|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
1800 534 258
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Workplace Relations Act 1996 10732
COMMISSIONER TOLLEY
C2005/14
s.99 - notification of an industrial dispute
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
and
Caroma Industries Ltd
(C2005/14)
Caroma Industries Ltd Caroma Manufacturing (Coburg) Enterprise Agreement 2002
MELBOURNE
10.02AM, WEDNESDAY, 02 MARCH 2005
Continued from 10/2/2005
PN38
PN39
MR S ROACH: I appear on behalf of the CFMEU in this matter. Appearing with me today is MR B PRICE.
PN40
MR P ABRAHAMS: I seek leave to represent Caroma Industries Ltd as agent. I have with me MR N DOW and MR POWELL, who will be appearing as witnesses.
PN41
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Where is Mr Powell?
PN42
MR ABRAHAMS: Mr Powell is currently - I am taking the task for him
PN43
THE COMMISSIONER: I see. Right Mr Abrahams. Loose ground. Mr Roach?
PN44
MR ROACH: Thank you, Commissioner. Also Mr Delzoppa, who is an employee of Caroma, is here today to appear as a witness. Just from the brief discussion I had with Mr Abrahams just prior to commencement, Mr Abrahams asked if we wanted to have a short conference prior to proceedings getting officially underway. If that is the position of the company, I am happy to have a go.
PN45
MR ABRAHAMS: Well, I was really simply asking what the process was intended to be. I guess it is in your hands, Commissioner, as to whether you were intending to test the parties in conference or proceed directly into - - -
PN46
THE COMMISSIONER: I intend to test the parties in conference gentlemen. I will see you in 15 minutes.
<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.04AM]
<RESUMED [10.14AM]
PN47
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Roach?
PN48
MR ROACH: Thank you, Commissioner. The matter before the Commission today comes from a difference of opinion on the application of clause 28 of the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. I have got spare copies of the agreement here if people don't have one.
PN49
THE COMMISSIONER: Did I get a copy of the agreement on the last occasion you were before me?
PN50
MR ROACH: Yes.
PN51
THE COMMISSIONER: I have got it. Do you have a copy, Mr Abrahams?
PN52
MR ABRAHAMS: I do, thank you, Commissioner.
PN53
MR ROACH: I have got a spare earmarked there, if anyone needs it.
PN54
THE COMMISSIONER: That is clause 28, long service leave.
PN55
MR ROACH: Yes, that is right, Commissioner. It is in relation to the accessibility of long service leave for employees bound by the terms of the agreement and we attempted to have discussions with the company over the matter in the lead up to December and did have those discussions and unfortunately were unable to resolve differences as to the accessibility or otherwise of employers of the company. We brought the matter to the Commission in accordance with clause 23 which is the avoidance and settlement of disputes and following an attempt at conciliation, we ask the Commission to arbitrate on the matter accordingly.
PN56
Clause 28, Commissioner, relates to, as I said before, long service leave and it was an improvement over and above what was provided for under the Victorian Long Service Leave legislative provisions. That is, that the improvement was to take place from the second anniversary date of the agreement which was 10th December last year and the conditions moved in accordance with what is stated there. That is, that accumulation of long service leave entitlement goes from .867 weeks per year, which was the case under the Act prior to 10 December last year and is now at the accumulation rate of 1.3 weeks per year.
PN57
Changing also, was the accessibility from 15 years service under the Act as a right, to 10 years continuous service with the company as a right. Should termination of employment occur, there will, under the Act, people would not ordinarily be entitled to pro rata long service leave until they had done 10 years or more continuous service. Under the improvement contained in clause 28 of the agreement I think it was accepted, it is accepted by all parties that that would be reduced to seven years.
PN58
It might be noted by the Commission, I think, in terms of redundancy, long service pro rata payment under clause 19.3.7 is in fact 5 years but that is only in cases of redundancy. Late last year, a number of employees at Caroma bound by the agreement put in a request to access part or all of their long service leave. Many of the employees at the plant are from other countries and sought to access their long service leave to accommodate family visits in Europe and other such places.
PN59
The length of time that they would ordinarily get with their annual leave would not have covered off such a trip and obviously those with 10 years or more service wanted to access some of their long service leave to achieve that purpose. The company had indicated to them that their view of it was that unless they had 13 weeks or more accumulated, then the company wasn't going to grant their request for long service leave. This is notwithstanding the fact that even under the Victorian legislation, given the fact that the company carried the liability on their books, they are at liberty to grant a request for long service leave for those who have achieved between 10 and 15 years service in any event.
PN60
Following discussions with the company, they were fairly intent on sticking to their position and it just indicated that the clause as it reads, in fact means something different than what it means. The evidence we intend to put before the Commission this morning is such that the intention of the party from the union's side all along, including in preparatory meetings with employees prior to the lodging of the claim, in relation to the lodging of the claim, in relation to all negotiations and discussions that occurred with both management and the employees and with the final settlement of the EBA, it was always the intention that once a person had attained 10 years service with a company, they could seek and obtain access to accumulated long service leave at that point.
PN61
So just in discussions with Mr Abrahams prior to commencing, Commissioner, I agreed at their request that I am presenting myself as a witness today and I am happy to go under oath and have the other people we intend to call as witnesses leave the room for the duration of my evidence.
PN62
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, just stand for oath, Mr Roach. Do you want to make any preliminary submission, Mr Abrahams?
PN63
MR ABRAHAMS: Only this, Commissioner, that this dispute is about the application of the agreement of the parties. It is not about interpreting the agreement per se, that is a course of action for another place, but it is to seek to resolve the dispute between the parties and endeavour to determine what was the true intent of the agreement and then to order that effect be given to it. Our position is quite clearly different from that of Mr Roach and we believe the evidence will support us. I have nothing further to add.
PN64
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Roach?
PN65
MR ROACH: Thank you.
PN66
THE COMMISSIONER: Who else is going to be witnesses?
MR ROACH: Sorry, yes these two gents are going to be witnesses.
<STEVEN PAUL ROACH, SWORN [10.21AM]
PN68
THE WITNESS: Given that I can't ask myself the questions, I will just - - -
PN69
THE COMMISSIONER: You can make a statement under oath, Mr Roach.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. The witness statement that has been tendered to both the other party to proceedings and to the Commission is a true reflection of what occurred in its entirety. The statement, I suppose, needs to be numbered.
EXHIBIT #A1 STATEMENT OF STEVEN ROACH
PN71
THE WITNESS: Right through from the outset of negotiations with the company and prior to it, we had a standard claim in relation
to long service leave that was put to the company in similar terms to the way it was put to other companies in claims for enterprise
agreements that we have had. Other companies such as Boral and Johnson Tiles, we achieved the improvement and it was implemented
and I have got to say, we have never had a problem in relation to accessibility to long service leave with them. In this instance,
this was the same deal, we were seeking the improvements in relation to the accumulation and also the accessibility of long service
leave. That is the way it was from the outset when I discussed it with the workers there in July, July 2002 and that is the way
it had been discussed with management all the way through negotiations. I can't recall a time where there had ever been any suggestion
that accessibility to long service leave was to be based on accumulation of it. It was always based on length of service. And I
can specifically recall, even in those final rounds of negotiations where Sonny Wright was present, that he had made it, you know,
we had made it abundantly clear that what was eventually said in the agreement, was what we had intended it to be. When people had
10 years service, they could, they could, you know, access their long service leave and as many of them came from places in Europe,
many of the workers, that they could, you know, supplement their annual leave and go and see their families. That was the intention
all along. So, I felt, you know, a little bit put out when the company raised with employees, not even with us, but with employees
last year, that they weren't eligible for their long service leave because they hadn't accumulated 13 weeks. And when I did have
discussions which involved the paymaster, Mr Peter Hiney, he had said, oh no, no, the Victorian Act had always been based on 13 weeks
accumulated service and I said well, that is a lot of rubbish. We have had other cases where we had had the improvement implemented
and I gave them the example Johnson Tiles and Boral and they said no, well that is not our understanding of the way the Act works
and I have been discussing the long service leave provisions of the current regime with employers for nearly 20 years and it had
always been on the basis of 13 weeks for 15 years service, not on accumulating 13 weeks before you could actually access it. So
I felt that the company were playing semantics and as a last ditch effort to avoid coming here last year, and we could have applied
from the, you know, from the 10th December last year when people had been knocked back. We could have said that the company were
playing semantics with the agreement and we will rush off to the Commission. We didn't do that, I went and had a meeting with
Mr Ryder, the company would have been, probably around 17 December or thereabouts, I can't quite recall the exact date, but it was
just before Christmas last year and sought to resolve the matter. He said he would think about it over Christmas. After about mid
January, I contacted him and they had said, no, they were going to stick to their position. So we were going to have to have our
day in court and we made our application shortly thereafter.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XN
PN72
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
PN73
THE WITNESS: That pretty well concludes the statement, Commissioner.
PN74
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Abrahams, have you any questions?
MR ABRAHAMS: One or two Commissioner.
<CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR ABRAHAMS [10.26AM]
PN76
MR ABRAHAMS: Mr Roach, you indicated that the claim was a standard claim. Is that standard across the industry?---Look, what I normally do when I go and put a log together I suppose of claims, is I have a meeting with the workers, we discuss the issues that we are going to be seeking and I ask them if there is any particular matters pertinent to their particular workplace that they would like included in the agreement and we draw up a list and I did it with Caroma the same way I do it with every other employer. We discussed the long service leave. I must admit, I mean, I presented that part of the claim to the workers as something that I felt was achievable and explained how it worked with other places and it went to the point, I think, of using a white board to say, that is the provision of the Act on the left and on the right were the improved provisions we were seeking and the workers clearly had it in their mind, as I did, that we were seeking accessibility after 10 years, pro rata after seven or five originally.
PN77
This is about July 2002, when you were formulating the claims?---Yes.
PN78
Okay. So it was lead from the top but endorsed by the employees?---Well, like most things, I mean, I think if you look in the claim, we have got a 36 hour week claim there, but that is yet to be satisfied.
PN79
THE COMMISSIONER: The answer is either yes or no to the question.
PN80
THE WITNESS: Yes, Commissioner.
PN81
MR ABRAHAMS: And point 7 of SR1 which is attached to your statement?
---Yes.
PN82
Where does that refer to this issue of accessibility?---Well, I think, I mean, similar to other points in the claim, too, I haven't really expanded on them. I didn't think I would need to. I thought that when I had discussions with an employer, they are generally fairly upfront and basic and you fill in the gaps as you go.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN83
You say this was an important point.?---As were all, as were most other points in there, yes.
PN84
Thank you, Mr Roach. With respect to SR2, Mr Roach. Did you ask the company for the basis of its costings?---Yes, I think I did and I can't recall exactly what they had said there, but I had indicated at the time, we weren't seeking retrospectivity in that Johnson Tiles had indicated the cost effect was roughly 1 per cent of payroll.
PN85
So that was your assessment, about 1 per cent?---Based on what I - based on discussions with other employers, yes.
PN86
I see. And in your costing of 1 per cent, what allowance was there for accelerated access to long service leave?---Well, I hadn't, I mean I had said as I had conveyed to this company, that of discussions I had had with other employers, the cost effect was 1 per cent of payroll, because we weren't seeking retrospectivity. I wouldn't expect there would be any other cost associated with it, given that the employer would be carrying the liability in their books regardless.
PN87
The costings are on a yearly basis, Mr Roach, is that correct?---Well as presented here, they appear to be, yes.
PN88
And do you acknowledge that if employees have earlier access to long service leave, that that brings forward cost?---Well, my understanding is, no I don't accept that because my understanding is they have carried a liability on their books regardless.
PN89
THE COMMISSIONER: How does it bring forward costs if, for example, they work, and we will use a very basic figure of a hundred dollars. If you are assuming a hundred dollars now and the worker would, given the natural progression of things, probably in five years hence be earning $120. Isn't that a reduction in cost?
PN90
MR ABRAHAMS: In dollar terms there could be less cost in long service leave being brought forward. It depends on a lot of things, including the value of the dollar at that point in time.
PN91
THE COMMISSIONER: I know there are, yes. .
PN92
MR ABRAHAMS: So let's not get distracted by that.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN93
But, would you not agree, Mr Roach, that if the entitlement to long service leave is reduced from 15 years to 10 years, more persons will be able to access that more quickly?---You mean if the accessibility is reduced from 15 to 10?
PN94
Indeed?---As a matter of right?
PN95
Yes?---Yes it would. That was the intention of it, Mr Abrahams.
PN96
Well, I understand that was your intention, Mr Roach. But you acknowledge that there would therefore be some increase in cost of providing long service leave were that to be the case. Were people to be able to access it, based on a lesser period of qualifying service, than has previously been the case?---No, I don't, I don't agree with that. If you are carrying a liability in the book, books, you must be able to account for it anyway.
PN97
But what happens when people take long service leave, Mr Roach?---Well, they generally go away.
PN98
Indeed, and what happens to business, Mr Roach?---Well, the business accommodate it in the same manner that they would be expected to accommodate any other form of leave.
PN99
Indeed. So there is additional cost incurred by the company in replacement
staff?---But whether he takes it now or whether they take it in a couple of years.
PN100
Mr Roach, is there an increase in cost to the company as a result of people accessing long service leave earlier than they otherwise might?---No.
PN101
So - - - ?---Not if they are managing their business the way they - - -
PN102
THE COMMISSIONER: Don't worry about them. That is their worry.
PN103
MR ABRAHAMS: On an annual basis, Mr Roach, if the number of people who can access long service leave from 10 December 2004 increases
in the year to
12 December 2005 and those persons need to be replaced, is there not an additional cost on the company compared to the provision,
were those persons not to have that access?---Well in that year, standing alone, there may be.
PN104
Thank you, Mr Roach?---In that year, standing alone. But that would also - hang on, let me - I will qualify that.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN105
THE COMMISSIONER: Hang on. He is asking you the questions. You are in the box. You are being cross-examined, right? You answer his questions. If he says you have answered them, you have got to shut up. I have put it bluntly.
PN106
MR ABRAHAMS: I would expect that Mr Roach has the right to make some concluding statement.
PN107
THE COMMISSIONER: He has.
MR ABRAHAMS: By way of self re-examination.
PN109
THE COMMISSIONER: He has. But I don't want to prolong this all day, gentlemen.
PN110
MR ABRAHAMS: Okay. Re SR3, Mr Roach, which is the memorandum of understanding, might I just ask you some other questions? When was agreement reached on the issue of long service leave?---Right at the very end. I think on this day.
PN111
Right at the very end. And to what extent was it discussed before the very
end?---It was raised when we went through each item and that is, I think you will find if you look at SR2 we in fact adjusted the
claim to about, on or about December 2002.
From five years - - - ?---Five down to seven, yes. Which was, you know, which was a little bit of ambit we used to throw in but, yes, we just reduced the pro rata period from 13 - from five - - -
PN113
But there is no conclusion on long service leave claim until the very end?---No, that is true.
PN114
Whereas other matters were resolved progressively?---Yes, but gee, we had some argument about it too.
PN115
Thank you. I don't deny that for a minute, Mr Roach We would all be disappointed if it wasn't otherwise. In SR3, under the issue of long service leave, what was to happen on 10th December 2004 according to this, in principle, agreement?---The accumulation rate for long service leave would go from .867 weeks per year up to 1.3 weeks per year, accessibility as a right would go from 15 years down to 10, and pro rata entitlement would go from 10 years down to seven, pro rata entitlement on termination.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN116
So 1.3 weeks per year of service?---From 10 December, yes.
PN117
Yes. And so the rate of accrual changed from 13 weeks, changed to 13 weeks for 10 years service?---In effect, yes.
PN118
Instead of 13 weeks for 15 years service?---Yes, but we expressed it as 1.3 weeks per year in the agreement.
PN119
And was that retrospective?---No.
PN120
No?---And I have made it that clear from the very outset. Look I had a great deal of trouble explaining it to the workers, because a lot of them aren't from English speaking backgrounds. I had to explain this to them right from when we drafted the claim and it was quite a difficult thing to do but I think we did it and we did it sufficiently well.
PN121
And does the Long Service Leave Act govern accessibility to entitlements?---I believe so, yes.
PN122
Subject to the agreement. And were those entitlements 13 weeks after 15
years?---Yes. Prior to 10 December, yes.
PN123
So the agreement reduced the 15 years to 10 years?---Yes.
PN124
For the same period of leave?---Yes, but not retrospective to pre existing employees.
PN125
Quite so. Why did you not claim that as at 10 December anyone with 10 years service could take 13 weeks long service leave?---Because that would have, that would have been dishonest. We weren't seeking to have it retrospective. I mean the accumulation rate change was, as far as I was aware, 1 per cent of payroll. And in fact, in fact to answer it fully, Commissioner, if Mr Abrahams wants me to.
PN126
THE COMMISSIONER: I need no further explanation, Mr Roach?---When in fact, because the tile industry is in such a rough shape, when we did the deal for both Eureka Tiles and Johnson Tiles we had in fact, we had in fact substituted that improvement for part of the wage claim to the tune of 1 per cent.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN127
MR ABRAHAMS: Can you cover that again?---Well when we did the Johnson Tiles agreement, the one in 2001 I think it was, we substituted that improvement for part of the wage claim to the tune of half a per cent for that per year for the two year agreement.
PN128
Thanks. Good. Well we will come to that in a moment. You say in
paragraph 7, talking about the whole process. The process of endorsing the claim. On the basis that accessibility to their accrued
long service leave entitlement and the claim and the agreement was clearly stated as 10 years service. Now this reference, Mr Roach,
is that to your formulation of the claim as indicated in
SR1?---It is the reference, I think I say, right from the outset don't I, throughout the whole process. There had never been a discussion
about accessibility.
PN129
Well, just a moment, Mr Roach, if you will just answer your question, the questions, when you say that reference was to accessibility to their accrued long service leave entitlement in the claim and the agreement was clearly stated as 10 years of service, you are referring to your formulation of the claim?---Yes.
PN130
Yes. Your claim as summarised in the costing document?---Yes.
PN131
What else. Can you - - - The whole process, Mr Abrahams. The whole process. Look, if we are going to serve claims that specifically gave to every single point, then I would suggest we would be serving books in 40 and 50 pages.
PN132
Well, all I am suggesting, Mr Roach, is that there are two documents that refer to the claim that you have produced to this court. One is the original claim, one is the costing document. That is a rather self serving statement, wouldn't you agree?---No, I - - -
PN133
You are referring to your own document?---No, I am telling it as it is. I am the one under oath here, Mr Abrahams, and I am telling it how it happened. I was involved from the outset. Those men, those people went on strike for six weeks of rolling stoppages and overtime bans to achieve their outcome.
PN134
Over this claim, Mr Roach?---Over the whole claim.
PN135
Over the whole claim, Mr Roach?---Yes. And I had a job to do to explain the whole thing from the very outset to its conclusion and that is what I did.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN136
Okay. Now in paragraph 8, Mr Roach, you referred again, you refer in that statement and you referred again in the Commission today to similar agreements which you have negotiated and which you apparently used to explain and to quote you, Mr Roach, in your statement :
PN137
The precise nature of the improvement sought.
PN138
Is that right?---Yes.
PN139
Now, the agreement you refer to, Mr Roach, similar provisions in the agreements of Johnson Tiles, Eureka Tiles and Boral Brick?---Yes.
PN140
Were they current agreements?---At that time, yes. As far as I am aware.
PN141
I see. And can you relate this long service leave?---Just hang on for a moment please. Just hang on. I am not going to go, I am not going to lie under oath. Johnson Tiles was done 2001.
PN142
I hope you are not going to lie either way, Mr Roach?---No, well I am not - - -
PN143
THE COMMISSIONER: Gentlemen, gentlemen.
PN144
THE WITNESS: Johnson tiles was done in 2001. Boral Brick was done 2001 although there was a qualifying thing of seven years service prior to the entitlement becoming relevant. Eureka Tiles, I am pretty sure, I am pretty sure Eureka Tiles was done then. If it wasn't at that time, it certainly was the year after it.
PN145
THE COMMISSIONER: What was the expiry date of those
agreements?---Johnson Tiles was only a two year agreement, it was 2003. It was redone last year prior to - - -
PN146
So the majority of the agreement is what, current agreements?---Yes.
PN147
THE COMMISSIONER: That is all right. That is the question Mr Abrahams asked you.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN148
MR ABRAHAMS: And are you able to relate the long service provisions in those agreements to the Commission?---Yes. Johnson Tiles was pretty clear cut, in fact they used less wording than the Caroma one but they seemed to understand it. That was the accumulation rate changed on 23 August 2001 to 1.3 weeks per year of service, accessible after 10 years service and pro rata after seven. Eureka Tiles was in a similar term, but Boral Bricks was different and that has since changed though now it is a across the board, but at that time, from 2001 to 2004, Boral Bricks was changed but only for employees with seven or years more service with the company.
PN149
And what did those agreements say about the issue of accessibility,
Mr Roach?---Well off the top of my head it was, the wording in each of them might be a little bit different because they were, but
the sediment was always the same, it was 1.3 weeks per year, accessible after 10, pro rata after seven.
PN150
And the effect of that was that people with 10 years service could take leave, is that what you are saying?---Yes.
PN151
And you are saying that was your argument sometime prior to, I think you said, as early as October 2002, Mr Roach?---I think it was earlier than that.
PN152
Well I am just relying on your statement, Mr Roach, you said?---Well, look, I ran it past the men in July, so I would have thought.
PN153
You said as far back as October 2002, did you not in paragraph 8 of your statement? Anyhow you are saying it is at least that far back?---Look, to management, when explaining it to management.
PN154
Yes?---Because I, look, I reckon I did earlier, but, I couldn't say that in the statement because I honesty couldn't remember, but I checked my diaries and I definitely met them in October 2002 where alterations occurred to the claim so we, going by their cost, but I think the company asked for their costings then, and then they came back sometime later with what is in attachment SR2 which is the company's costings of the total claim. And they wanted very specific or they, yes, they wanted very specific effects of the claim so as they could formulate their costings.
PN155
MR ABRAHAMS: Thank you, Mr Roach. Commissioner I can, I would tender a summary of long service leave - - -
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN156
THE COMMISSIONER: Have you finished with Mr Roach?
MR ABRAHAMS: No I haven't, Commissioner. A summary of long service leave provisions from the Eureka, Boral and Johnson Tile agreements.
EXHIBIT #R1 A SUMMARY OF LONG SERVICE LEAVE
PN158
THE COMMISSIONER: A copy to Mr Roach please.
PN159
MR ABRAHAMS: No, I do have copies of extracts from those agreements available Commissioner.
PN160
THE COMMISSIONER: Do I need them?
PN161
MR ABRAHAMS: To back up this summary.
PN162
THE COMMISSIONER: Well if you tendered a summary, is evidence in good faith? Unless Mr Roach wants to argue with it, I am not going to read anything else.
PN163
MR ABRAHAMS: Yes, okay Commissioner. The Eureka 2000 agreement, Mr Roach?---Yes.
PN164
Which operated from 23 May 2000 to 30 April 2002?---Yes.
PN165
There appears to be no mention about long service leave?---Yes, that would be right.
PN166
There is, however, reference to accrual at the rate of 13 weeks every 10 years, to be only paid after seven years in the August 2002
to May 2005
agreements?---That is right.
PN167
Would that have been the agreement to which you were referring the
employers?---Yes.
PN168
And how does that assist them on the issue of accessibility?---Well we didn't have an argument with the company, did we?
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN169
Thank you, Mr Roach. With Boral Thomastown, August 2001?---You are a little bit wrong there because Boral is a little more complicated. That came out of a dispute too. The end agreement was that the accumulation rate would change for those persons with seven years or more service with the company and it would be as we assert the Caroma agreement since they get 1.3 weeks per year of service from 6 August 2001 accessible after 10 years, pro rata after seven. That changed in the recent agreement, so there is no reference to people with less than seven years service. So, what you are saying there is that that (a) there is not entirely correct. It changes once they have had more than seven years service from 6 August 2001.
PN170
Boral Thomastown, paragraph (a), long service leave will accrue at the rate of .867 weeks per year for the first seven years of continuous service. Point (b), long service leave will accrue at the rate of 1.3 weeks for each year of service after seven years. This will take effect from 6th August 2001. The increased rate of accrual is not retrospective to accruals prior to the commencement date of 6 August 2001. (c), an employee is entitled 110to pro rata long service leave after seven years of continuous service which will be paid on a pro rata basis?---Is that an exact take from the agreement?
PN171
I offer it to you, Mr Roach?---Well, if that is what it says - - -
PN172
THE COMMISSIONER: I thought Mr Abrahams, I thought that was what Mr Roach said in answer to a question from you in - - -
PN173
MR ABRAHAMS: I thought he was saying that paragraph (a) is not correct, Commissioner.
PN174
THE WITNESS: Look, actually I think that I - - -
PN175
THE COMMISSIONER: I think he may have been saying if you read it by itself.
PN176
THE WITNESS: Look I don't know what he - - -
PN177
MR ABRAHAMS: So, between August 2001 and August 2004, that was the provision and in December of 2004, or sometime during 2004?---Yes, we got it certified just before Christmas.
PN178
Yes, indeed, with effect until August, a specific provision was put in about accessibility?---Yes.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN179
Following 10 years of continuous service. That provision didn't exist prior to that, did it Mr Roach?---No.
PN180
It didn't exist in the provision that was available to the parties in negotiations in 2002?---No, that is right. But I can assure you, when it was drafted this issue before the Commission was the furthest from anyone's mind.
PN181
Thank you, Mr Roach. Did Johnson Tiles?---I didn't draft that incidentally, Mr Abrahams. You might want to talk to Mr Cazamatis from Boral.
PN182
I don't need to do that, Mr Roach. Johnson Tiles?---Yes.
PN183
The agreement which was in existence at the time of the negotiations. Current long service provision remains in place except for the accrual rate which will change to 13 weeks for 10 years of service, for service accrued after 31 August 2001 and pro rata entitlements are available after seven years?---Yes.
PN184
Amended from 15th November 2003, Mr Roach, to specifically referred to access to long service leave after 10 years?---Yes. Well I, where does it say that?
PN185
The last line, Mr Roach?---I see that, yes.
PN186
Can I suggest, Mr Roach, that in December 2004, when members were interested in taking leave, extended leave, as is their want, that you then decided that they could access long service leave and that you then decided that that would be consistent with other agreements that you had negotiated at the time but it was not what was negotiated with Caroma?---Well you can, I suppose you are paid to, aren't you. That is not true, Mr Abrahams.
PN187
Well I am not sure what else, what other conclusion we can draw, Mr Roach, when you say that those agreements were tendered to explain the precise, let's not misquote you, the precise nature of the improvement sought in relation to long service leave. You have produced documents?---But what I said in the statement is what occurred.
PN188
Indeed. And you produced documents in support of your precise claim?---That is right.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN189
And those documents certainly support a contention that long service leave accruals should increase to 1.3 weeks per year of service, but I suggest to you that they did not provide that employees automatically had access after 10 years and that that was a matter which you subsequently addressed in each of those agreements. Subsequent to the time of the negotiations with Caroma?---Well, you can suggest what you like. You are wrong.
PN190
So you don't accept that Mr Roach?---I concentrated I suppose on the accumulation because that was the dollars and cents part of the claim. I, maybe at the time, I didn't believe that we were going to have this sort of problem. You know, I certainly will be very more attentive in future as to wording issues with this company, but I can assure you that I didn't even dream we would have this sort of problem. I would have thought it was self explanatory and given that it really means nothing as far as dollars and cents goes, to this, to the employer, I thought the real issue was going to be, how their leave accumulated.
PN191
Yes, thank you, Mr Roach?---If I had have known that you were going to be this pedantic and play semantics with the wording of the document to the point you obviously are, well then - - -
PN192
MR ABRAHAMS: Well, Mr Roach, that is one interpretation.
PN193
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Roach, you can make your further submissions later.
MR ABRAHAMS: Another interpretation, Mr Roach is that there was no dispute because you did not claim that employees should be able to access it immediately they achieved 10 years but rather the agreement was that they would access it having accumulated 13 weeks. Irrespective of what the Long Service Leave Act provided, that was the agreement of the parties?---Well if that was the case, why doesn't it say that in the agreement.
PN195
I have no further questions Mr Roach?---Well, that is not the case, Mr Abrahams. It doesn't say that in the agreement.
PN196
THE COMMISSIONER: Have you concluded?
PN197
MR ABRAHAMS: I have, thank you Commissioner.
**** STEVEN PAUL ROACH XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN198
THE WITNESS: Just in response. I am under oath, I take it pretty seriously, Commissioner. The assertions made by Mr Abrahams in the last couple of points are, could not be further from the truth. The simple fact is I did the claim. I didn't think this would become an issue. I would have been more specific had I known it would have been. We haven't had any trouble with any other employer in relation to this point and can I say, that as a matter of human decency, notwithstanding the agreement, what the agreement says, it is pretty clear under the Act that people can, even by mutual agreement, can access their leave between 10 and 15 years is currently - - -
PN199
MR ABRAHAMS: Commissioner, is this a witness statement or submissions?
PN200
THE COMMISSIONER: I am making the point, what he is trying to do is do what he would do if he was being re-examined Mr Abrahams. I allowed you a bit of latitude in your questioning and I am allowing him some too.
PN201
MR ABRAHAMS: Certainly ,sir.
PN202
THE WITNESS: Well that concludes my evidence anyway, sir.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thanks, Mr Roach. Do you want to call your other witnesses?---Yes.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.00AM]
MR ROACH: I would like to call Mr Price.
<WILLIAM JOHN PRICE, SWORN [11.01AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ROACH
MR ROACH: Mr Price, I will hand you a copy of the witness statement as provided to the Commission from the parties concerned. Is that your witness statement, Mr Price?---It is.
EXHIBIT #A2 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PRICE
PN206
MR ROACH: That is your signature on it, Mr Price?---That is correct.
PN207
Dated 17/02/2005?---Correct.
PN208
Do you say that that is, that the contents of that statement are true and
correct?---Yes.
PN209
You were involved in the negotiations for the current enterprise agreement for Caroma Industries Ltd?---I was.
PN210
From what point?---The start, when you took over and Lenny was still shop steward. I was brought in as sort of an assistant and then when Lenny left, I was made shop steward full time.
PN211
Do you recall meetings conducted where the draft or where the claim for the union was drafted?---Yes I do.
PN212
Was long service leave part of the claim?---Yes it was.
PN213
What is your understanding of the long service leave claim?---It was changed to the old system we used to work under, it was the 15 and 10 and then we have had it changed, 10 to seven.
PN214
So just explain it. The old system was 13 weeks?---Thirteen weeks. After 15 years you were entitled to 13 weeks, but when we had the meeting with the men, the men asked could we take it to the company, they wanted it changed 10 to seven years instead of 15, 10, they wanted to change it from 10 to seven. Actually it was, sorry, I made a mistake, it was, what the men said was 10, five, but then it was changed to 10, seven.
PN215
In the meetings where it became part of the claim was it clearly explained by the organiser as to what the intention was?---Yes, you explained it because when we had the meeting in the canteen, you had a whiteboard brought up there and you were writing on the whiteboard to explain it to the men.
**** WILLIAM JOHN PRICE XN MR ROACH
PN216
In all the discussions with both management and the work force at Caroma, was long service leave discussed in any other way, than
the way you described
it?---No. That is the way it was put to the company and we thought automatically, well, they accepted it, because it was more of
a worry about the bonus being rolled in, so.
PN217
I have no further questions, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, if you can just stay there Mr Price. When you are ready, Mr Abrahams.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ABRAHAMS [11.04AM]
PN219
MR ABRAHAMS: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr Price, we heard that the claim was formulated after discussion with the employees?---Yes.
PN220
Was accessibility a significant issue for employees?---No, because what I would like to say is, because we have got so many different nationalities there, the union wanted to make it so easy that everyone could understand. That is why it was explained to the people from 15, 10 down to 10, 7, to make it easy for everyone to explain.
PN221
Okay. So that was not a significant issue?---No.
PN222
And is that why it is not specifically referred to in the claim?---Well in our EBA claim, it is easier to read the way anyone can understand it, 10, 7.
PN223
That is, you get 13 weeks after 10 years service?---That is right.
PN224
In future?---After the second year?
PN225
Well, in future, Mr Price.
PN226
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you better clarify the question for the witness. I think what Mr Abrahams is asking you is, there was date on which the 10 years became attainable and it is for future service not retrospective.
PN227
THE WITNESS: What we understood is the second year of the EBA, it would have been brought in then, the 10, seven.
PN228
THE COMMISSIONER: From then onwards?---Second year, yes, your Honour.
**** WILLIAM JOHN PRICE XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN229
And not back?---No.
PN230
MR ABRAHAMS: But that wasn't in your claim was it, Mr Price?---How do you mean?
PN231
Your claim is silent on the issue of accessibility, isn't it? SR1? As you say, it doesn't make an issue of it?---But that is what I am trying to say. In the EBA it was put there to explain to people that find things hard to pick up on, the 10, seven from the second year after the three years. The second year of the three years in the agreement.
PN232
But there is no mention of when that would operate from?---The second year of the EBA.
PN233
In your claim, is there, Mr Price? It wasn't part of your claim was it, Mr
Price?---Yes. The second year of the EBA would be the start of it.
PN234
But your claim says improve long service leave provisions ie. 13 weeks long service leave for 10 years service, pro rata after five
years of employment?
---Pro rata after seven, yes.
PN235
Pro rata after five years of employment. That was your claim?---But that was changed to seven.
PN236
Thank you Mr Roach, Mr Price, I have no further questions.
PN237
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Roach, further questions?
PN238
MR ROACH: Nothing further.
PN239
THE COMMISSIONER: You are excused, sir. Thanks very much.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.07AM]
MR ROACH: And just finally, we would like to call Mr Delzoppa.
<GARETH DELZOPPA, SWORN [11.08AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ROACH
MR ROACH: Mr Delzoppa, I am passing a copy of the witness statement that has been provided to the Commission and to the parties in these proceedings dated - is that your signature down the bottom?---Yes it is.
PN243
Dated 17/02/2005?---Correct.
Commissioner, I would like to have that marked.
EXHIBIT #A3 STATEMENT OF GARETH DELZOPPA
PN245
MR ROACH: Now you are under oath, Mr Delzoppa. Do you concur with the contents of that statement?---I do.
PN246
You were involved in the negotiation of the current enterprise agreement for Caroma Industries Ltd?---Yes I was.
PN247
At what point were you involved?---Shop steward, deputy shop steward.
PN248
At what point though were you involved?---Through the whole process.
PN249
Do you recall the initial meeting where the draft for the union was, where the claim for the union was drafted?---Yes. I do, yes.
PN250
Do you recall the point in relation to long service leave?---Yes.
PN251
Can you tell the Commission what improvements were being sought?---Yes, the improvements were from 15, 10 to 10, 7. Meaning that after 10 years you were eligible for your long service leave.
PN252
Was the accumulation of long service leave entitlement retrospective?---No.
PN253
Was that explained at the time?---Yes.
PN254
In your opinion, were the workers better informed about the nature of the claim, were they informed of what the claim was?---Yes. Of course, yes.
In all the meetings with management that you participated in, do you recall discussions ever being centred on anything other than accessibility being after years of service?---No, definitely not.
**** GARETH DELZOPPA XN MR ROACH
PN256
Was there ever any discussion with the workers to the contrary?---No, definitely not.
PN257
I have no further questions.
THE COMMISSIONER: Certainly Mr Roach.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ABRAHAMS [11.10AM]
PN259
MR ABRAHAMS: Mr Delzoppa, you were at all the sessions you were
saying?---Correct, yes.
PN260
Does that include on the 3rd April of 2003?---I haven't really got any dates in front of me so I will just have to say yes, because I am sure I was at every meeting, so.
PN261
I see. And when was agreement on the long service leave provision finalised, Mr Delzoppa?---The last day of the negotiations when Sonny Wright was down and Trevor Melsham.
PN262
And do you recall that as being Friday 4th April?---I would assume. Look, I really couldn't recall.
PN263
And were you involved in discussions with Mr Wright and Mr Melsham?---Yes.
PN264
And for the whole of that period?---No.
PN265
Whole of the day?---No.
PN266
No?---For the latter half of the day.
PN267
Thank you. Who described to you the agreement of the parties on the issue of long service leave?---Well it was something we all sort of discussed amongst ourselves. I mean there was never really an issue with the long service leave per se, it was just sort of- - -
PN268
Can you just answer the question. Who described to you the agreement of the parties on the terms, in terms of the long service leave claim?---Well, it wasn't described to me personally, it was something discussed amongst all of us but it was definitely - - -
**** GARETH DELZOPPA XXN MR ABRAHAMS
PN269
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Delzoppa, what Mr Abrahams is trying to ask you is, obviously there was a report back meeting about the long service leave. Is that correct?---Yes, to the- - -
PN270
Now who stood up and made that report back to the members and described how it was going to be implemented and what effect?---Mr Roach.
PN271
MR ABRAHAMS: Mr Roach?---Yes.
PN272
So, did you ever hear the company say what the agreement was on long service leave?---To the members or to myself or?
PN273
To yourself or to the members?---No.
PN274
No. Thank you Mr Delzoppa. No further questions.
PN275
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Roach?
PN276
MR ROACH: Nothing further.
THE COMMISSIONER: You are excused, sir. Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.13AM]
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Roach?
PN279
MR ROACH: Commissioner, we could have paraded over a hundred people in here today with the same evidence - - -
PN280
THE COMMISSIONER: I have got news for you, you wouldn't have been.
MR ROACH: Well that is the very point of it, Commissioner, we didn't really want to. We didn't really want to have to bring people in here from the work force in general, they had other things to do. But the point is that what was conveyed to the workers who ultimately voted on the agreement and that our union is duty bound and morally bound to follow their direction on the issue, was that the long service leave entitlement would be accessible after 10 years. We also point out to the Commission that in fact the clause as it is drafted in the agreement was in fact drafted by the company. I drafted the clause at the end of negotiations.
PN282
I would not have used such convoluted terms in relation to simply saying that it comes in place on the second anniversary date of the agreement, but nonetheless, we cop that because we acknowledge, I mean, we had a bit of a win out of the whole issue in relation to this and other improvements that were achieved. And we can understand that the company might feel that after two years after the event, they might have given a bit more away than what they would have like to. Maybe they want to pull the work force back into line, I don't know, as far as what their motivation is here, but I can assure the Commission and it is on the sworn evidence of these two people to my right, who are workers and representatives of the shop floor and myself as an official and organiser of the union, that from the very outset, what had been contemplated was that what occurs at every other place where we have improved long service leave accrual and accessibility and that is that the accessibility is after, as stated in this agreement, after 10 years service.
Now it is as a matter of legal right, the right of a person to ask for long service leave to be given and it is at the discretion of the employer under the state Act as it currently stands, to grant long service leave notwithstanding it being given as right, until at least 15 years service. And there is nothing to stop the company from granting it anyway if they choose not to. We say to the Commission that the clause is very clear and that the company ought comply with the clause that they in fact drafted themselves and that where people have 10 years or more service, they grant the request to access part or all of that long service leave to achieve the things in their life that they wish to achieve. I don't know that I want to go any further than what I have already put but I would like to tender just the summary that I was given from one of the advisers to the minister in the state. It is a summary version of long service leave in relation to where it stands now and proposed changes that have been drafted in a bill to alter these provisions.
EXHIBIT #A4 SUMMARY OF LONG SERVICE LEAVE
PN284
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I have read this. Not a lot from you, but from the minister's office.
PN285
MR ROACH: And what we would say, Commissioner, is that at the first page of the summary, I don't think that the department has been any more generous with their explanation as to accessibility than what we were in either the claim or anything else and in fact I think the end agreement that the company drafted in relation to this point, goes further to explain it than what we did and what the minister does. And if they can't understand what they have written themselves, then I would suggest that a little bit of retraining might need to occur within management stream for the matter. Anyway, look, that concludes our evidence on the matter, sir, and we are curious to hear what the employers have to say.
PN286
THE COMMISSIONER: I have one question to ask you, Mr Roach. Did you at any time ever claim that the improved long service leave payments would be retrospective?
PN287
MR ROACH: No, only the accrual, the 1.3 weeks?
PN288
THE COMMISSIONER: No. I am talking about the previous service. Did you ever claim it would be retrospective? In other words, the 1.3 weeks would go back prior to - - -
PN289
MR ROACH: No.
PN290
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN291
MR ROACH: If the Commission pleases.
PN292
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. When you are ready, Mr Abrahams.
PN293
MR ABRAHAMS: Could I call Mr Grant Powell, Commissioner?
PN294
THE COMMISSIONER: I have got not worries about Mr Dow staying if
Mr Roach hasn't.
MR ROACH: Look, I am not that worried about it. Mr Abrahams didn't like our witness - - -
PN296
THE COMMISSIONER: You might go and tell Mr Mercer, who is waiting out there, that he will be called when I am ready, okay?
MR ABRAHAMS: Sorry, the other parties. Yes, Commissioner.
<GRANT ROBERT POWELL, SWORN [11.20AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ABRAHAMS
PN298
MR ABRAHAMS: Thank you, Commissioner.
PN299
Mr Powell you have provided a signed witness statement to the Commission in this matter?---That is correct.
And I would ask that that be marked.
EXHIBIT #R2 STATEMENT OF GRANT POWELL
PN301
MR ABRAHAMS: Now that you are under oath do you formally confirm that witness statement, Mr Powell?---May I have a copy of it please.
PN302
THE COMMISSIONER: I will give him a copy of mine. This is just a copy of what he is confirming. Just have a quick glance, don't read- - - .
PN303
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
PN304
MR ABRAHAMS: Thank you, Mr Powell. What was your role during the EBA negotiations, Mr Powell?---I was an observer.
PN305
Is that particularly on 3 April '03?---The 3rd or 4th.
PN306
Fourth of April?---Fourth of April, yes that is correct.
PN307
And you say in your statement that there was a discussion about accessibility, is that correct?---I asked a question during that day, yes.
PN308
And do you particularly recall that?---Yes I do.
PN309
And why is that?---Because it was the only question I asked for the day.
PN310
I see. And you are very clear about the response to that question?---Sonny Wright and Trevor Melsham made it very clear to me.
PN311
And in essence, was that that employees would not access the long service leave until they had accumulated 13 weeks accrual?---That is correct. That they would just get there quicker.
PN312
Is that very different from what the union was - - - ?---From what the union is now claiming, yes.
**** GRANT ROBERT POWELL XN MR ABRAHAMS
PN313
Thank you, Mr Powell. No further questions.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. When you are ready, Mr Roach.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROACH [11.23 AM]
PN315
MR ROACH: Do you remember the other - you were an observer,
Mr Powell?---That is correct, Mr Roach.
PN316
Do you remember all the other issues that were discussed?---When?
PN317
On 4 April?---Yes and no. Some of them, some of them not.
PN318
You don't remember them?---Don't remember all of them, no.
PN319
How long did this meeting go for?---All day, sir, quite late.
You don't recall anything else?---I recall bits and pieces of it, yes, but I don't recall all of it, no. I only remember this specific instance because I asked the question, I was a little confused.
PN321
And where was I?---At the time, we had just reached an in principle agreement between all parties and you had left to go and grab the three shop stewards and bring them up to the room. We were sitting there. I was looking at the, both cases on the whiteboard and I asked the question.
PN322
Just about long service leave?---Just about long service leave, yes. I thought it would have, from what it said on the whiteboard, entitle them to long service leave after 10 years. I was certainly put straight.
PN323
And what did it say on the whiteboard?---Things, 13 weeks, 10 years, pro rata after seven years and .87 weeks per year to 13 weeks per year, sorry 1.3 weeks per year. There are other claims from the union- - -
PN324
Do you recall what time of the day this was?---It was late in the afternoon. It was late in the afternoon.
PN325
Late in the afternoon?---Yes.
PN326
And you say I left the room?---You left the room to go and get the three shop stewards.
**** GRANT ROBERT POWELL XXN MR ROACH
PN327
And Mr Dow wasn't present either?---Yes he was.
PN328
So who was present?---It would have been Mr Dow, Mr Wright, Mr Melsham and myself.
PN329
You see, I spoke to Mr Melsham about this when I saw your witness statement and he denies it?---Okay, well, that is fine.
PN330
Unfortunately, given the late time, he couldn't present himself here as a rebuttal witness, are you sure you want to ?---Absolutely, sir.
PN331
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Abrahams?
PN332
MR ABRAHAMS: Yes, let it be known that I don't accept that statement as evidence, Commissioner.
PN333
MR ROACH: And you are saying that Mr Melsham said, now on the official running, on the official running of the entire issue, Mr Melsham attended to give me assistance, don't you think he would have conveyed that to me, before I went and explained it to the men?---What Mr Melsham does I have got no idea, sir, sorry.
Well, this couldn't have been part of the meeting then, if I wasn't present, could
it?---I asked a question, I received an answer from both Mr Wright and Mr Melsham.
PN335
Could I ask Mr Abrahams, does Mr Wright represent himself here?
PN336
MR ABRAHAMS: We have presented the Commission with the witness statements and proposed witnesses.
MR ROACH: If I wasn't present, the meeting couldn't have been taking place, could it?---Meeting, there was four people there. I asked the question, I received an answer. There was no doubt in my mind that the four people in that room would have walked away with the same reasoning I had, after that answer.
PN338
What, why, you say that I was going to get the shop stewards, why was I going to get the shop stewards?---To discuss the in principle agreement that the company had reached with yourself and Trevor Melsham
**** GRANT ROBERT POWELL XXN MR ROACH
PN339
Were the shop stewards present throughout the day?---No.
PN340
Why not?---Can't remember, sir. But they weren't. You brought them in towards the end of the day.
PN341
You see my recollection is that I rang them. I don't recall leaving you in the room with Mr Wright and Mr Melsham at all?---Well I am very sorry, but that is definitely what happened.
PN342
And this explanation, what period of time did it take? Like, did it go for half an hour, did you talk - - - ?---Thirty seconds.
PN343
Thirty seconds?---Yes.
PN344
Like a throw away line?---No. Sonny doesn't make throw away lines.
PN345
Were you involved in the drafting of the document?---No.
PN346
Did you have, did you see it at all, prior to its final draft?---Yes, I may have seen it, but I can't remember seeing it, no.
PN347
Did you look at the long service leave provision then?---Can't remember doing so.
PN348
No? Are you sure?---Unless I can't specifically remember sitting down and reading it, no. But I am sure I probably would have.
PN349
So, what about all the other issues that were really contentious right through that whole day. Didn't we have a big debate about the bonus being rolled in the base rate?---And I remember that was resolved, yes.
PN350
And how was that resolved?---Sonny Wright basically chaired it from the company side of the view and he agreed along with yourself and Trevor Melsham an in principle agreement. But it certainly did take up a large portion of the day.
What, can you tell the Commission what the in-principle agreement was?---With respect to?
PN352
With respect to the rolling of the bonus?---I can't, without the agreement in front of me, I couldn't go through it off the top of my head, no.
**** GRANT ROBERT POWELL XXN MR ROACH
PN353
Well, would it be - - - ?---It was rather detailed.
PN354
Right?---Because we kept some of the bonus, we split it in between an attendance bonus and a quality bonus. Rolled the rest of it into their wage and then had a cost of living increase on top of that as well. So, it was pretty substantial to discuss during the day.
PN355
And you would agree that that in fact took up most of the day?---Yes, it took quite a bit of the day. There were other issues as well though, sir.
PN356
That is true. Do you remember any of them? Any of those other issues?---One specifically was the reduction of the overlap for the Johnson building and clay inspection areas we discussed.
PN357
You recall that, do you?---I recall that briefly, yes.
PN358
And that was something you were interested in?---Only because we had to implement it together, yes. I think both of us would have been interested in how it was going to be done.
PN359
Yes. And what was the end outcome of it?---After many meetings between yourself, myself and our respective members and teams, - - -
PN360
So you recall the overlap issue?---I recall the overlap issue, yes.
PN361
Do you recall what the outcome of that was?---In the meeting at the time, I think we agreed that we would get the overlap down to only 10 minutes. That we would extend the shifts out. How it was going to be done wasn't agreed to for quite some time and a significant amount of meetings with the troops.
PN362
Well didn't it involve a further amendment to the agreement after in fact it was certified?---It certainly did. In front of this Commission, I believe.
PN363
Sorry I will just repeat that sir. It in fact meant that after the agreement was originally certified, we had to come back and put an amendment to - - - ?---That is correct. Yes.
PN364
And could you tell the Commission what that amendment was?---No, I can't remember. I would have to have a look at the documentation.
**** GRANT ROBERT POWELL XXN MR ROACH
PN365
You can't remember?---No, I can't remember exactly what it was.
PN366
MR ABRAHAMS: Can I ask the relevance of this?
PN367
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Roach?
PN368
MR ROACH: Yes the relevance is that there were substantial changes. There was a change had to occur.
PN369
THE COMMISSIONER: What has that got to do with the long service leave?
PN370
MR ROACH: I will try - - -
PN371
THE COMMISSIONER: Are you trying to paint a picture that Mr Powell didn't ask the question?
PN372
MR ROACH: Yes, Commissioner.
PN373
THE COMMISSIONER: Well he has just said he did. That is for me to decide whether he did, and what I assess his credit as being, isn't it?
PN374
MR ROACH: Well, Mr Powell, there had to be an alteration to the agreement by an amendment?---That is correct, yes.
PN375
To incorporate the changes that the company wanted?---No, to incorporate the changes the employees put up. Remember they came up with a solution.
PN376
Wasn't it your application?---It was our application, yes. We came up with it. We worked through with a solution with the shop floor and when we had a look at it, we couldn't do it, we had to get the EBA changed.
PN377
Well let me refresh your memory. Isn't it true that we amended the agreement to alter the provision for the taking of meals to accommodate a minimising of the overlap between shifts?---Sorry, repeat that again?
PN378
Isn't it true that we altered the provision for the taking of meals to accommodate a minimising of the overlap between the shifts?---We certainly altered or changed the EBA. I would have to check to make sure it was that component.
**** GRANT ROBERT POWELL XXN MR ROACH
PN379
Right, so you would have to check. But you specifically remember a reference to one of the minor points in the claim in relation to long service leave, when I was absent from the room?---I specifically remember - - - . Like I said, it was only the one question I asked for the day.
PN380
Why?---I couldn't get a word in edgeways between Trevor Melsham and Sonny Wright.
PN381
But isn't it true that the overlap - - -
PN382
THE COMMISSIONER: It is a reasonable answer, Mr Roach.
PN383
MR ROACH: It is under the circumstances, too, Commissioner.
PN384
THE WITNESS: And again, sir, I was only an observer.
PN385
THE COMMISSIONER: I think, Mr Roach, you have made your point on the question.
PN386
MR ROACH: Thank you, sir. Were you involved in any of the report back meetings of the workers?---Only the one that you and I did with respect to the Johnson building, clay inspection guys.
PN387
Your reference in point 6 of your statement about those things, is that the only recollection you have about the issue of long service leave?---I remember it being spoken about at the day, but I can't remember the details of it.
PN388
You are one of the people in management responsible for ascertaining as to whether a person should be granted leave or not?---Yes and no, yes.
PN389
Mr Michael Conceders.?---Yes.
PN390
You are aware he has applied for long service leave?---Never seen an application for Michael.
PN391
Haven't you?---No.
PN392
I would like to tender a copy of a response of Mr Conceders' receipt from the company in relation to his request. I will pass one through the witness too, please.
**** GRANT ROBERT POWELL XXN MR ROACH
PN393
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Abrahams got that.
MR ROACH: I would like to tender it.
EXHIBIT #A5 APPLICATION FOR LONG SERVICE LEAVE
PN395
MR ROACH: In your experience Mr Powell, that is from your pay office?---Is it? I have got no idea. I have never seen it before.
PN396
You have never seen that format?---No.
PN397
Do you know Mr Conceders?---Certainly do.
PN398
He is a leading hand?---He certainly is.
PN399
How many years of service has he had?---I wouldn't know. I would have to go and check.
PN400
To your knowledge he has been there in excess of 10 years?---He has certainly been there longer than I have and I am coming up to seven.
PN401
Just looking through this, he commenced, right up the top, Mr Powell, commenced 18/03/1991?---Yes.
PN402
That is almost 14 years ago?---That is correct.
PN403
Could you tell the Commission why you rejected his application for long service leave?---How could I reject it if I haven't seen it?
PN404
Are you telling this Commission that you are unaware that Mr Conceders put a request for long service leave?---Michael has never come and put a request in to me for long service leave. He may have gone and spoken to the pay office about it, he has certainly asked me - - -
PN405
THE COMMISSIONER: You have answered the question, witness. That person has never been to you.
PN406
MR ROACH: Has anybody else been to you?---Zoran Gorjeski has asked me about long service leave and he is the only application that I have actually seen for long service leave.
**** GRANT ROBERT POWELL XXN MR ROACH
PN407
You are not aware of any others?---No, John Douglas on afternoon shift also is talking about wanting to take long service leave as well.
PN408
Did you make any reference to four people making an application for long service leave?---When?
PN409
At any time late last year?---The only application I know would have been Daniel Divandi that was actually, that actually received it. Zoran Gorjeski that applied for it. Michael has spoken about it and so has John Douglas. That is all I am aware of.
PN410
Do you think that it would cripple the company or that the company wouldn't be able to get by if these people were granted long service leave?---When they are asking for it? Well, when would they want to take it?
PN411
If the company is carrying the liability in the books, and they requested to access part or all of their long service leave, could the company continue to function if that were granted?---Yes, it could continue to function in some of those areas. So long as say, I would be concerned about John and Michael taking it at the same time, both being leading hands and I would be making sure that my supervisor could cover the area off.
PN412
So is it your evidence that the only issue in relation to this long service leave that would be a problem for the company would be on the notice period required?
PN413
MR ABRAHAMS: Objection, Commissioner.
PN414
THE WITNESS: I am not sure what you are asking.
PN415
MR ROACH: Well is it a problem?---On the notice, as in the amount of time they are giving us to take the leave?
PN416
Yes?---Well, if people put in for leave, as long as we can accommodate it, the time that it takes, there shouldn't be an issue.
PN417
And is there an occasion where you would think there would be a problem?---Yes.
PN418
Why?---In some of the high skilled areas. If too many people wanted to take leave at once, we would haemorrhage, especially in the casting area.
**** GRANT ROBERT POWELL XXN MR ROACH
PN419
And what happens with annual leave at the moment?---We normally have a shut down at Christmas time which predominantly uses most of the leave. We have equipment that we need to run 24 hours, seven days a week and we need to overhaul that during the Christmas break so we use the bulk of the leave during that time.
PN420
And the remainder? What happens, do you?---There is very rarely any remainder. The last few years that I remember of it has been at least four weeks each year. Some of the remainder. Some previous years, people will carry it over and may take a week here and there.
PN421
Did you ever discuss this issue with Mr Price in relation to ?---I hear what you are saying, Mr Roach. I can't recall any really specific and in depth conversation I had. I guess we may have done but I can't recall it specifically.
PN422
No further questions, Commissioner.
PN423
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Abrahams?
PN424
MR ABRAHAMS: No re-examination, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: You are excused, sir. Call the next witness.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.40AM]
THE COMMISSIONER: Give me back those papers there will you?
<NEIL EDWARD DOW, SWORN [11.41AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ABRAHAMS
PN427
MR ABRAHAMS: Mr Dow, can I offer you a copy of your statement. Did you make a statement in this matter?---Yes I did.
PN428
Which was presented to the Commission?---That is right.
R3 and might I have that marked, thank you, Commissioner.
EXHIBIT #R3 STATEMENT OF NEIL DOW
PN430
MR ABRAHAMS: Thank you Commissioner. Mr Dow, now that you are under oath, can you confirm that statement and the truth of all matters contained therein?---Yes, I can.
I refer you, Mr Dow, to paragraph 10 of your statement. Do you say that that represents a final agreement of the parties on the long service leave issue?---Yes.
PN432
Were you present on 4 April 2003 in a discussion with Sonny Wright and others with respect to the long service leave issue?---Yes, I was present on that day.
PN433
Can you say who else was present?---There was Steve, Steve Roach, Grant Powell. I can't remember, because the two delegates were coming in and out, but at times, both were present.
PN434
And have you seen the statement of Mr Powell in this matter?---Yes. Yes, I have.
PN435
Mr Powell refers to - perhaps the witness might be shown R2, Commissioner.
PN436
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. It is part of this parcel, Mr Abrahams.
PN437
MR ABRAHAMS: Sorry Commissioner, I can offer it.
PN438
Mr Powell refers to a conversation on 4th April in that witness statement,
Mr Dow?---Yes.
PN439
Were you present at the time that conversation took place?---Yes I was.
PN440
And is your recollection of that discussion the same as Mr Powell's?---Yes it is. I clearly remember the words, we would just get there quicker. So my recollection is exactly that.
**** NEIL EDWARD DOW XN MR ABRAHAMS
PN441
Mr Dow, in paragraph 8 of your statement, you say you sought to clarify the company's position by giving some examples. Do you see that?---Yes, I do.
PN442
You say that two concerns were raised by you?---Yes.
PN443
Yes. One dealt with the issue of comparative fairness perhaps, I might paraphrase it as, between employees with differing lengths of service. Is that right?---Yes.
PN444
And the other concern was that more people would be entitled to take long service leave from 10th December. Is that correct?---Yes.
PN445
And can you now substantiate your concern with respect to the issue of people accessing long service leave?---The concern certainly was that more people could have access and to take Mr Roach's point about people going overseas, we were a bit concerned that people might take that additional leave at that point in time, so we had to cover that within the factory, so that there was this, there could have been this rush of people in that first year or so and we had concern of how we would cover that in terms of labour.
PN446
Yes. And was that of concern in any particular area?---It was a concern in terms of cost, additional cost to cover that labour. We probably would have had to have replaced them, particularly in the casting area. The casters, there is really no spare casters available. We have to train them for at least three months, possibly longer, so that if the casting shop people went, it would have downstream effects as well, because we wouldn't replace them and the potential of lost number of pieces of production is harder to recover than replacing a labourer or a person further downstream from the operation. So we had particular concern in the casting shop as well.
PN447
So your formulation of access was intended to overcome that problem?---The freezing of the prior entitlements and then the fact of the requirement for the 13 weeks.
PN448
Yes.?---Yes.
PN449
You undertook some costing of the union claim, Mr Dow?---Yes.
PN450
And do you recall that? Did you undertake that costing?---No, I think Mr Roach has already mentioned here today, we took Steve's approximate costings and he happened to mention prior agreements that he had done. I think Eureka or Johnson Tiles was one of them and he said in that particular case, it was approximately 1 per cent. We knew there would be, also, an effect of the actual increase in wages and I think we took the estimate about 1.2 to 1.5 per cent.
**** NEIL EDWARD DOW XN MR ABRAHAMS
PN451
Did you factor in accelerated access to long service leave?---No.
PN452
And why not?---Because it was really never clear in my mind other than access after 13 weeks.
PN453
And you say in your statement that you drafted the long service leave provision in the EBA?---I did.
PN454
And what did you intend by the words, do you need to see the agreement Mr Dow. I had a copy of the agreement be tendered, Commissioner, well not tendered, but offered to the witness.
PN455
THE COMMISSIONER: I might at this juncture, gentlemen, warn both of you that your request for a conference earlier has thrown this Commission that is sitting right out. Okay? I need to say no more.
PN456
MR ABRAHAMS: I will conclude quickly, Commissioner.
PN457
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
PN458
MR ABRAHAMS: What did you intend by the words, accessible after 10 years?---Well, I think first of all it was clear that it had to be in accordance with the Long Service Leave Act, which I think is a fairly important point. And it simply meant that 13 weeks after 15 years is now 13 weeks after 10 years as an entitlement. Pro rata, if people leave, after seven years. And that the second point there or third point there is that certainly the current rates of accruals were frozen at that point in time.
PN459
So you were differentiating the accrual rate from the Long Service Leave
Act?---Yes.
PN460
And you confirmed Mr Powell's evidence that the requirement to accrue 13 weeks by way of service was the trigger for access to long service leave. What would be the effect of that, eventually?---The trigger of the 13 weeks?
PN461
Yes, the trigger of 13 weeks?---That eventually, over a long period of time, it would still come into being, but in that short period of time, where we could have had people accessing earlier, I had some concerns.
**** NEIL EDWARD DOW XN MR ABRAHAMS
PN462
Mr Roach, in his statement, refers to certain agreements that were referred to by him in explaining the precise nature of the claim by the union on the company. Do you recall that reference?---Yes, I do recall that reference.
And did you subsequently check the terminology or the provisions in those agreements to which he was referring?---At that point in time, no.
PN464
Not at that point in time?---No.
PN465
What did you take his reference to those agreements to be referring to?---Just the accrual rate change. To take Mr Roach's point, we were concentrating mainly on the accrual rate changing from the .867 to 1.3.
So you are saying that they were not presented as access?---Not presented in support of a claim for access after 10.
PN467
Is that right?---Yes.
PN468
Thank you Mr Dow. No further questions.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Roach?
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROACH [11.54AM]
PN470
MR ROACH: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr Dow, it is your evidence that you had concerns about a rush of people to take long service leave?---Yes, potentially.
PN471
Why didn't you raise this during negotiations so as we could discuss the matter and put a suitably worded clause in there in relation to notice required?---Well I say I did discuss it and that is why I gave the example of the two employees, that I thought it was unfair for someone on 14 years that has had to wait to that time to access, and someone on 10 years got access.
PN472
When did you raise this thing about the two employees?---That was raised as a concern that came back, I believe, to re clarify the point. The point that - the question that Grant asked, that I gave that example at that meeting.
PN473
Was I present?---I actually don't recall. I have a feeling that you were not present at that point in time, but I - certainly there was an example raised.
**** NEIL EDWARD DOW XXN MR ROACH
PN474
Mr Dow, you have been around for a while. When you are involved with a meeting of a group of people, and you have a break, people continue to discuss things. Is that what occurred here?---There was a lot of discussions that took place on that day as you realize.
PN475
I was present at all times during negotiations, is that true?---On that - on the particular day, on 4 April?
PN476
Yes, and at all other times?---There were some periods of time you went out to have a smoke. There were some periods of time that I think you went to the shop floor and came back. So I don't think you were present for the whole day.
PN477
No, but during negotiations?---Yes, during negotiations, yes.
PN478
So I was present during all negotiations?---Yes.
PN479
Just tell the Commission who drafted the clause, clause 29?---I did, your Honour.
PN480
If you meant that it was - long service leave was accessible after 13 weeks had been accumulated why didn't you say it?---I need to be a bit more careful next time round. It was clear in my mind. It was clear in my mind what that clause was to mean.
PN481
Well, why did you write accessible after ten years continuous service?---I cannot say other than it was still clear in my mind that that meant 13 weeks after ten years.
PN482
Well, look, let's assume that I don't know anything about what's happened in the past and I read this document. You would forgive
me for thinking that it would be accessible after ten years service, wouldn't you, because that's what it
says?---But it also raises other issues.
PN483
Well, one of the other issues it raises that it shall be in accordance with the
Act?---No, it also raises the issue of pro-rata after seven years.
PN484
We take that as read don 't we? I think we all know what that means don't
we?---Well, but it's not clear, is it, Mr Roach?
PN485
No, but it doesn't need to be because we all know what it means, doesn't
it?---Well, that's the whole reason we are here, isn't it, and it also means that - I mean, take another example, that someone that's
got 15 or 16 years of service, if you read into it the way you want to take it, about his access after ten years for every year that
they are there, they are allowed to take further long service leave. So if they were there for 15, 16, 17 years - - -
**** NEIL EDWARD DOW XXN MR ROACH
PN486
It hasn't been a problem, has it, Mr Dow?---No, but it creates uncertainty.
PN487
If that's a problem why didn't you raise it?---It hasn't been a problem that I am aware of.
PN488
Right. You had a problem though, didn't you, in relation to the shift change?
---Shift - the overlap of the shifts?
PN489
Yes?---Yes, yes.
PN490
What was the union's response to your problem?---If I recall it, they would go out and talk to the members and see what they could do to accommodate that overlap of shift or under-lap of shift.
PN491
Well, it was a point of honour, wasn't it, Mr Dow, because it was in the memorandum of agreement, and when you drafted the agreement you forgot it, and we had to amend the agreement later to change it, make reference to the lunch breaks didn't we?---I think at that point of time in the memorandum of understanding we were still negotiating that as a very final point, that we had to go out there and actually trial it for a while. So it certainly was something that was post that memorandum of understanding.
PN492
And the union consented the change to accommodate the intention of the company?---For the overlap issues?
PN493
Yes?---Yes.
PN494
And you at that time and since have had no problem with the issue of pro-rata after seven? You know what that means?---Well, it's clear what it means to me, but because this clause has been brought up as an issue it now creates further uncertainties, and I can't say post a year ago whether there has been any issues with the pro-rata and long service leave after seven because I haven't been involved in the operation trial.
PN495
When you were managing Caroma at the time you were - how long were you manager?---Six, seven-odd years.
PN496
Seven years. In that time did anybody access long service leave under the Victorian Act provisions?---I haven't - I know of one or two but I am not sure how many. I don't get those details.
**** NEIL EDWARD DOW XXN MR ROACH
PN497
All right. How did you ascertain as whether they were entitled if you don't know?---That's up to the paymaster and the supervisor to ensure that the entitlement is correct, before the leave application is signed, and I wouldn't have normally signed the leave application.
PN498
You are aware that there are currently changes before the Victorian - or changes proposed in a bill, that goes before the Victorian parliament, on long service leave?---I am aware that - I have been absent from Victoria for a period of time, but I am aware that they are looking at changing some of the long service leave provisions.
PN499
Make it accessible after ten?---I am not aware of the details but I have heard that. I haven't seen that.
PN500
Are you aware of your company making a submission to the minister in relation to these proposed changes?---Certainly not.
PN501
Well, if it's such an important issue in relation to our enterprise agreement, wouldn't it be prudent to have made a submission of that?---I can't answer that. I am not responsible at that operation.
PN502
You raise the issue of the casters? You are concerned about casters. Are you aware of any casters that have made an application for long service leave in the last couple of years?---I am not aware of all the applications for long service leave.
PN503
Do you know of any who have?---Can't say.
PN504
Incidentally, Mr Melsham contests that he - he says he didn't say what you say he said at all?
PN505
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Abrahams already covered that.
MR ROACH: All right.
PN507
THE COMMISSIONER: And we are running out of time, gentlemen.
PN508
MR ROACH: I am sorry, sir. I am just trying to be fair.
**** NEIL EDWARD DOW XXN MR ROACH
PN509
Just finally, Mr Dow, are you aware in the seven years you were manager, are you aware of anybody who had not achieved 15 years service with the company being granted a portion of their long service leave regardless?---No, not aware of any.
PN510
Is it your evidence it was done through the paymaster?---Yes.
PN511
Who is the paymaster?---Peter
PN512
Do you know why he's not here today?---I don't think it's relevant.
PN513
Probably isn't. Thank you, Mr Dow.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Abrahams, have you any re-examination, briefly?
<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ABRAHAMS [12.03PM]
PN515
MR ABRAHAMS: Did Mr Melsham take a leading role in the negotiations on Friday 4 April, Mr Dow?---Mr Melsham and Mr Wright did take a leading role in negotiations on that particular day, on 4 April.
PN516
Thank you, and you, in response to a question from Mr Roach I believe, you indicated that the provision in the EBA creates some uncertainty on the issue of entitlement to pro-rata long service leave, yes, and why was that not specifically addressed in the agreement?---Create uncertainty at that meeting?
PN517
No, I am sorry. I will re-explain myself. The provision for pro-rata leave after seven years in the agreement is unqualified?---Yes.
PN518
Is that your view?---It could be interpreted that way, yes, and that's my concern.
PN519
And why is that your concern?---Because it would then open the door to people who have had seven years of accumulated service to take long service leave.
PN520
And was that ever claimed?---No.
PN521
So to that extent, that provision does not reflect the agreement of the
parties?---No, it doesn't.
PN522
Thank you, Mr Dow, no further questions.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you are excused, sir.
**** NEIL EDWARD DOW RXN MR ABRAHAMS
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.05PM]
PN524
THE COMMISSIONER: Summing up, Mr Abrahams?
PN525
MR ABRAHAMS: Yes, Commissioner. I will be brief. What we essentially say is this, that this dispute is about whether the agreement accurately reflects - that is, whether the EBA as certified accurately reflects the agreement of the parties.
PN526
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, accurately reflects the agreement.
PN527
MR ABRAHAMS: Indeed, and we say that there is very positive evidence on the part of the company with respect to the terms of that agreement as it affects the issue raised by the union, and that both witnesses have very clear recollection of those events compared to statements, for example, by Mr Roach, that he does not recall that detail. Now, in our view, the Commission needs to form a view as to the reliability of the witness evidence and determine on the basis of that whether the effect, which the union now seeks to have enforced, ought to be given to the agreement.
It is our contention not only that it should not but that the Commission should exercise its obligation to clarify the agreement and to amend the agreement in the following terms, and I offer a statement to the Commission.
PN529
MR ABRAHAMS: We believe a change in those terms would give affect to the agreement which we say has been established by the evidence, and avoid the complexity that would derive from the agreement being applied in the fashion in which Mr Roach contends, if the Commission pleases.
PN530
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Can we apply a quick one, Mr Roach.
PN531
MR ROACH: Sir, yes, very quick. Sir, we accept that there's a little bit of deficiency in the agreement, mainly in relation to notice period to be given by employees seeking to take the leave, but the agreement is very clear, has been from the very outset, as the company drafted the agreement. We don't see any need for the changes being made, that are being sought by Mr Abrahams here, representing the company. It diminishes what the intent and spirit of the agreement was from the outset and certainly from the point of view of the employees who had it clearly it explained from the time the claim was drafted, at the time the agreement was made with the company.
PN532
They drafted the clause themselves. I wouldn't have made it that convoluted as to refer to other sub clauses that refer to other ones. We would have just simply said from the date, but nonetheless we accepted their drafting of the clause and it made it abundantly clear to all concerned, including the parties, and in all formal negotiations I was present and it was never discussed in terms other than length of service, if the Commission pleases.
PN533
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. This matter is adjourned, gentlemen. I will ask you to leave the premises as quickly as possible.
<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [12.09PM]
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs
STEVEN PAUL ROACH, SWORN PN66
EXHIBIT #A1 STATEMENT OF STEVEN ROACH PN69
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR ABRAHAMS PN74
EXHIBIT #R1 A SUMMARY OF LONG SERVICE LEAVE PN156
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN202
WILLIAM JOHN PRICE, SWORN PN203
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ROACH PN203
EXHIBIT #A2 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PRICE PN204
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ABRAHAMS PN217
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN239
GARETH DELZOPPA, SWORN PN240
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ROACH PN240
EXHIBIT #A3 STATEMENT OF GARETH DELZOPPA PN243
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ABRAHAMS PN257
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN276
EXHIBIT #A4 SUMMARY OF LONG SERVICE LEAVE PN282
GRANT ROBERT POWELL, SWORN PN296
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ABRAHAMS PN296
EXHIBIT #R2 STATEMENT OF GRANT POWELL PN299
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROACH PN313
EXHIBIT #A5 APPLICATION FOR LONG SERVICE LEAVE PN393
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN424
NEIL EDWARD DOW, SWORN PN425
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ABRAHAMS PN425
EXHIBIT #R3 STATEMENT OF NEIL DOW PN428
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROACH PN468
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ABRAHAMS PN513
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN522
EXHIBIT #R4 STATEMENT FROM MR ABRAHAMS PN527
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2005/624.html