BP2005/1885, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 832 (4 April 2005)

1800 534 258

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 11020-1

COMMISSIONER GRAINGER

BP2005/1885

MR WARWICK BROOKES
AND
CASINO CANBERRA
s.170MI - Notice of initiation of bargaining period
(BP2005/1885)

CANBERRA

10.01AM, THURSDAY, 24 MARCH 2005

PN1

MR W BROOKES: I am representing myself and other members of the committee of the staff of Casino Canberra.

PN2

MR K CUSH: I appear on behalf of the Casino Canberra Limited and present today is MS DENAHY who is the operations manager, in the absence of the
HR manager.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Brookes, just tell me about it and tell me where you would like to get this morning?

PN4

MR BROOKES: We started off this process - the Casino's last agreement expired 14 months ago now and the casino staff are now keen to negotiate further for the new conditions and I obviously a pay rise at the time. The process that I have been involved in started late last year and we went through a process, the casino has offered a three per cent increase in pay along with a lot of changes to payment conditions and things like that. We went through that in some detail and came to a point where any offers that we were making weren't even considered by the casino. They said that that was all they had to offer, everything was ..... and on the table. So it was agreed to go to vote within the casino and that vote was overwhelmingly rejected by the staff, 87 to 22, and so the committee got together and decided that we would try and take the matter further in regards to .....

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. So that's basically it. So each party understands what each other's last position was with regard to a proposal for a new agreement, is that right?

PN6

MR BROOKES: Yes.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. Thanks, Mr Brookes. Yes, Mr Cush?

PN8

MR CUSH: I think that's right on the instructions that I have. The negotiations have now been going on, I understand, since October 2003. There was some hope that towards the end of last year there was an agreement which was about to be reached and there were some compromises made. There is a sticking point, as I understand, it's principally the three per cent increase proposed by the casino. Initially the casino had apparently indicated that increase would occur over three years, it was then agreed it would only occur over two years, but that wasn't satisfactory to the other side. I understand there have been some concessions offered- - -

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Just explain that to me, Mr Cush. When you say three per cent over three years or two years, is that three per cent a year? It's three
per cent spread over three years.

PN10

MR CUSH: Three per cent spread.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: And you say the casino is offering three per cent over two years, is that right?

PN12

MR CUSH: Yes, on certification over two - - -

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN14

MR CUSH: Yes. The casino's position is this, it has effectively traded unsatisfactorily since about 1992, when it opened, and the financial information leading to the casino has been made available to staff. It slightly went into the black in the last year or so, but only just, and the casino sees that it cannot increase its offer beyond three per cent without drastic reduction in staff numbers or changes to the operations of the casino. And I have been trying to discuss this morning with the operations manager what that in fact would mean, but it's difficult for her to indicate to me and to you what that does mean in the absence of discussion with the GM and the HR manager.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right. So that's it at this stage?

PN16

MR CUSH: Yes.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Good.

PN18

MR CUSH: There was an impasse reached, really. In respect of that, principally, is the three per cent.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thanks, Mr Cush. Mr Brookes, just let me know if your understanding is that that is right, or if there are any other issues which are really crucial in the process?

PN20

MR BROOKES: The information that has been made available and displayed at the workplace is unsourced information, we can't verify it.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN22

MR BROOKES: And we know the casino is part of a ..... organisation and I don't know, I am not an accountant and I don't know how the accounts work, but I know that sometimes it is not favourable to show huge profit in a company, you need a nice, sort of, even number whilst the company is paying back ..... and investment in capital and expenditure, and so, I don't know how these things work, but that information has been ..... and the people at the casino aren't impressed. We think we can see that there's money being spent, there has been productivity gains in the last few years, and we feel that should flow through to the staff.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. On the other hand, what is your view,
Mr Brookes, of the proposition that is really intimated by Mr Cush, that an increase greater than what is being offered, which is effectively one and a half per cent per year for two years, is likely to lead to job loss?

PN24

MR BROOKES: If the casino needed to reduce overall staffing, we don't think that it would be a problem in doing that through natural attrition. The casino has a regular turnover of staff and with natural attrition they could achieve those goals without having anyone displaced or disadvantaged.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Brookes, is there actually a draft agreement on the table?

PN26

MR BROOKES: Yes, there is.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Is that draft marked up to show what is not agreed to, if you like.

PN28

MR BROOKES: The consultative committee were quite happy to - they were looking at a number of changes the casino has made to appointment classifications and things like that, and we are quite happy to work with whatever changes they want to make to facilitate the running of the business to be more efficient for them. In exchange for that, people are wanting a fair return. It has been a long time since the last increment.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. How long since your last increment? Is that nearly two years ago, is it?

PN30

MR BROOKES: It's over two years ago since the last increment, and their initial offer, which went to vote was for three years, three per cent pay rise up front, and it was a signed three years agreement.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: Was that three per cent a year for three years?

PN32

MR BROOKES: No. It's three per cent up front, but it was a three year agreement.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: A three per cent up front, for a three year agreement. Okay. Fine.

PN34

MR BROOKES: So, which is less than a per cent a year since we last had an increment .....

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Good. So, where would you like to go to from here?

PN36

MR BROOKES: Well, the committee, we don't want to engage in industrial action, and I think we can come to a settlement to the benefit of everybody, without having to go down the road of industrial action. We believe that if the casino can only offer three per cent up front then that is fine, but they were offering an agreement over three years which is another couple of budgets, and a couple of financial years down the track, and we can't see any reason why they can't budget to plan for increments in that time as well.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I just am trying to understand. You want a three year agreement, is that right?

PN38

MR BROOKES: The agreement that went to vote was offered over three years. Obviously, if there is no more money on the table and nothing can be done, then obviously we would prefer the minimum time for that agreement so we can renegotiate as soon as possible.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: So you would prefer three per cent up front, and two years, is that what you are saying?

PN40

MR BROOKES: It would be better than three, but we would prefer to negotiate a good healthy three year agreement now so that we're not back here again in two years' time.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right. I am just going over to Mr Cush, but he is just getting a set of instructions.

PN42

MR CUSH: I am somewhat confused from what has just been said then.

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: I am not sure I am clear either, Mr Cush, it would be important for us to clarify this point.

PN44

MR CUSH: The position with the casino was that initially the agreement was drafted as a three year agreement, staff were unhappy with that, that was then changed to a two year agreement. The latest draft is a two year agreement with a three per cent upfront payment on certification.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: And the sticking point is that the casino only wants to offer three per cent over the life of that - one and half per cent over two years. Is that right?

PN46

MR CUSH: Over two years, yes. That's right. So what happens is, is there is an immediate increase of three per cent, that operates from certification to the expiration of that agreement, which is two years. The other point I should say is this - - -

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: Just be taking note of this, Mr Brookes, so that you can tell us if that is not your understanding of the situation, okay? Yes, go on, Mr Cush.

PN48

MR CUSH: Yes. The other thing is Mr Brookes referred to financial information being unsourced, that information comes out of the annual reports of the company and the information given to shareholders so it is a public, if you like, document that if Mr Brookes has a problem with understanding it, then perhaps he and the consultative committee or somebody else ought to get some financial advice about it, because it's a bit bald-faced to say, I am not trained in understanding this document and it's unsourced. The casino is not trying to mislead any of its employees in respect of its true financial position, and it has been well-known that the casino has always struggled, and I don't think that Mr Brookes or other members of the committee would seriously debate that. So it's a two year, three per cent up front on signing certification.

PN49

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that what the company is offering?

PN50

MR CUSH: Yes.

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: That is what the company is offering, a two year agreement, three per cent on certification for the life of that. Is that your understanding, Mr Brookes?

PN52

MR BROOKES: That is my understanding of an offer that has been made after the last agreement.

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: And so what are you not happy about with regard to that?

PN54

MR BROOKES: Well, the situation hasn't changed immediately for the people that I am representing. They are very unhappy with the three per cent increase and they don't think, you know, the interest rate is going up, and all the other things that they see that they are not going to - they're actually going backwards, and it's getting harder and harder to be able to make ends meet.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. So what are you seeking then?

PN56

MR BROOKES: Well, we have made counter-offers to the casino which they haven't - we had initially offered three per cent over three years, so three per cent, three per cent, three per cent, nine per cent in total, and that was just rejected out of hand, it wasn't considered. But there has been no give and take. If three per cent is what they can afford now, there is no consideration about what they can afford in their next budget and the budget after that, and that's where we would want to discuss- - -

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: No, well then, I need to understand, what is it that your counter-proposal is, beyond what the casino is saying is on the table, which is three per cent now, and that to be static for the term of two years. What is it that you are seeking?

PN58

MR BROOKES: Well, that ..... offered, you know, asked for three per cent a year for three years, and that would be our starting position.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: So you are seeking three per cent a year for three years, and rejecting three per cent now and no increase over the life of the two year agreement. Is that right?

PN60

MR BROOKES: Yes. The agreement has gone to a vote within the casino over the three per cent up front with nothing extra for the life of the agreement, it was rejected overwhelmingly and the people that speak to us are saying, It's, you know, we just need more, we need to be able to pay our mortgages and all these things. And that's where we're at. I said I would try and take the matter as far as I could, and see where we can go. And we believe the casino does have money available. We can see money being spent, we know that there have been productivity gains since the last agreement was put aside, and people, we have got extra duties that are productivity gains and we think we should be compensated for it.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. That's fine but what are you expecting me to do about it today?

PN62

MR BROOKES: Well, what can we do about it? We have sent them up to negotiate and I imagine it means we will just have to industrial action which
we - - -

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that's what you have got to contemplate if we are not able to make any progress today. Is that right?

PN64

MR BROOKES: Yes.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right. Well, what I would like to do then, is adjourn, and I would like to have a talk to Mr Brookes and then I will talk to you and your client. Thanks very much. I will now adjourn, I will rejoin Mr Brookes in a moment.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.14AM]
<RESUMED [11.24AM]

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: In the matter of Brookes and Canberra Casino, which is BP20051885, having had the opportunity of conferring with the parties I make the following recommendations, (1) that the parties confer with each other by
8 April and discuss (a) the further explanation of the casino's financial position (b) the resource implications of any wage increase over the life of any proposed agreement, and (c) any further clauses the parties wish inserted in the draft agreement, and (d) any counter-offer by the casino to the claim of the staff represented by Mr Brookes. And secondly, that the matter be listed for report back in the Commission by 30 April 2005. Those are the recommendations. I now adjourn.

<ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [11.25AM]