security guards employed by Chubb who work at level 3, do not see the persons who are ejected from nightclubs until they are out of the nightclubs, as a general rule?---I could not say general rule, but a lot of the times patrons are removed directly to us, a lot of the times - or some of the times we only see them when we go in to assist to remove them or help remove them, so.
PN418
I think you agreed with me in relation to my first question, you said that as a general rule you did not go in to assist, you did sometimes, the corollary of that is that you would not see the person who was being ejected until they came out of the nightclub whether accompanied by someone from inside the nightclub or unaccompanied?---I could say that is correct, yes, generally.
PN419
That being the case generally you would not have seen why it is that that person has been ejected. You might be told why they are being ejected but you would not have seen it would you?---No, for the most part, no. Unless they have come out involved in a struggle with the security staff then shed light why are they being removed.
PN420
And you were aware from your training, you referred to it in your statement and your supplementary statement, that there are rules regarding when you can restrain someone?---Well, we do follow rules at training regarding restraints.
PN421
One major rule is that you have got to have cause to restrain someone?---Yes, that is correct.
PN422
And if you have not seen why a person has been ejected from a nightclub, then you have not got cause to restrain them, unless they are doing something that generates cause when you see them. Is that right?---Correct.
PN423
Thus as a general rule, you do not take over physical restraints of people who have been ejected from the nightclub for that reason?---A lot of the times the security staff will remove them to a certain area, whether it the front of house door or the back of house and ask us to escort the patrons to exit the part of the complex, they release them and if they do not cooperate with our request to leave and try to become aggressive with us, then it does require restraint to restrain them and to remove them from the complex safely.
**** DUSKO PETROVIC XXN MR WOOD
PN424
Yes, sure if they commit a wrong, if they showed that there was cause to restrain them that you observe, then you will restrain them and remove them. But unless you see that then you do not take over the restraints from the nightclub guards, do you?---Again, well every incident is different. If there is violent people, involving multiple people, the nightclub staff will remove a couple of them to us and ask us to remove them, whilst they go to attend to the other patrons. And in many of these incidences the staff, that they are asking us to remove are - have been involved in aggressive towards the nightclub staff, also.
PN425
But unless you see that then you do not have the authority to restrain them or remove them under restraint do you?---Well that is correct, but for the most part we do see that happen, so.
PN426
And you are trained in that very procedure that I have just taken you through point by point are you not?---We are trained in that.
PN427
And you may not know this but I understand that you are studying for a law degree, you know that the reason that this procedure is in place or the training in this procedure is that, Chubb and Crown do not want to be sued for false imprisonment or false arrest. Isn't that right?---That is correct.
PN428
You are told that that is the reason that this procedure is in place?---I do not recall exactly what we were told during the training as to why the procedures are in that - put in that manner.
PN429
Yes, just excuse me one moment your Honour. Yes, nothing further.
PN430
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you Mr Wood, re-examination?
PN431
MR NOLAN: There is no re-examination, might Mr Petrovic be excused?
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you for your evidence Mr Petrovic, you are excused you may remain in the courtroom if you like or you can leave if you wish.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.36AM]
PN433
MR NOLAN: It is always comforting to know that there is another lawyer in the system, isn't it.
PN434
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN435
MR NOLAN: There must be somebody who is not studying law somewhere in the country but I have not met them yet.
PN436
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think Mr Newman is not, but anyway.
PN437
MR NOLAN: Mr Houghton is the next witness on our list.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, call Mr Houghton please.
<SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON, SWORN [11.38AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR NOLAN
PN439
MR NOLAN: Mr Houghton, could you first of all state your full name and address for the record please?---Yes, Sean Derek Houghton, (address supplied).
PN440
Now for the purposes of your evidence in this case, you have cause to have prepared a couple of witness statements, do you have them with you in the witness box?---Yes I do.
PN441
Now the first of those is a witness statement that is headed up witness statement of Sean Houghton, and that is a statement consisting of 27 paragraphs and some attachments. Do you have that with you?---Yes I do.
PN442
And do you say to the best of your knowledge and belief that the statement is true?---Yes.
PN443
And the second statement is one that is headed up supplementary witness statement of Sean Houghton, and that is a statement consisting of 15 paragraphs, do you have that with you too?---Yes I do.
PN444
And do you say that to the best of your knowledge and belief that that statement is true?---Yes I do.
PN445
That is the evidence-in-chief, may it please your Honour.
PN446
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you Mr Nolan, do you wish to tender the documents?
MR NOLAN: Sorry, yes they should be tendered.
EXHIBIT #LHMU12 WITNESS STATEMENT OF SEAN HOUGHTON.
EXHIBIT #LHMU13 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF SEAN HOUGHTON.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOOD [11.39AM]
PN448
MR WOOD: Mr Houghton, you are employed at Victoria Barracks are you not?
---Yes I am.
PN449
And you are a senior there?---Yes I am.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN450
And that means that you are paid and currently classified at level 4, plus you also get the leading hand allowance under the award?---Yes I do.
PN451
Above you in the reporting structure isn't it - he may have been transferred or may be on holiday, is usually Mr Robert Neon?---Usually yes.
PN452
But there is someone else who is there as a supervisor at the moment?---Yes, he has been - Robert has been seconded into the office at the moment, Howard James has been doing that role for the last four months.
PN453
So Howard James is the last four months, Mr Robert Neon before that; how long was Mr Robert Neon the supervisor on the Victoria Barracks site?---It would be approximately 18 months.
PN454
And both Mr James and Mr Neon report to Mr Bob Davis?---Yes they do.
PN455
And Mr Davis has responded to what you said in your original witness statement?
---Yes he has.
PN456
And you have responded to what Mr Davis has said?---Yes I have.
PN457
There is another employee of Chubb's, who works at Victoria Barracks who is coming to give evidence, is that not correct?---That is correct.
PN458
And he is outside?---When I - well a couple of minutes ago he was.
PN459
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is very precise.
PN460
MR WOOD: That is Mr Denis Burgan?---Yes it is.
PN461
Unlike you, he is not a senior?---That is correct.
PN462
And he is just one of the guards employed on site?---Yes he is.
PN463
And I am not sure if you have had the opportunity to read what Mr Burgan says and what Mr Davis said in response to Mr Burgan and what Mr Burgan says in response to Mr Davis, have you?---No I have not.
PN464
I asked you whether you were employed at the Victoria Barracks site, just to get some clarity, although we visited the Victoria Barracks site on inspections, do you know as the senior, you may not know, who the contract in relation to the Victoria Barracks is with? That is, is it with the Department of Defence or with Transfield?---Our contract is with Transfield.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN465
And Transfield are the facility managers for the Department of Defence?---They hold the garrison support services contract, yes.
PN466
And that contract between Chubb and Transfield, does that apply just to the Victoria Barracks or does it apply to some other sites?---As far as I am aware it applies, Victoria wide.
PN467
And there are some sites that come up in your evidence and Mr Burgan's evidence and Mr Davis's evidence, that not in Victoria Barracks but a part of this arrangement, if I might call it that, is that right?---I cannot speak for Mr Burgan's statement, but I think both mine and Bob's referred to other defence sites, yes.
PN468
There is a defence site at Point Cook?---Yes there is.
PN469
There is a defence site at the Victoria Barracks?---Yes.
PN470
There is a defence site in the City?---In Bourke Street, yes.
PN471
What is the name of that site?---That is, Defence Plaza.
PN472
Defence Plaza, and is there one other site near the Victoria Barracks which is related to the Victoria Barracks site?---At the present time there is defence staff housed at 99 Coventry Street.
PN473
In South Melbourne?---Which is not exactly a separate site but they do stand alone.
PN474
I see, when you say it is not exactly a separate site what do you mean by that?
---Well they were - they would still be managed by the base manager at Victoria Barracks.
PN475
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But it is not within the Victoria Barracks perimeter?---No, it is not within the perimeter, no.
PN476
MR WOOD: You say in paragraph 2, of your supplementary witness statement that Chubb has held the Department of Defence contract since 1996, sorry Mr Davis says that and you say that is not your understanding, Chubb has held the contract since 1998. Why do you say that Mr Houghton?---We - Chubb that is - initially started on Defence in 98 with four sites, Victoria Barracks, Defence Plaza, a site at Maribyrnong and a site at Fishermans Bend. That was I think January 4, 1998, I was on the very first shift for Chubb out at Maribyrnong. I relieved an officer from the Australian Protective Services, as did the guards at Fish Bend at the time and the guards at the Victoria Barracks and Defence Plaza, received officers from Group 4.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN477
That contract you are referring to, is that a contract with Transfield, like the one at present or was it a contract with the Department of Defence, or do you just not know?---I believe that was a contract held by Chubb with the Department of Defence directly.
PN478
Do you know whether or not there was a contract prior to that one in 1998, between 96 and 98, that Chubb held with the Department of Defence which incorporated some buildings at Victoria Barracks and at another site, St James Plaza at 350 St Kilda Road, or you do not know?---Is this static guarding?
PN479
Static guarding yes?---I am unaware of any such contract.
PN480
Is that because you were based from early 1998 at Maribyrnong, you were a long way away from the St Kilda Road site, so your knowledge might be limited in that regard?---Please clarify the question.
PN481
Do you think that there is a possibility that your understanding of the contractual relationship between Chubb and the Department of Defence in relation to the Victoria Barracks site, could be prior to 1998, could be limited?---I would need to say that is a possibility, but like I say, Group 4 held that site before 1998.
PN482
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you mean up till 1998?---Up until 1998.
PN483
MR WOOD: In your paragraph 3, there seems to be a dispute and it might be able to be resolved but I am not sure too much turns on it, between Mr Davis's evidence and your evidence about how many senior officers there are employed at the Victoria Barracks site. You say that there are four senior officers prior to September 11 and Mr Davis says - you say there are four currently - Mr Davis says there are five. Can you understand why there might be some difference between you?---I can understand that, I would have to say technically both versions are true.
PN484
Since September 11, there have been 18 safe base casuals, performing casual work employed at the Victoria Barracks site?---I am not sure of the exact number but there has been quite a few.
PN485
Prior to September 11 there were no safe base casual - sorry there were no casual positions on site and since September 11 there are, in your words, quite a few safe base casuals?---Before September 11 there were no safe base positions, there was a casual position.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN486
I see, no safe base position. And you define what a safe base position is, I think in paragraph 18 of your first statement Mr Houghton, I am sorry paragraph 11 of your first statement, can you just turn to that? Now these casual safe base guards, you say are not required to meet ASIO or police clearance checks, as result of that fact, they are not permitted to go past the gatehouse area, is that right?---That is true with one exception.
PN487
What is the exception?---All guards arrive and sign on for duty at north gate, the guards that are required to work down at Well Street, are permitted to walk from north gate to Well Street through the site.
PN488
As long as they get an interim pass to allow them to do so?---Yes that is part of the signing on process.
PN489
I will hand you a document that deals with that process Mr Houghton, because there is some dispute about it, I will hand a copy to the Commission as well. If you could have a look at that document and the list of names who have signed saying that they have received the document attached to it?---I do not have the list of names.
PN490
Sorry, you do not have it? I will hand you a book - does the Commission have the list of names?
PN491
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do.
PN492
MR WOOD: I will hand another copy to the witness? Do you see your name on page 3 with your signature and a date of 3 June 2004?---I would like to state that the signatures are for a different memo.
PN493
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, I didn't hear that?---The signatures are for a different memo, it is dated differently and it is on a different subject.
PN494
MR WOOD: You might have a different document to mine, but mine seems to link up Mr Houghton?---Well the copy I have does not.
PN495
I have got a memo to all staff from Robert Neon dated Thursday 3 June 2004, subject non conformance, that is two pages and there is a signature - - -?---That was not the original document I was handed.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN496
I am sorry, that explains why there was no signage - you have got now the memo of Thursday 3 June 2004 and the signage of Thursday 3 June 2004?---Yes I am aware of this document.
PN497
You received that memo and you signed, when you received it on the signatory sheet that is attached?---Yes I did.
PN498
I tender that document.
PN499
MR NOLAN: No objection.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, no objection.
EXHIBIT #CHUBB4 MEMO TO ALL STAFF FROM ROBERT NEON DATED 03/06/2004.
PN501
MR WOOD: This memo indicates that there has been an instruction along the lines of your evidence Mr Houghton, that is that when guards move from one gate to another gate, depending on where they have parked their cars or starting shift, that they cannot just move from one gate to another gate through the base, unless they have an interim pass, and once they get to where they are going they have to hand that interim pass in. Is that right?---No that is incorrect.
PN502
It is incorrect because I should have restricted my question to the safe base guards?---No that is still incorrect.
PN503
Well what is the position?---The position is that they sign for an interim pass when they sign on duty and they return that pass when they sign off duty and leave the site.
PN504
I see, so it is not when they get to their - not when the safe base guard gets to their gatehouse, it is when they sign off duty that they hand in the interim pass?---That is correct. For the duration of their duty they have their pass.
PN505
From your understanding as a senior - why are you wearing supervisor epaulettes today Mr Houghton, I just noticed that?---The current supervisor Howard James, is on leave and I am filling that role at the moment.
PN506
I see, so at the moment you are being paid not as a level 4 with the leading hand allowance, you are being paid as a level 5 or on salary?---Level 5, I hope.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN507
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How long have you been acting in the position?---I commenced yesterday actually for seven weeks.
PN508
MR WOOD: In your position as a senior, you use the phrase safe base guard or safe base casual quite often, do you not?---Yes I do.
PN509
And in your mind there is no misunderstanding as to what that refers to, that it refers to the type of guard who unless they have got an interim pass, the type of guard who is not able to go past the gatehouse to which he or she might be rostered?---That is correct.
PN510
And you have got not reason to believe that the other guards that work at the site would not have the same understanding as to what
a safe base guard is, do you?
---I would believe they would all have the same understanding.
PN511
In paragraph 4, of your supplementary witness statement Mr Houghton, you say that there were some duties that were taken over by some officers, and those are set out at paragraphs 54 to 56 of Mr Davis's statement. You say as a result of that transfer of duties there was a reclassification to level 4, are you sure of that? Are you sure that the officers concerned were not already classified at level 4?---It is my belief that the were not.
PN512
Do you know any of the following guards, Alfred Codenti, Rudi Ellis, Luke Popovic?---I know all three of those, yes.
PN513
And would it surprise you if we tendered payroll records which showed that those guards were classified and payed at level 4 prior to the changes in duties that you have referred to?---It would surprise me a little bit, yes.
PN514
I tender these three payroll records as it amounts to further identification, I will be proofreading Mr Davis's reports, and I will give a copy to my learned friend, because we do not have copies of those - - -
PN515
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you want a copy of this shown to Mr Houghton?
PN516
MR WOOD: I do not need to, I rather imagine that this - - -
PN517
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps I will give you back a copy for Mr Nolan.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN518
MR WOOD: They are three different ones.
PN519
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They are three different ones of course, yes sorry.
PN520
MR WOOD: Yes.
PN521
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you want them marked as a bundle?
MR WOOD: Yes, your Honour.
EXHIBIT #MFI CHUBB5 PAYROLL RECORDS OF MESSRS POPOVIC, ELLIS AND CODENTI.
PN523
MR WOOD: Your Honour, before they are photocopied we might, and if my learned friend wants to look at them, we might have to have to have a discussion about the extent to which they might be distributed, because they contain some information of a private nature.
PN524
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes I understand. Yes. At this stage I will keep it confidential, but you Mr Nolan ought to have a copy and we will arrange for it.
PN525
MR NOLAN: In due course.
PN526
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN527
MR WOOD: I think this is self evident Mr Houghton, but the reason that you say that you are surprised in response to my question, is that if those documents show what I say they would show then that is inconsistent with what you say at paragraph 4 of your statement. Is that right?---Yes, if that is what they show then it would be inconsistent yes.
PN528
In paragraph 6, of your supplementary statement Mr Houghton, it may be that you and Mr Davis are talking about the same thing. There are four types of passes produced, military personnel passes, civilian passes, drivers licence, military drivers and spouse passes, is that right?---That - that would be a broad description, yes.
PN529
And as I understand things, previously those passes were produced by security guards but they were produced by hand and now they are
produced by computer?
---Incorrect.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN530
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry which part is incorrect? That they were previously produced by hand?---No, previously we did not produce passes such as the service IDs or the drivers licences or the spouse passes. The passes we produced were simply site specific passes if you will. All the other passes were separate and they were not done by us.
PN531
MR WOOD: So if Mr Davis gives evidence to the effect that I have just said then, he would be wrong?---Give evidence to which respect?
PN532
To the effect that the four passes that I referred to in which you agreed were a description of the passes produced on site, the military personnel passes, civilian pass, the drivers licence, military drivers and the spouse pass. If he gives evidence that they were previously produced by hand by security guards and that they are now produced by computer, that is wrong?---As I said the passes we produce were produced by hand, but we did not produce all those passes.
PN533
And the passes that you say were produced by hand are now produced by computer?---The - the passes we used to produce by hand are no longer being produced.
PN534
By you at all?---By anyone. Sorry correction I believe one version might still be used out at Fish Bend site.
PN535
One thing I am a little bit unsure about in paragraph 8 of your statement in reply is this issue of peer to peer training, Mr Houghton, because - - -?---Is this my supplementary statement?
PN536
Sorry, paragraph 8 of your supplementary statement?---Yes thank you.
PN537
I do not quite understand the point you are trying to make and perhaps you might be able to explain, the union's case for what it is worth is that a lot of people in your position, seniors and supervisors, do peer to peer training and that there should be some recognition either in payment or in the classification structure for that fact. That is people at level 4 and level 5 should have their pay rates increased or the classification structure should be changed to reflect that fact. Do you understand?---Well I understand what you are saying, yes.
PN538
Your evidence seems to me to be inconsistent with that case concept, what you seem to be saying is that seniors and supervisors do not actually train or do not all the time, train officers who are rostered to work, because as you complain in paragraph 8, you say:
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN539
Training for officers is peer to peer training with four times 12 hour shifts, this does not always occur, sometimes officers are rostered for shifts without peer to peer training.
PN540
And you say that fact increases your workload and the fact that you are not training people, yet the union's case is that you should have a pay increase for the increased workload of training people. It does not seem consistent to me, can you explain what you mean by paragraph 8?---Most certainly. Supposedly before officers are rostered to work on the site, they are to come along as an extra guard to receive training shifts. For example if there is supposed to be four officers rostered on to meet the terms of the contract, the guard for training will come along as a fifth guard where they will be trained in the duties required. Quite often that does not occur insofar as the new guard arriving for training, will become for example the fourth guard which is a requirement under the contract. So he is not there as an extra to be trained, he has come on to fill an actual shift and so we are effectively one trained guard short where we are still required to perform the same duties, to the same quality and yet at the same time train the new guard.
PN541
You have to train that guard as well?---Yes.
PN542
I see and is that training when you have got four people on a shift, any more difficult than when you have got five people on shift?---Like I said if we are effectively one trained guard short, we are still expected to maintain the same standard of our service, perform the same duties to the same standard, and we are doing that one trained guard short, whilst at the same time instructing the new guard of the duties.
PN543
Is it any harder to instruct that new guard as to his or her duties when you are one guard - - -?---It is - it is harder to do that when they do not come along as an extra guard for that shift.
PN544
Why is that? I mean if there is actually room for them and they have got equipment where they can sit and all the seats are not taken, it would strike me as easier to train someone when there is a place, a computer, a spot for them. Why is it harder?---The normal workload is divided up among the guards on the shift and they all do their share. With the guard as an extra, they can stand by a trained officer or the senior and they can be inducted into those duties while that happens.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN545
So when you say that they are being trained when they are an extra person on shift, they actually just sit and watch what the trained guards are doing. Is that right?---I did not say that.
PN546
It seemed to be the indication, are you are saying is the implication I have drawn is wrong?---Very much so.
PN547
It strikes me that in the sort of area in which you work whether you call it the security industry guarding generally or at the Victoria Barracks, there would always be people coming through who require some training, or induction to some level?---That is correct.
PN548
And it strikes me that it is not particularly different to any work site anywhere, where there are new people coming in to do jobs who need to be trained? Is that right?---Some clarification please?
PN549
Well I will give you an example, soon Ms Frenzel leaves the union, there is no industrial officer at the Victorian branch and someone has to replace her. Mr Breheny or perhaps one of the organisers has to train her, but that is - - -
PN550
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps more than one.
PN551
MR WOOD: I beg your pardon?
PN552
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps more than one.
PN553
MS FRENZEL: Thank you, your Honour, most kind.
PN554
MR WOOD: But that is the sort of thing that Mr Breheny would be doing to staff who came in to work within the union on an ongoing basis. As staff came in, he would have to - - -
PN555
MR NOLAN: I object to this, I think it's all very interesting, but how can this witness be expected to speculate about what is likely to happen at the Miscellaneous Workers Union office? We could all engage in speculation, I do not know whether it assists the progress or regress of the - - -
PN556
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I think perhaps we could confine ourselves to the gatehouse.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN557
MR NOLAN: Yes, that is right otherwise we will send him down there for a shift and see how good he is.
PN558
MR WOOD: Just coming back to the Victoria Barracks site, can you give the Commission, some idea of the flow of new people onto the site?---What do you mean by flow?
PN559
Well, there are a number of permanent employees at the site and a number of casuals. And I imagine that amongst that group of permanents and amongst that group of casuals there would be some people who actually stay there for a long time and some people that go to work at other places. So there are new people coming onto the site on a regular or irregular basis, is that right?---That would be true.
PN560
What types of numbers are we talking about Mr Houghton? One a month, one a week?---Are we talking the contractual positions or the safe base positions?
PN561
Both, contractual and the safe base positions?---We probably have at least one safe base guard new to the site every week, at least.
PN562
And what about the contractual positions?---Well that is a bit harder to guess, probably we could have three or four in a month and then the next month we might have none.
PN563
So perhaps one every two weeks or one every month on average over a year?
---Only if you want to average it out.
PN564
In terms of your role, I do not mean your role as in your current role over the last day as a supervisor, I mean your role as a senior, in your role as a senior you would be involved in welcoming those people to site, in telling them about the site, inducting them and giving them the type of training that you referred to in your statement. That is training over four times 12 hour shifts. Is that right?---I would oversee all that, yes.
PN565
Not only did you oversee it you would actually deliver some of that induction and training?---Most certainly.
PN566
And the other guards beneath you, for example Mr Burgan who is about to come and give evidence, if there is someone new on site that guard might show them what to do and how to do it? It would not be you sitting with this new person, or every new person that comes on every week, showing them what to do, all the guards would show them what to do, would they not?---I would certainly hope so, yes.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN567
It would stand to reason that in a team environment where there is only a limited number of seniors and supervisors that the training would be distributed amongst all the guards on the site and you agree that is what actually happens?---Yes I would, yes.
PN568
Apart from the incident you referred to in paragraph 10 of your supplementary statement, there has never been a requirement as far as you know in relation to any of these I think you said, one safe base guard per week and I think you said three or four contract guards per month and then the next month there might be none, has there ever been any requirement for any of those guards to have more than certificate II as part of their qualifications has there?---That is true at guard level, yes.
PN569
In paragraph 10 of your supplementary statement, you referred to a memo that was sent out by Mr Neon advertising for a vacancy in which he said in the memo that the vacancy requires certificate III qualification?---That is appendix F you are talking about? My original statement?
PN570
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you have a copy of it Mr Houghton?
---Of appendix F, yes I do.
PN571
MR WOOD: Those are the notifications that I am talking about Mr Houghton, in paragraph 6, of your original statement you say:
PN572
Certificate III had in recent times become a requirement of the position of SSO or Leading SSO at Victoria Barracks, attachment F contains two recent internal vacancy notifications for the positions of SSO and Leading SSO. The notifications include the requirement the applicant hold or have the ability to acquire a certificate III security operations.
PN573
And you attached the ..... Mr Davis responded to your statement and said:
PN574
The internal vacancy notifications were prepared by the site supervisor Mr Robert Neon, unfortunately Mr Neon did not check with me before releasing these qualifications and I can categorically state that the requirement to hold or have the ability to acquire a certificate III in security operations is not correct and the internal vacancy notification is withdrawn and reissued accordingly.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN575
You respond to that in paragraph 10 of your supplementary statement and you say that the vacancy notification was not withdrawn and you say it was reissued to my knowledge, you then go on to say:
PN576
The certificate III was probably not compulsory but certainly was preferred, although it was stated as being required on the vacancy notification.
PN577
Do you know who got the job referred to in the notifications?---Yes I do.
PN578
That is Mr Ian Drury?---No.
PN579
Who is it?---That would be - the senior position or the relieving senior position?
PN580
Both?---The senior position went to Les Kelly and the relieving senior position went to Steven Condon.
PN581
And neither Mr Kelly or Mr Condon have certificate III in security operations?---I believe Les Kelly has I am not too sure about Steve Condon.
PN582
As far as you understand, those notifications were the only notifications published at any stage during your period with Victoria Barracks, which have required a certificate III in security operations. Is that right?---These are the first and only ones yes I might say that, yes.
PN583
And you have never seen any others of that nature?---Not previously, no.
PN584
And not since?---We have not had cause to advertise since.
PN585
So the answer to my question is no, not since?---Well like I say, we have not had cause to advertise those positions again, so until they do I cannot really answer.
PN586
In terms of Mr Davis's evidence, Mr Davis says, and I think you will agree with this:
PN587
The certificate III was probably not compulsory.
PN588
Mr Davis says that the internal vacancy notification was withdrawn and reissued accordingly. Are you aware of that occurring?---Neither I or any of the other officers on the site are aware of that happening.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN589
In terms of paragraph 11 of your witness statement, the supplementary statement?---Yes.
PN590
I do not quite understand what you are saying there given your evidence to the Commission this morning. Are you - you seem to be saying this morning that safe base guards do not enter the barracks unless they have got an interim pass?---That is correct.
PN591
Are you then - if you look at paragraph 11 of your statement, sentences two and three do not seem to be consistent. You say:
PN592
Safe base guards,
PN593
now presumably you are referring there are you, to safe base guards with an interim pass?---Yes I am.
PN594
Will sometimes do an overnight patrol of the grounds under instructions from the site supervisor.
PN595
Then you say:
PN596
This practice is no longer occurring.
PN597
What do you mean by that? Are you referring to the memo - - -?---I must say that paragraph was not exactly recorded very well. What
I am saying is that for a period of time, under instructions from the site supervisor, Robert Neon, the safe base guard was required
to do patrol of the grounds if you like of Victoria Barracks, they did not enter any of the buildings, but they walked around the
grounds inside the perimeter, which admittedly some of the senior officers did not particularly agree with but we stuck to those
instructions. Upon receipt of
Bob Davis's witness statement, where he clearly said that safe base guards were not allowed to go on the site past the gatehouse,
we revoked that instruction with approval from Howard James, who was filling that supervisor's position at the time.
PN598
So, for at least the last four months since Mr James has been the site supervisor, that practise has stopped?---No I did not say that, I said when I read Bob Davis's statement, I am not too sure when I received Bob's statement.
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN599
I see, so whenever you received Mr Davis's statement which was produced I think around August - you cannot recall when you received
Mr Davis's statement?
---I may have read it October/November, I cannot be precisely sure.
PN600
And since that time the practise has ceased?---Yes it has.
PN601
In paragraph 13 of your supplementary statement Mr Houghton, you talk about the increase in duties for security officers, increasing with the level of the site. Although you have given some evidence about the nature of the contract between Chubb and Transfield. Do you know whether or not the duties that may be required of Chubb are dependant upon the level the base is at or simply dependant upon what the client, in this case Transfield, asks?---The Department of Defence has put out a policy if you will, regarding security on the site. Under those policies there are different requirements under each of the safe base levels, which not only that we as guards have to adhere to, or the defence staff have to adhere to as well and all the other contractors, and we have some role in those requirements.
PN602
I understand that, perhaps I did not explain my question very well. Do you know what duties Chubb is obliged to perform under their contract with Transfield and whether or not those duties are contingent upon an increase in safety level at the base or not?---I do not quite understand the question.
PN603
Do you know whether or not under the contract Chubb can be asked to increase the number of duties it is performing irrespective of
the safety level of the base?
---I can only go by experience whereby we have gone up to the second highest level, Delta, and still manned the site and carried
out requirements as required by defence. We have not got to the top level yet, so I cannot make a comment.
PN604
You have not worked at the Simpson Barracks in Watsonia have you?---I have briefly, yes.
PN605
I see and you are aware that about two years ago at the Simpson Barracks in Watsonia, for reasons not explained to Chubb the military had their own officers on site with Chubb security officers?---Can you be more specific?
PN606
You were aware that that event occurred, whereby the security for the Simpson Barracks was operated jointly by the military and with Chubb about two years ago?---Would this be access control?
**** SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON XXN MR WOOD
PN607
It is in relation to access to the site, yes?---We may have had a co role, yes.
PN608
And are you aware whether or not Chubb was given reasons for this change?---I imagine they were given reasons, I am not aware of them.
PN609
I beg your pardon?---I imagine Chubb management would have been given reasons for that but I am not aware of it.
PN610
I am not particularly interested in your imagination Mr Houghton, do you know?
MR NOLAN: He said he was not aware of it.
PN611
MR WOOD: In relation to the training referred to in paragraph 15, that has not yet occurred has it?---No it has not.
PN612
And it has not been - I withdraw that. Please excuse me for a moment, your Honour. Nothing further for this witness.
PN613
MR NOLAN: There is no re-examination. Might the witness be excused, your Honour?
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you Mr Nolan, thank you for evidence Mr Houghton you are excused, you may remain in court of leave if you wish.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.30PM]
MR NOLAN: The next witness is Mr Burgan.
<DENIS ANDREW BURGAN, AFFIRMED [12.32PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR NOLAN
PN616
MR NOLAN: Mr Burgan could you first of all state your full name and address please, for the record?---Denis Andrew Burgan, ( address supplied ).
PN617
Now you have caused to be prepared for your evidence-in-chief in this matter, two witness statements, do you have them with you in the witness box?---I do.
PN618
The first of those is headed up witness statement of Denis Burgan and that is a statement of 29 paragraphs in length with some attachments. Do you have that with you?---Yes.
PN619
And do you say that to the best of your knowledge and belief the statement is true?---I do.
PN620
Now the second statement is one that is headed up supplementary witness statement of Denis Burgan and that is a statement consisting of 12 paragraphs, do you have that with you?---Yes.
PN621
And can I just ask you this, at paragraph 5 there appears to be an omission, if you look at the second last sentence it says:
PN622
He also states that in October 2002 from Toyota to Victoria Barracks.
PN623
Should that not read, I was transferred from Toyota to Victoria Barracks?---No.
PN624
What should that read?---I was transferred from Toyota to the RAAF Williams in Point Cook.
PN625
To RAAF Williams in Point Cook?---Yes.
PN626
So with that amendment, do you say that that statement to the best of your knowledge and belief, true? This is the supplementary witness statement, do you have any other corrections?---It is true, I was transferred then from RAAF Williams to Victoria Barracks.
Yes, it goes on to say that. Might those statements be marked then, your Honour?
EXHIBIT #LHMU14 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DENIS BURGAN.
EXHIBIT #LHMU15 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF DENIS BURGAN.
PN628
Yes, that is the evidence-in-chief, your Honour.
**** DENIS ANDREW BURGAN XN MR NOLAN
PN629
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you Mr Nolan.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOOD [12.34PM]
PN630
MR WOOD: Mr Burgan, we just met a recently promoted member of the Chubb staff who works at the Victoria Barracks, Mr Houghton. He is now the supervisor apparently, do you know Mr Houghton?---Yes.
PN631
You have known him in his position as a senior?---Yes.
PN632
And you have worked with him in his position as a senior?---Yes.
PN633
You are a level 1 guard?---At the moment, yes.
PN634
I understand my learned friend Mr Nolan just took you to your evidence and you made some change about the transfer from Toyota to the RAAF at Williamstown, is that right?---That is correct.
PN635
As a result of that change from Toyota to Williamstown there was an agreement to continue to pay you an allowance above the level
1 classification, is that right?
---That is correct.
PN636
Which allowance is it? Are you paid the level 2 or are you paid as if you were a leading hand?---I was paid at level 2.
PN637
Level 2. So you are still paid as a level 2 guard?---No.
PN638
No longer?---No.
PN639
That ceased when you left RAAF Williamstown did it?---That is correct.
PN640
In your supplementary statement, you make some comments about safe base guards and at paragraph 4 you say:
PN641
I am unsure of what the term safe base is, as I have never heard my work referred to as a safe base guard.
PN642
Are you sure that is right Mr Burgan?---Well I have heard of the term safe base guard, but I am a full-time employee. I am not a - safe base they have referred to as casual.
**** DENIS ANDREW BURGAN XXN MR WOOD
PN643
I see, you would say - I see what you are saying. You have never heard my work referred to as a safe base guard. So your part of the permanent workforce who have been given the appropriate ASIO and police checks, is that right?---That is correct.
PN644
And so you are entitled to walk around because you have got the appropriate security clearance throughout the whole of Victoria Barracks?---Yes and no.
PN645
Throughout most of the Victoria Barracks?---Well, yes and no, it all depends on the interpretation of Mr Bob Davis.
PN646
You were entitled to walk around the Victoria Barracks in those places that a safe base casual guard would require an interim pass to walk around in?---Yes.
PN647
The reference in paragraph 3, in your statement you say:
PN648
The safe base guards have the same uncleared status as any civilian and are not permitted to go past the gatehouse. All guards that work at the Well Street gate have to walk through the base to get to that gatehouse and therefore it is incorrect to say that guards are not permitted to enter the site as we all have to to get to our gate.
PN649
You would accept that that statement is slightly incorrect, because you forget to make reference to the need for an interim pass if the guard is a safe base guard. Is that right?---Well there are interim passes there.
PN650
Perhaps the witness can be shown Exhibit CHUBB4. That is a memo dated 3 June 2004, subject non-conformance, which you appear to have signed and dated Mr Burgan on page 4. Do you see your name and your signature and the date 11 August 2004?---Yes.
PN651
Do you accept you received this memo and you signed it and dated on page 4?
---Yes.
PN652
And you accept that it refers to the requirement for casual safe base guards to have an interim pass if they walk through the site rather than walking around it to get to their place of work?---Yes.
PN653
And you accept that paragraph 3, of your statement does not make reference to the fact that casual safe base guards need to have an interim pass to walk through the base?---That is correct.
**** DENIS ANDREW BURGAN XXN MR WOOD
PN654
In paragraph 4, there may be some confusion between casual work and casual employment, you would accept that you as a permanent employee are able to, subject to your willingness to do so of course, take up extra shifts above and beyond your rostered shifts?---If it's of a day shift nature, which means we are not allowed to work shift work.
PN655
So people like you as permanent employees at the Victoria Barracks, are able to take up extra shifts above and beyond their rostered permanent hours?---Yes.
PN656
And they do so from time to time?---I am sure they do up at north gate where I work they do not, no.
PN657
And that work is casual work performed by permanents?---Yes.
PN658
And such a person performing extra shifts on a casual basis, as a permanent would be entitled to walk through the base if they had an interim pass or if like you and all the other permanents, they had been properly security cleared?---Can you repeat that one?
PN659
Don't worry, I think it is self evident, Mr Burgan so I will not bother with that. That seems to be a fair understanding.
PN660
MR NOLAN: A sensible approach.
PN661
MR WOOD: In relation to the times in which you worked for Wormald's, it may be that the issue between you and Mr Davis at paragraph 5 is very small. Is it the fact that you started at Victoria Barracks in April 2004, not May, because you were at RAAF Williams first, as you have indicated to my learned friend Mr Nolan this morning. Is that right?---I cannot tell you the exact date, I would have to go back through the attendance register.
PN662
And in relation to your employment with Wormald's, it could be that the difference between you and Mr Davis, depends upon the extent to which your employment with Wormald's was with the mobiles area or with the guarding area. Would that be the difference between you and Mr Davis on that point?---Could be.
PN663
You are a very experienced security guard Mr Burgan?---I have been in the industry for 33 years now.
**** DENIS ANDREW BURGAN XXN MR WOOD
PN664
And we have just heard from Mr Houghton that a lot of casuals come in to work as safe base guards at the site and a lot of permanents come in to work in the contractor positions and that there is a change over, he gave an estimate of the numbers that he thought were coming in and refreshing the pool of security guards there from time to time. I imagine that you as an experienced security guard would have some role in training these employees?---Yes.
PN665
And I imagine you as an experienced person would be someone that - senior like Mr Houghton - would leave to train new employees for
extended lengths of time?
---Given the time.
PN666
Subject to the time, but it would not be surprising for a senior like Mr Houghton to say, Hey Denis, can you handle this guy for this shift and show him the ropes? or something like that?---That is correct.
PN667
And you would indeed, subject to your other commitments, try your best to train that person in their tasks during the shift?---That is correct.
PN668
And I take it that as an experienced security guard you would do a pretty good job at training the new employees into the way in which
things operate at the site?
---Given the time.
PN669
I do not imagine that the employees who have been, given might not be the right word, but allocated to you for a shift for training or inductions or just help in bringing themselves up to speed with the requirements of the site. I do not imagine those employees would need lots and lots of refresher training after having a shift or two shifts or three or four, with you?---Well they would when they are only spending one day there and they are not there the next day. They may not come back for another 12 months, you cannot expect them to pick it up again after that.
PN670
Sure. I mean if someone is not having consistent contact with the site, then obviously they are going to need training each time they come back to the site. I am really directing my questions to new permanent employee or a new casual employee that works regular hours, say two or three shifts a week at the site. If you were in charge of the training of that person - do not let me put words in your mouth - how many shifts would it take you, given all the other things you have got to do, to get that person up to a level where they were a functioning, but not experienced, but a functioning productive member of the security staff?---Are you referring just to Victoria Barracks or anything?
**** DENIS ANDREW BURGAN XXN MR WOOD
PN671
Just to Victoria Barracks to start with?---Well just from my own personal experience, even being an experienced guard it took me at least a fortnight to learn the procedure there. But even then I was still under supervision.
PN672
What level of training do you think you would need to give to a casual or a permanent employee before you personally were comfortable working alongside them?---Well it would all depend on the person.
PN673
Just give me some ranges from one shift with someone who is very good to someone who is - - -?---Well recently I have had a young gentleman there who was able to be trained reasonably within seven days, others I have had there and are still there working in a casual capacity still do not know. A lot of them do not want to know.
PN674
Is it your practice or Mr Houghton's practice to try to share the training around amongst experienced security guards whether it is you or someone else, or is it practice to try and have the same guard trained by the same person?---Usually if the guard is put on shift he will be taught by the people on the shift, not just one person.
PN675
So everyone?--- ..... some input into it.
PN676
So if there is a shift of three people and the person being trained is the fourth or a shift of four people and the person being trained is the fifth, the three experienced or the four experienced, depending on the size of the shift, the three experienced or four experienced guards would all train that individual?---Yes.
PN677
I do not want you to sort of tee off, but people like Mr Davis and Mr Neon and Mr Houghton, but from what you are saying it rather
suggests that the seniors and supervisors are absent when this training occurs, it is actually the boys in the mess hall that are
doing the training, not the officers over in their own tent, is that fair?
---Well that is correct, I mean I am not an officer and I still train them.
PN678
But what role do the seniors and the supervisors have? Do they just sort of prance around from gatehouse to gatehouse just sort of saying that - - -?---That I cannot comment on because I do not work up at the north gate were the seniors operate from.
PN679
I see but from your experience at the gates where you work, it is basically the guards on duty that do the training and the seniors and the supervisors do very little of the training?---They supervise.
**** DENIS ANDREW BURGAN XXN MR WOOD
PN680
In paragraph 9 of Mr Davis's statement, the notes say a reference to occupational health and safety duties, I think you have taken it to mean occupation health and safety training, there is no dispute from our perspective that training in occupational health and safety is very important for everyone?---I think it is, yes.
PN681
There is no dispute from this side of the Bar table Mr Burgan. Your duties are - perhaps I will put it another way. I would assume that someone in your position, level 1 guard, although you have to be aware of occupational health and safety requirements, you are not an occupational health and safety officer. That is you are a guard on the guardhouse and not - just a comment about the supervisors - you are not wandering around performing occupational health and safety duties on the site?---Not on that site, but I have been trained by the Victorian Trades Hall Council.
PN682
To do that?---Yes.
PN683
And you have done that type of work at different sites?---Yes.
PN684
I see, in paragraph 12 of your statement you refer to work at Point Cook and you refer to the fact that the armoury alarm would go off quite frequently and officers would always react to the alarm without being armed. As I understand that, the reason for that as compared to the work at the Victoria Barracks, is that there was no contractual requirement at Point Cook, for an armed response, whereas at Victoria Barracks there is a contractual requirement for an armed response. Do you know about that - - -?---Well I do not know about - I am not au fait with the contract, I would be speculating.
PN685
Just excuse me for a moment. Nothing further for cross-examination, Your Honour.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you Mr Wood.
<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NOLAN [12.53PM]
PN687
MR NOLAN: Just one thing may it please your Honour. Mr Burgan a minute ago you spoke of being trained by the VHTC, in occupational health and safety, what course was that, can you remember?---No it was last year, I cannot remember what - it was a week long course, the full course.
PN688
Was it desired by the union delegates was it, that course?---The union delegates and I cannot I remember where I had to use it, but I was sent for that training.
**** DENIS ANDREW BURGAN RXN MR NOLAN
PN689
When you say you were sent for that training, who sent you?---Well Chubb were aware of it and also the union.
PN690
All right, thank you - - -?--- ..... by the two of them.
PN691
There is no further re-examination, your Honour, might Mr Burgan be excused?
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you Mr Nolan. Thank you for your evidence Mr Burgan, you are excused?---Thank you, your Honour.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.54PM]
PN693
MR NOLAN: The timing has been pretty good I see the clock, we have got one more witness, probably be appropriate to call the witness at 2 o'clock, that is Mr Rigbye.
PN694
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How long do you think you might be with Mr Rigbye, Mr Wood?
PN695
MR WOOD: I am not sure how long I have been with these other witnesses but I imagine the same level of time, about 20 minutes or so.
PN696
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would you prefer to conclude that witness now or come back after lunch?
PN697
MR WOOD: I think we would prefer to do it at 2 o'clock.
PN698
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right thank you. I adjourn to 2 o'clock.
<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.55PM]
<RESUMED [2.04PM]
PN699
MR NOLAN: Yes, your Honour, the next witness and the final witness for the day is Mr Rigbye.
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, call Mr Rigbye..
<DAVID SCOTT RIGBYE, AFFIRMED [2.05PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR NOLAN
PN701
MR NOLAN: Mr Rigbye, can you first of all for the record state your full name and address please?---David Scott Rigbye, ( address supplied ).
PN702
Now for the purposes of your evidence in this matter, you have cause to be prepared two witness statements, do you have them with
you in the witness box?
---Yes I do.
PN703
Now the first of those witness statements is the original one, it is headed up witness statement of David Rigbye, do you have that in front of you?---Yes.
PN704
Now I understand that you wish to make a couple of minor corrections to that and can I just take you through them? The third sentence in paragraph 1, has an omission, at the time you made the statement it was intended to read:
PN705
I am employed as a security officer working in crowd control at Eastland Shopping Centre.
PN706
Is that right?---Yes.
PN707
Now I understand that you have more recently moved from Eastland Shopping Centre and you are now employed at Forrest Hill Shopping
Centre, is that right?
---That is correct.
PN708
You are still employed, however, for the Australian Guarding Services?---Yes.
PN709
Now further down paragraph 1, the second last sentence should end with the words, shopping centre staff not shopping centre services, is that right?---That is correct.
PN710
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry where was that?
PN711
MR NOLAN: The second last sentence in paragraph 1.
PN712
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN713
MR NOLAN: So it should read shopping centre staff. Now in paragraph 2, in the fourth line, there is the name Ring Time Security Training, that should be Ring True Security Training, is that right?---That is correct.
**** DAVID SCOTT RIGBYE XN MR NOLAN
PN714
Now over on the second page, under the heading qualifications in paragraph 3, where in the second line it says selling a security licence, it should say selling of security equipment. Is that right?---That is correct.
PN715
Down in paragraph 4, in the second last line where it says section 468A Crimes Act, it should read 458 Crimes Act. Is that right?---That is correct.
PN716
And over at paragraph 10, where it says TSS paid for the training, it should read Wormald's paid for the training. Is that right?---That is correct.
PN717
Now with those corrections, do you say that the statement is true to the best of your knowledge and belief?---That is correct, yes.
PN718
And the second of the statements the supplementary witness statement, that is a statement consisting of 11 paragraphs, do you also say that that statement to the best of your knowledge and belief is true?---Yes.
PN719
That is the evidence-in-chief.
PN720
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you Mr Nolan, do you wish to tender those?
MR NOLAN: Yes, I will tender those, your Honour.
EXHIBIT #LHMU16 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID RIGBYE AS AMENDED.
EXHIBIT #LHMU17 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID RIGBYE.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOOD [2.09PM]
PN722
MR WOOD: Mr Rigbye, in your supplementary witness statement you have responded to two witnesses from Chubb, Mr Carey and Mr Frackowski?---Yes.
PN723
I want to deal with what Mr Carey says and your response to it, which is in paragraph 2 and 3 of your witness statement, and dealing first with paragraph 2, as I understand things prior to 1995 security guards, that is static guards, did not service ATMs all they did was assist bank officers in their task of servicing ATMs, do you agree with that?---Previous to me doing that job I have no idea who did it.
**** DAVID SCOTT RIGBYE XXN MR WOOD
PN724
You do not know about that?---Yes.
PN725
You started to do the job as part of a mobile patrol?---Yes.
PN726
And just to be clear, because you refer to in paragraph 2, of your supplementary statement to, transport type of guards as well as mobile patrols. By transport type of guards you are really referring to guards that assisted the carrying of cash, is that who you are referring to?---Transport guards, I refer to that as being Armaguard, Brambles at the time, yes.
PN727
And those guards who worked for Armaguard or Brambles and worked in trucks carrying cash from ATMs to banks or vice versa, are the sort of guards who worked with cash whereas you in working with mobile patrols you did not work with cash?---That is correct, I did not.
PN728
So if there was an issue with the ATM whereby the ATM ran out of cash then the transport type of guards that you refer to in the last
sentence of paragraph 2 of your supplementary statement, would attend and refill the ATM. Is that right?
---Them and the bank staff as far as I knew, did that, yes.
PN729
Whereas if there was some other problem with the ATM for example say the receipt slips were not being printed properly, then the mobile patrol might be called and you might service the ATMs so that the receipt slips were being printed out properly. Is that right?---That is correct, we did the receipt slips and cash jams.
PN730
I beg your pardon?---The cash jams, anything that jammed in the machine.
PN731
And that is what you mean by the monitoring and performing work to do with ATMs, you mean the minor servicing of ATMs other than cash fills?---That is correct.
PN732
In paragraph 3 of your statement, you refer to static guarding and you say that Mr Carey's statement is wrong, Mr Carey says:
PN733
Static officers have always monitored cameras and alarms.
PN734
And you say in your experience that work was always carried out by control room officers. Tell me if you do not know about this, because you may well not know about this Mr Rigbye, but did you know that in this very building Nauru House, there was a static guard not in the control room, who operated a camera in the ..... ?---I have no idea on that.
**** DAVID SCOTT RIGBYE XXN MR WOOD
PN735
Are you aware that that same set up applied at for example, 99 Queen Street, in the City?---No.
PN736
In relation to Mr Frackowski's evidence, Mr Frackowski's evidence relates to - forgive me if I get the name wrong - it relates to your experience working at RANAD, is that how I say it?---That is correct.
PN737
RANAD is a navy base - I know there is a dispute in your evidence, you say it is not Broadmeadows it is further north of Broadmeadows it is the Greenvale reservoir, did you say?---That is actually located at Somerton.
PN738
Somerton?---Right next to the Greenvale reservoir.
PN739
Yes, so there is a block of land next to the Greenvale reservoir just north of Broadmeadows in Somerton. And that is the navy base that you are referring to as RANAD in your supplementary statement and in your original statement?---That is correct.
PN740
And as I understand things, the role that you had to perform at the RANAD Base was one of access and patrols, is that right?---Yes.
PN741
And as I understand things, this base it was a large base but not much of the base was built up. That is there was a lot of scrub and in the middle of the scrub were a few bases in which armaments were kept, is that right?---That is correct.
PN742
And you had to make sure that the people who were coming onto the base were properly authorised to come on, that the people coming off the base were not taking armaments that they were not supposed to take with them and you were also supposed to make sure that people did not creep over the fences and sneak into the base. Is that a rough description of your job?---That is a basic description of the job, yes.
PN743
You refer to in paragraph 10 of your statement, to incidents which occurred when the navy intrusion team tried to sneak over the fences, get through the scrubland and get into the buildings that were holding the armaments?---Is that what you were referring to in paragraph 10?
PN744
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, this is in the supplementary statement?
**** DAVID SCOTT RIGBYE XXN MR WOOD
PN745
MR WOOD: Sorry in the supplementary statement?---Can you repeat that?
PN746
Perhaps I will do it this way, I think the basis for paragraph 10 is paragraph 21 of your first statement, so perhaps we could go to that. Do you see in paragraph 21 of your first statement you say:
PN747
Intrusion tests were conducted by the military police, that is the military police would cut through the wires to the depot.
PN748
Which is described as the RANAD Base:
PN749
In order to test the exercise of the duties by security officers in this area. Where security officers failed to notice an intrusion, they were transferred from the site.
PN750
Then Mr Frackowski, responds in paragraph 90 of his statement, and he says:
PN751
I recall there was one such exercise when I worked at RANAD.
PN752
And that there had been:
PN753
One similar exercise before I commenced work there, I certainly never heard or saw any security officer being transferred off site for this reason.
PN754
You have responded to what Mr Frackowski says and I think you agree with the latter part of what he says, you say:
PN755
No one ever did get transferred as a result of the exercise because everyone performed their role correctly and hence were not transferred out.
PN756
?---Yes.
PN757
Now this incident which - depending on whether you take your view or Mr Frackowski's view - was an incident involving the navy intrusion team and not the military police, is that right?---That is correct.
PN758
The military police, as opposed to the navy intrusion team did not have any role in this type of exercise, is that right?---With that, I cannot be a hundred per cent sure on that.
**** DAVID SCOTT RIGBYE XXN MR WOOD
PN759
As I understand Mr Frackowski's employment history at RANAD,
Mr Frackowski was a casual officer then a permanent then a senior then a supervisor. Did you know him in each of those capacities?---Yes
I did.
PN760
So when you say in paragraph 11:
PN761
During the time I was at the navy base Mark Frackowski was not a supervisor at the site and was not a senior either.
PN762
That statement is wrong?---No that statement is correct.
PN763
I do not want to put words in your mouth but it seems inconsistent with the answer you just gave to the question I asked you before the last one?---Well while I was there he was never a senior guard and he was never a supervisor. I stayed in contact with a couple of people from the base, and they informed me basically that he was promoted to these positions, after I had left.
PN764
I see, just excuse me for one moment please. Yes nothing further in cross-examination, your Honour.
PN765
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you Mr Wood, re-examination?
PN766
MR NOLAN: There is no re-examination, might Mr Rigbye be excused?
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes thank you Mr Nolan. Thank you for your evidence Mr Rigbye, you are excused?---Thank you.
PN768
MR NOLAN: Now that is all the witness evidence we have for today, your Honour, we will resume tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock from the indication you gave us yesterday, with the witnesses for tomorrow.
PN769
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.
PN770
MR NOLAN: I think we have arranged to have Mr Ericsson come along first of all, so they will be slightly out of order because, Mr Quigley has asked to have Mr Ericsson put on first. So we can do that.
PN771
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN772
MR NOLAN: And in the course of this afternoon we would hope to be in the position to tell Mr Quigley and Mr Wood who of the EMA witnesses we might be able to deal with on Thursday.
PN773
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. What is proposed for Friday?
PN774
MR NOLAN: Friday, now I am sorry, Friday will have to be vacated.
PN775
THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes all right. Very well we will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow.
<ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2005 [2.21PM]
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs
DUSKO PETROVIC, SWORN PN332
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR NOLAN PN332
EXHIBIT #LHMU10 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DUSKO PETROVIC. PN340
EXHIBIT #LHMU11 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF DUSKO PETROVIC. PN340
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOOD PN341
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN432
SEAN DEREK HOUGHTON, SWORN PN438
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR NOLAN PN438
EXHIBIT #LHMU12 WITNESS STATEMENT OF SEAN HOUGHTON. PN447
EXHIBIT #LHMU13 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF SEAN HOUGHTON. PN447
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOOD PN447
EXHIBIT #CHUBB4 MEMO TO ALL STAFF FROM ROBERT NEON DATED 03/06/2004. PN500
EXHIBIT #MFI CHUBB5 PAYROLL RECORDS OF MESSRS POPOVIC, ELLIS AND CODENTI. PN522
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN614
DENIS ANDREW BURGAN, AFFIRMED PN615
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR NOLAN PN615
EXHIBIT #LHMU14 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DENIS BURGAN. PN627
EXHIBIT #LHMU15 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF DENIS BURGAN. PN627
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOOD PN629
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NOLAN PN686
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN692
DAVID SCOTT RIGBYE, AFFIRMED PN700
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR NOLAN PN700
EXHIBIT #LHMU16 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID RIGBYE AS AMENDED. PN721
EXHIBIT #LHMU17 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID RIGBYE. PN721
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOOD PN721
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN767
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2005/536.html