C2005/1353, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 638 (15 March 2005)

1800 534 258

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 10771

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER

C2005/1353

s.113 - application to vary an award

APPLICATION BY MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT AND ARTS ALLIANCE
(C2005/1353)
Entertainment and Broadcasting Industry - Cinema Award - 1998

SYDNEY

10.14AM, FRIDAY, 04 MARCH 2005

THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE AND RECORDED IN SYDNEY

PN1

MS C MONTGOMERY: I appear on behalf of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. With me is MS M JONES.

PN2

MR D HAMILTON: I appear on behalf of Australian Entertainment Industry Association.

PN3

MS D McMANUS: I appear for Employers First.

PN4

MS B ALEXANDER: I seek leave to appear on behalf of the respondent members of Australian Business Industrial.

PN5

MS K RICHARDS: I appear for the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

PN6

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are there any objections to leave being granted to Ms Alexander?

PN7

MS MONTGOMERY: No, I have no objections, your Honour. Thank you, your Honour, the application before you is to vary the Entertainment and Broadcasting Industry Cinema Award, to implement the decisions of the Commission in the redundancy case decision print 3204 and the redundancy case supplementary decision PR062004 and the parental leave for casuals test case PR90461, of
31 May 2001 and to implement the increase to the casual loadings and conversions of casual employees to permanent part time or permanent employees.

PN8

However, the draft order that I will hand up to you today, relates only to the redundancy case decisions and the parental leave for casuals decision. In relation to the implementation of the casual loading and conversion, my instructions are that the parties have agreed and will seek today a program from the Commission in relation to its implementation when the parties have - the casual loading and the conversion.

PN9

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A program for implementation or a program for considering the matter, yes.

PN10

MS MONTGOMERY: I am aware, your Honour, and I have not been a party to any discussions to this point in relation to this particular matter, but I am instructed that in relation to the draft order that I shall now hand up to you - - -

PN11

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Have the other parties seen this particular order.

PN12

MS MONTGOMERY: They have. VECCI do not have a copy of this draft order. Again, given that the Cinema Award is a common rule award in Victoria, they should have been included on the order for sub service. That didn't happen and today I've given VECCI an undertaking that I will forward a copy of the draft order, for their comment In my opinion there's no rush to have it - - -

PN13

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, it's a bit different for - - -

PN14

MS MONTGOMERY: Yes, be effective today. In relation to the part of the application to increase of the casuals loading and conversions, the alliance would seek to have a report back to the Commission, on the progress of those discussions in 6 to 8 weeks. I have to say that I - as I haven't had carriage of this matter I've not been the person that's been discussing - I haven't been advised whether or not the employer representatives agree with the 6 to 8 weeks.

PN15

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's your suggestion. That's what you would like?

PN16

MS MONTGOMERY: Yes. Right, now, in relation to that draft order that I have handed up, we would seek that the Commission grant the application to vary the award, pending the view of VECCI, in 7 days and at that time, having the variation be effective on or after the first pay period. If the Commission pleases.

PN17

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. Mr Hamilton?

PN18

MR HAMILTON: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, I'll deal with this matter in two parts, if I may, the first part being the application to increase the redundancy payments and parental leave for casuals and then the second part being the increase to the casual loading under the Cinema Award. Your Honour, the application for an increase in the redundancy provisions and the parental leave for casuals is not opposed.

PN19

The order that has been - the draft order that has been forwarded from the union complies with the relevant decisions of the Commission with regard to the redundancy case of those two decisions as listed in the draft order and similarly for the parental leave for casuals test case in 2001, the draft order reflects the Full Bench's, decision in both those matters of how awards should be varied to provide for their decisions. We have no objection for the matter to be sent to VECCI and approval be given to this application by the Commission within 7 days of today's hearing.

PN20

Your Honour, with respect to the next matter I will make a bit of a comment if I may. The application by MEAA to vary the Cinema Award, is to increase casual loading to 25 per cent from 20 per cent. The grounds for the application on which MEAA rely are and I quote:

PN21

To provide proper casual rates of pay, consistent with numerous decisions of the Commission, establishing a 25 per cent casual loading.

PN22

I end that quote. In accordance with the usual practice of this Commission, a union applicant who wishes to vary an award, would provide a detailed application outlining what they are seeking and how the award is to be varied and accompanying the application, a number of detailed grounds and contentions on which the applicant will rely in pursuing their application. The application states at paragraph 4 and I quote:

PN23

By deleting clause 16.3 casual employment and inserting the following -

PN24

Your Honour, then there are numerous clauses following that quote. The only ground relied upon by the MEAA in support of the application is, as I have already mentioned and I quote:

PN25

To provide proper casual rates of pay, consistent with numerous decisions of the Commission, establishing 25 per cent casual loading.

PN26

End that quote. The MEAA has not provided details of the particular decisions of this Commission which establishes a 25 per cent casual loading on which it relies. MEAA has not provided details or supported their application on what constitutes and I quote:

PN27

proper casual rates.

PN28

MEAA has not provided any details or support for the application with regard to the ability of casual employees converting their ongoing contract of employment to full-time or part-time employment. In addition, the application, which we would say is this proposed clause, set out at paragraph 4 of the application, contains factual errors, namely, in the proposed clause 16.3.3(a) there is a reference to the weekly award wage prescribed in clause 5.1 of the award. There is no clause 5.1 in the award. Secondly, the proposed clause 16.3.3(b)(vii) refers to clause 2.2.3 of the award. There is no clause 2.2.3 in the award. Thirdly, in the proposed clause 16.3.3(b)(i) it states that:

PN29

A regular casual employee is defined in clause 16.3.3(f).

PN30

There is no clause 16.3.3(f).

PN31

It is the AEIA's submission that the MEAA be required to provide detailed grounds and contentions in support of their application, so that the parties on this side of the bar table can prepare a reasoned and considered response to those grounds. The application as it presently stands with its dearth of supporting grounds, will be strongly opposed by the AEIA on behalf of its members. The Cinema Award applies to independent cinemas who are respondents to the award and members of the AEIA, who in the majority operate in regional and rural Australia.

PN32

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you know how many we're talking about? Do you have a number of how many either cinemas or employees who work under the award?

PN33

MR HAMILTON: We will be endeavouring to- - -

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: At the moment though you couldn't - - -

PN35

MR HAMILTON: At the moment a figure has been bandied around about 630 independent cinemas across Australia. Whether they are actually respondent to this award will be another matter, but there will be arguments with regard to flow on to other areas, your Honour. The award does not apply to those large cinema chains, which in this industry are called the majors. The majors are Hoyts, Greater Union and Village Roadshow.

PN36

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So can I attempt - sorry to interrupt you again, but it's just more for my background, I suppose. When you said it doesn't apply, do you mean that they have certified agreements that - - -

PN37

MR HAMILTON: I was just coming to that, your Honour.

PN38

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, sorry. They are not bound by the award at all?

PN39

MR HAMILTON: That's correct, your Honour. Each of those majors have their own safety net award. The AEIA has sought preliminary feed back from members who have initially indicated that such an application is economically unsustainable and socially irresponsible and the ramifications or the social ramifications in rural and regional Australia, where the majority of independent cinemas operate, will be detrimental. The AEIA and its members require detailed grounds and reasons for the application from MEAA. Once the detailed grounds and reasons for the application have been provided, the AEIA and its members will be able to constructively consider the application and formulate a detailed response. This will involve a detailed survey of members as to the effect of the application, which will have economically and socially on our members' operations and their regional and rural communities. Once such research material has been collected, the AEIA will then seek to negotiate with MEAA to see if any agreement can be reached on their application.

PN40

Should no agreement be reached between the parties, the AEIA envisages that in support of our position, whether total opposition to the application or opposing certain parts of the application, we will be requesting the Commission, as presently constituted to accompany the parties to this application on inspections to a number of rural and regional centres and for the purposes of gathering evidence, from independent cinema operators at such centres. The AEIA will also be calling expert witness evidence from members in support of our position.

PN41

Detailed submissions will then be presented to the Commission in support of that position. If your Honour pleases, thank you.

PN42

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Do you feel at this stage there's any point in having, I mean at this point, and Ms Montgomery referred to, you know, 6 weeks or so for further discussions, or should we proceed at least to ask them to actually put forward a detailed case before discussions are held?

PN43

MR HAMILTON: We would like a detailed outline of their grounds that they're basing the application on, your Honour, first. I believe that preliminary discussions with the union could be held but as I've stated in my statement, we intend to heavily survey our membership and also organisations that are not our members but are bound by this award, when I say organisation, I mean independent cinema operators, to ascertain our position to the application.

PN44

As I've mentioned, this application will have, in our opinion, a detrimental effect, both economically and socially in rural and regional Australia and therefore we will be requiring some time to actually gather that material, because as you can envisage, your Honour, this award will affect cinemas in Geraldton, as far west as Geraldton in Western Australia and across the continent to Harvey Bay in Queensland and down of course to the tip of Victoria at Portland, so we request at least a couple of months, your Honour, to gather that information, so we would be in a position to present in a negotiation to the union, our position. If your Honour pleases.

PN45

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. Ms McManus.

PN46

MS McMANUS: Your Honour, Employers First is in a similar position in the Cinema Award, as it was with Live Theatre and Concert in that we do have respondent members to that award and in regards to the order before the Commission today we would seek seven days, to give us the opportunity to review the order, and in regards to the remainder of the application, we would seek further discussions with the parties.

PN47

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Alexander.

PN48

MS ALEXANDER: Your Honour, Australian Business has had an opportunity to review the amended draft orders, which were handed up today and we're satisfied that points 1, 2 and 3 in those draft orders are in accordance with the redundancy test case decision of the Full Bench, and the supplementary decision and point 4 is in accordance with the parental leave for casuals test case decision. We would therefore be in a position to consent to the amended draft orders, but we also have no objection to a period of seven days for Employers First and VECCI to further consider the application.

PN49

Your Honour, in regards to the casual employment and changing conditions to casual employment under the award, Australian Business would not be making a submission in this regard. This isn't a matter which Australian Business wishes to address the Commission further on and we believe we would look to discontinue our on-going appearance in the matter, if the Commission pleases.

PN50

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Richards?

PN51

MS RICHARDS: Thank you, your Honour. As Ms Montgomery outlined, we have yet to receive a copy of the draft order with respect to the redundancy privileges or the parental leave for eligible casuals. We would be seeking seven days to review a copy of that draft order and we're happy to provide the MEAA and the committee with a written response to that draft order within seven days.
With respect to the casual conversion and increase in the casual loading from 20 per cent to 25 per cent, we would seek to have further discussions with the MEAA in that regard and we would not oppose the timeline of six to eight weeks as put forward by Ms Montgomery. If the Commission pleases.

PN52

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, Ms Montgomery, do you want to say something?

PN53

MS MONTGOMERY: Just to Mr Hamilton's point. MEAA has no objection to surveys and the like and supplying the AEIA with a detailed grounds - detailed ground in relation to the implementation of the loading and conversion.

PN54

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, well, let's deal with the easy bit first. It's obviously that the case, like this everybody has these three bits to it. There's the flow on of the parental leave for casual's test case decision; and the flow on of the new redundancy provisions, as set out in the test case decision. I'm going to indicate now, that I'll give Employers First and VECCI, till close of business on 11 March to make any submissions or present any concerns they might have with the proposed orders in relation to those two matters, but subject to there being no issues of concern, I would indicate that I would be varying the award as proposed in those two matters. So, we will wait - we'll give you a week to have a look and to see if you've got any problems.

PN55

But subject to there being some genuine concern, then I'll indicate now that I will just make the decision at that point, no need to get back here again. In relation to the casuals - sorry, in relation to the casual loading conversion, et cetera matter, I mean, my inclination, I suppose, would be - look, I'll just say a couple of things. One is that I - well, I know there have been quite a lot of awards varied in relation to changes in the casual loading and also in some cases to providing a conversion process for casuals to convert to permanent employment or non-casual employment and in many of those cases there's been consent between the parties. At the end of the day it's obviously a decision for this Commission. This is not an agreement, this is the safety net system and basically, even if there was consent, if I could put it that way, the Commission would still need to be persuaded of the merits.

PN56

That doesn't mean that discussions between the parties on agreement on certain matters is of no use. I think they would be obviously helpful, if there was any agreement, but at the end of the day, I suppose I will need to be convinced of the merits. Even if you all came to me and said, "We want this, " I have to tell you now, that wouldn't necessarily be enough. It would be relevant but - so I suppose what I'm getting at is that, well, obviously I'm not, in any way, trying to discourage any discussions between the parties. I am suggesting that I don't particularly want to delay the matter, just to have further discussions. My suggestion would be - my inclination would be, subject to what's put to me, was that we actually set down a timeframe for actually hearing the application and obviously that doesn't mean not have discussions in the meantime but we set down a timeframe for actually - and enough time to enable both parties to gather whatever evidence they need in support of their case.

PN57

I've also got some thoughts I must say and I feel I might as well tell you now. Just some of the evidence - some of the material that I would like to see. Now this is not in any way meant to be comprehensive or suggesting that these are the only relevant considerations, or anything like that. So don't take this as I'm saying, "This is all I need to make a decision," but what I don't want to have is a situation where you all go away and do an enormous amount of work, we have hearings and then I say, "But want I really want to know is this, so you'll have to go away and do another survey or something." Certainly if either party or both parties are going to go off and survey members, or anything like that, it might be an opportunity to identify some of the material that I actually think would be relevant to - or may be relevant, if I could put it that way, to my consideration.

PN58

I don't think you should try to read into any of what I'm going to say any particular consequence. You may want to put an argument that this evidence - that this information I'm seeking is in fact not relevant, but subject to you persuading me of that, I'm suggesting that it would be good to have that material available. So I thought I'd actually spell that out now. I'm not suggesting that this is exhaustive. I'm not suggesting there isn't other information that would be relevant or other arguments, but number one question, I would like to know how many casual employees are employed under this award. I suppose ideally, in absolute numbers, but also in terms of the proportion of all the employees under the award.

PN59

I would be very interested in any evidence on length of service of employees under the award. I guess that might be relevant if there are already people who aren't casuals. I have no idea what the right answer to that is, but I'm certainly interested in typical length of service for casual employees, employed under the award. I suppose also any non casuals employed under the award, and when I say typical, I suppose as much information as I can get about it. It may be that there are, for example, there were some people who have been employed for many, many years as casuals under this award but there are other people who are employed for typically 2 months. I mean, what I want is as much information as possible on what the pattern is of length of service for employees under this award.

PN60

And for example, what would be the proportion of casual employees under this award who might be employed, for let's say, a long period of time. You can decide what a long period of time might be. You can see the sort of information I'm looking for there. I'm also interested in any evidence that would help establish how many days a casual employee would access the following kinds of leave if they weren't casual, if I could put it that way. So for example, that would include sick leave, carers leave, bereavement leave and indeed any other kind of leave, I suppose that - annual leave I don't think we have to worry about. I think that's a straightforward thing. I suppose what I'm getting at is there are certain kinds of leave that I think you could describe as contingent. They only kick in in certain circumstances.

PN61

So you might be given under the award an entitlement up to so many days, but it doesn't mean that you will automatically take all those days. So obviously, in trying to ascribe a value that a casual employee might forego in not having access to that leave, it might be, and I wouldn't put it any higher than that, it might be a relevant consideration to look at how many days leave they would actually be likely to take if they weren't casuals, if they had that entitlement. Does that make any sense? And then, on a similar kind of point but it's got some extra complications, any evidence of how many casual employees under the award would qualify for long service leave but for the fact that they're not casual. Obviously, there are a number of considerations there because - my understanding is that this award doesn't provide specifically for long service leave. That's correct isn't it? But in fact - in other words, people use the state - the state provisions of long service leave.

PN62

MS MONTGOMERY: Yes, they rely upon - yes, it's by each, it's stated based.

PN63

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, it does vary state by state and in some states at least casuals get long service leave.

PN64

MS MONTGOMERY: In New South Wales they do, your Honour, after 10 years.

PN65

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: New South Wales and Queensland as well, but not necessarily everywhere, so that's one consideration and that's why obviously it would be quite useful to know how many employees there are in each of the different states, I guess, therefore. But it also goes to issues like, looking at the length of service of casuals but also maybe other considerations, as well. I'll leave it to you to work out what they are. Obviously, it would also be useful to get evidence concerning the probability that employees under the award would be dismissed. Because obviously, notice of termination is potentially one benefit that non casual employees have that casual employees don't.

PN66

And also, I'm not saying that these are easy things to try to work but this is what I'll be looking for if at all possible, evidence concerning the probability that employees under the award would be made redundant, because again obviously redundancy pay is - redundancy benefits are obviously something that non casual employees don't have access to, sorry, that casual employees don't have access to bit non casuals do and so you could argue that it's a benefit foregone, that casuals don't receive compared to non casuals but there is at least arguably, I won't put it any higher than that, an argument that you need to take into account the likelihood that some will actually be made redundant and therefore receive the benefit. I just thought I'd point that out now because rather than delaying the case down the track by me asking questions that you don't have this information, it's better to be right up front with it now.

PN67

Don't take this, look I'm not necessarily, you shouldn't read into this that I'm necessarily drawing any - have I drawn any conclusions of what evidence is absolutely required. But at least it will be useful to have that available. I mean, one could put submissions that in fact some of that evidence is irrelevant and that would be open to you to put that, but all things being equal, it would be really good to have that material available. Although I suspect it might in some cases, it may not be much more than an intelligent estimate, but I will make a point of course that the evidentiary onus is, as always, on the applicant.

PN68

MS MONTGOMERY: Thank you, your Honour.

PN69

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I know these are easy questions, but I do feel that they are questions that - - -

PN70

MS MONTGOMERY: No, I agree.

PN71

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, good thanks. So I would be inclined to actually set down some dates for actual hearings, that's not necessarily consistent with what anyone has put to me, but why shouldn't we go that way.

PN72

MS MONTGOMERY: Your Honour, we could. I would need to seek instructions about the date that I am able to - as I said earlier, I actually appear only with the advocate and one of the elected officials actually has carriage of this matter and I would need to speak to him to find - to work out when he is available. I apologise that I didn't do that.

PN73

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but I said this was a directions hearing and I thought that's the kind of thing we would be doing, but okay.

PN74

MS MONTGOMERY: That's fine. I'll just go back and say this is what we're doing. That's fine we can do that.

PN75

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, Mr Hamilton, how do you feel about that?

PN76

MR HAMILTON: That's fine, your Honour.

PN77

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean how much time, I mean
Mr Hamilton I think referred to it, a couple of months, didn't you say?

PN78

MR HAMILTON: That's correct, your Honour.

PN79

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now Ms Montgomery, you probably don't know how long it will take to put your case together.

PN80

MS MONTGOMERY: I don't your Honour, but I would think - - -

PN81

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean it's the sort of in a way up to you, because you're the ones who have got to - it's your application, I mean how long you want to take - - -

PN82

MS MONTGOMERY: Given that the onus is on us to, for the want of a better word, prove our application, I would think about it. I would think somewhere up to six months.

PN83

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Six months? You really want to put it off - - -

PN84

MS MONTGOMERY: About that, your Honour, given that Mr Hamilton has indicated and the other employer representatives have indicated that there may be a need for them to do surveys and visit workplaces and things of that nature and certainly, I think Neil will need to have things of a similar nature. I am sorry, your Honour.

PN85

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, so you're thinking around six months. You've raised the issue of site visits. I suppose that remains to be seen whether they can be necessary, or not.

PN86

MS MONTOGOMERY: That may be. I mean it's going - I suppose its going to depend upon what information that we can gather over that time in order to, will it actually be relevant that there are site visits.

PN87

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think it, might be quite interesting I don't deny, but I have to say, just so you know where I'm coming from, I tend to be more attracted to statistical information than individual places, where you're potentially dealing with hundreds or possibly thousands, I'm not sure - of people, there must be thousands of employees - one or two or five or six employees pop up and say - - -

PN88

MS MONTGOMERY: Your Honour, I don't have an issue with statistics at all.

PN89

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No good, I sought of - having individual cases is all very well, but you know if you're talking about hundreds of employers and thousands of employees, in a sense, statistical information in many ways is more relevant. Even we visited, if we went from one side of the country to the other, which I must say has some attractions in some respects and some not, in other words, you know, you are not going to visit every cinema in Australia.

PN90

MR HAMILTON: You may remember, your Honour, about the annual report.

PN91

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well I have, I wouldn't be very popular in terms of travel budget, so I don't think we'll be able to visit every cinema. So I wouldn't rule outside visits at this stage. I suppose I would be looking for information that was of a predominantly, I suppose statistical nature. I am not ruling it out but - - -

PN92

MR HAMILTON: That's all we intended to present.

PN93

MS MONTGOMERY: Excuse me, I've just had a brief discussion with my colleague who will be actually collating all of this information, your Honour, and she is of the view that we could possibly report back in two months with a view to the matter being set down for hearing in three, so two and three, say five-ish.

PN94

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So what, you'll think you have a better idea - that's probably not a bad idea, because it will give everyone a chance to have a look at how long they think this is going to run. We have no idea obviously how many days we would need. I'm not going to set it down for hearing now, if obviously if we are talking about five or six months away. There's no need to set dates down now. Because we have no idea how many days we would need for a start.

PN95

MR HAMILTON: I have no objection to that clause.

PN96

MS MONTGOMERY: Might I just say though your Honour, I believe that the person we carriage of the matter shall be discussing with the employer representatives at the timetable.

PN97

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's fine. So what the suggestion is that we actually have a report back in about two months time, to then set down some times for the matter to be dealt with, substantively, in perhaps two to three months later. Do any of the other parties have any comments or submissions to make about any of that? Does ABL indicate, your not interested?

PN98

MS MONTGOMERY: That is correct your Honour, the only thing that I wanted to just query was actually with the first part of the application. What was going to be the operative date for that?

PN99

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It would probably have to be the - - -

PN100

MS MONTGOMERY: It would be the 11th.

PN101

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It would be the Monday, I am giving people until the end of next Friday to make any comments, any concerns they've got. I would be looking, for maybe an update the following Monday.

PN102

MS MONTGOMERY: Thank you, your Honour.

PN103

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I mean I suppose I could have the orders all ready to go and then if it hits 4.51 or something and say that's the end of business and we could issue it then. But that would be next Monday, the following Monday which is the 14th. Sorry, Ms McManus, you have anything to say about the timetable?

PN104

MS McMANUS: No objections, your Honour.

PN105

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And Ms Richards?

PN106

MS RICHARDS: I have no objections, your Honour.

PN107

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, we don't have to discern the date now, we'll be in contact, my chambers will be in contact with you, just to check a date. So we'll - we'll have a report back in two months time, but obviously it would be probably worthwhile if people actually start gathering material sooner rather than later. What I don't want to do is - I mean while, obviously the applicant can take as long as they like, it's their application. If they want to take six months or a year, that's their business, but I don't want to be, well I think it's fair enough to allow the employer to prepare, totally prepare their case. What I don't want you to do is come back in two months and say and now we've got off and do a survey, that will take us six months.

PN108

MS MONTGOMERY: I can assure you your Honour, that this will be hopefully completed, before July. We are hopeful.

PN109

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will adjourn.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.53AM]