C2004/1848, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 888 (11 April 2005)

1800 534 258

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 11105-1

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LACY

C2004/1848

APPLICATION BY AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR, HOSPITALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS UNION
s.113 - Application to vary an Award
(C2004/1848)

MELBOURNE

10.33AM, FRIDAY, 01 APRIL 2005

Continued from 31/3/2005

PN1557

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I apologise for my lateness. The other matter went over longer than I expected it to and I thank you for your patience.
Mr Wood?

PN1558

MR WOOD: Your Honour, It comes to us to open our case. I wasn't planning to open it orally, rather simply rely upon the - - -

PN1559

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've read the submissions of the parties and I've got a pretty good idea now of what it's about, but if there's anything in particular you wanted to emphasise, then by all means do so, but I think from what I've heard so far, I've a fair idea of what your position is.

PN1560

MR WOOD: I won't overload, your Honour, with an oral gloss on what we've said in writing. I might just proceed to the evidence.

PN1561

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks.

PN1562

MR WOOD: I'll call Phillip Carey.

<PHILLIP GORDON CAREY, AFFIRMED [10.34AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WOOD

PN1563

MR WOOD: Can you give the Commission your full name?---Phillip Gordon Carey.

PN1564

And your work address?---87 Racecourse Road, North Melbourne.

PN1565

Mr Carey, are you employed by Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Chubb Security Personnel?---I am, yes.

PN1566

In what position are you so employed?---Current title is contract administration.

PN1567

In your position as contracts administration manager, have you had cause to have prepared two witness statements?---I have.

PN1568

You have those witness statements in front of you?---I do.

PN1569

I want to take you to the first of those being the 30 page witness statement. Do you have that witness statement, Mr Carey?---Yes, I do.

PN1570

Does that witness statement have nine attachments?---Nine, that's correct.

PN1571

Before coming into the witness box in the Commission here today, have you had a chance to re-read over this 30 page statement and the nine attachments?---Yes, I have.

PN1572

I understand there are a couple of minor changes that you wish to make to your witness statement. Is that correct?---That's correct, yes.

PN1573

Can I take you to paragraph 1 of the witness statement. You refer there, in the last sentence, to the fact that you report to Greg Watson, General Manager, Chubb Security Personnel Vic, Tas. I understand you wish to change the reference from Greg Watson to Steve Sullivan?---That's correct.

PN1574

If we delete Greg Watson and insert Steve Sullivan, is that sentence then correct?
---It is.

PN1575

Moving then to paragraph 9 there's a reference there to you having been advised by the client service manager Mr Angelo - I can't pronounce the second name sorry?---Agasulu.

PN1576

Agasulu?---Agasulu.

PN1577

I understand you want to delete the reference to Mr Angelo Agasulu?---No, he is still there as client service manager.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XN MR WOOD
PN1578

He is still there?---Yes.

PN1579

So you don't want to make any changes to paragraph 9?---No.

PN1580

Paragraph 37?---Yes.

PN1581

I think that might fall into the same category as paragraph 9. You don't want to make any change to that?---That's correct.

PN1582

Paragraph 74. On page 13, paragraph 74 (c)(ii) the fourth line from the bottom, there's a reference to:

PN1583

Have precisely the same powers of arrest, no more an no less.

PN1584

I understand you want to change the an to and?---That's correct.

PN1585

Paragraph 76 on the same page, in the middle of paragraph 76 there's a reference to the date upon which the Private Security Act, 2004, is to take effect and you say there that it takes effect from 1 March 2005. Do you wish to make a change to that date?---I believe it is now taking effect from 1 July.

PN1586

So, delete March and insert July?---Correct.

PN1587

In its place?---

PN1588

Just going back a couple of pages to paragraph 68 I understand that paragraph 68 refers to paragraph 112. Can you just confirm that in your mind and just take a moment Mr Carey to make sure if what I'm confirming with you is in fact correct?---Yes, yes. That's the reference to working one up, that's explained in 15 and in a later paragraph.

PN1589

Would you like to add in brackets at the end of paragraph 68 the words
(CB-refer to paragraph 112)?---Yes.

PN1590

Turn now to paragraph 122, there's a reference there to margins and the ability to pass on additional costs, the second sentence of that paragraph says:

PN1591

With profit margins of less then six per cent.

PN1592

Do you want to change then to than?---That's correct.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XN MR WOOD
PN1593

With those amendments, is this witness statement and the nine attachments true and correct?---It is.

PN1594

I tender the witness statement and the attachments.

EXHIBIT #CHUBB 13 WITNESS STATEMENT OF PHILLIP CAREY AND ATTACHMENTS WITH AMENDMENTS.

PN1595

MR WOOD: I want to come back this statement in a moment Mr Carey but I just want to formerly tender your second statement if I may. You have your second statement or your supplementary witness statement with you in the witness box?
---Yes, I do.

PN1596

I understand that, that witness statement runs to some five pages and is dated
15 March 2005?---That's correct.

PN1597

I understand there is at least one change you wish to make to that witness statement and that's at paragraph 20. You wish to change Donavan to Donovan. Is that right?---Yes it is.

PN1598

Are there any other changes that you wish to make to your supplementary witness statement?---No.

PN1599

With that one change is this supplementary witness statement true and correct?
---Yes, it is.

PN1600

I tender the supplementary witness statement.

EXHIBIT #CHUBB 14 AMENDED SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF PHILLIP CAREY

PN1601

Before my learned friend Mr Nolan cross-examines you, Mr Carey I want to ask you a couple of questions about your first witness statement, that is the one that has now been marked Chubb 13 and I want to confirm with you that there are some documents which we have in our possession which relate to that witness statement. First of all, I'd like you to look at exhibit PC7. Can you see the document that I'm holding here at the bar table Mr Carey?---Yes.

PN1602

Is that the original version or an original copy of the photocopy which appears at PC7?---Yes, it is.

PN1603

I'll hand that to you just to confirm that it is Mr Carey?---Yes.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XN MR WOOD
PN1604

I tender that document as the original full version of PC7.

PN1605

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Does Mr Nolan have a copy of that?

PN1606

MR WOOD: No, your Honour, but I'll - - -

PN1607

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He's seen it, yes.

EXHIBIT #CHUBB 15 CROWD CONTROLLERS' REGISTER

PN1608

MR WOOD: Just turn back one exhibit, Mr Carey, to exhibit PC6. Can you identify what exhibit PC6 is?---That's a photocopy of the Security Officers Standing Instruction booklet which is issued to all our security officers, or a version of it.

PN1609

If you look at the second page, it seems to be dated or at least copyrighted 1995?
---That's correct.

PN1610

Do you know which version of the standard instructions PC6 is? Does it date from 1995 or '96 or is it- - -?---It would be around the 1995 version, correct?

PN1611

There are later versions of that handbook, as I understand things?---Yes, there was another one in 2000 and I think the latest one is 2004 and we're currently undergoing a review of that document again.

PN1612

These are the actual copies of the handbook that I understand are replicated in PC6. PC6 has the 1995, 2000, 2004 copy of the standing instructions and these blue booklets, the so called blue book or blue books, are the originals from which the photocopies came. Can I hand those to you, Mr Carey, and just confirm that?---Yes, that's correct.

PN1613

Your Honour, I'd like to tender those documents. I'd probably prefer to tender them separately but I'm happy to tender them in a bundle if that's - - -

PN1614

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's probably just as convenient to mark them separately.

EXHIBIT #CHUBB 16 2000 SECURITY OFFICERS STANDING INSTRUCTION
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 17 2004 SECURITY OFFICERS STANDING INSTRUCTION
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 18 1995 SECURITY OFFICER STANDING INSTRUCTION

PN1615

MR WOOD: Mr Carey, Chubb's Security took over two other security firms which were in operation in the mid 1990s. Those were Wormald Security and MSS Guard Services Victoria. Is that right?---That's correct.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XN MR WOOD
PN1616

I'll hand you a document which has been published in 1990. It's called A Security Officer's Handbook MSS Guard Services Victoria. Can you just identify that for the benefit of the Commission?---Yes, that was a similar booklet to the Chubb one that was issued by MSS to their security officers prior to our purchase of that company.

PN1617

I tender that document.

EXHIBIT #CHUBB 19 MSS GUARD SERVICES VICTORIA SECURITY OFFICERS HANDBOOK 1990

PN1618

MR WOOD: I'll hand you a similar black book from Wormald Security which is apparently undated, Mr Carey, but I understand you have a way of identifying the approximate date of its publication which I'll ask you about in a moment. But I'll just ask you to identify the document first?---Similarly to the MSS document this was a standing officer's instruction book that was issued to the Wormalds security officers before Chubb.

PN1619

When do you think that document was published, Mr Carey?---I believe it to be around 1990 or the early '90s.

PN1620

Why do you say that?---The photograph on the front is of an employee of Chubb Security who was actually an ex-airline pilot that came and worked for us after the airline strike in 1989.

PN1621

I tender the document.

EXHIBIT #CHUBB 20 WORMALD SECURITY SECURITY OFFICERS STANDING INSTRUCTIONS

PN1622

MR WOOD: Now I want to ask you a couple of questions about your statement, Mr Carey, before my learned friend Mr Nolan, cross-examines you. I want to ask you a question about paragraph 51 of your statement. You refer there to a break down of the sites at each award level as a percentage of the total number of contracts held by Chubb Security and you give the statistics?---Yes.

PN1623

What can you say, if anything, about whether or not those figures are typical of the industry generally within Victoria?---I would say that they would be fairly representative of the industry in general.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XN MR WOOD
PN1624

Why do you say that?---Just due to, I suppose, a cross section of clients that Chubb provide services to. It's not as if we target a particular sector. We do any work that we can get as indeed other companies do and I would believe that, that would be pretty typical of the various security levels paid around the state.

PN1625

I now want to ask you a question about paragraph 69. You refer there to a range of basic gate house functions and one of the things you refer to is vehicle checking and you refer to, at the middle of paragraph 69, you say of particular sites:

PN1626

This may be by way of a manifest check against the load.

PN1627

Then in parentheses you say:

PN1628

In recent years Chubb Security has only had two sites at which the security officers were required to perform this function.

PN1629

What were those sites?---One was the Shell Oil and Lubricant Distribution Centre in Altona which I think is no longer functioning and the other one was Coca Cola Warehouse in Clayton.

PN1630

I'll now ask you a question about the paragraph 103, Mr Carey. You refer there to a distinction between detention and the power of citizen's arrest and on the previous page, that is page 18 and also on page 17, you set out extracts from the Victorian Crimes Act. You then go on to say:

PN1631

This has always been a function of security officers and I recall effecting a number of arrests myself pursuant to section 458 of Crimes Act at Nauru House, the very building we're in today, during the period 1982 to 1985 in those cases for wilful damage.

PN1632

Can you explain how that came about, Mr Carey?---As I've said with working at this site at the time, there were cameras observing the exterior of the building. At various times we had graffitists and other people causing intentional damage to the surrounds of the building. We'd observe them on the cameras and managed to sneak up on them a couple of times before they ran away. So they were detained and arrested in effect and held and handed over to the police.

PN1633

what role did the security footage that you had play in any - - -?---At that stage it wasn't recorded. The cameras merely observed them for - doing the damage and we went out and nabbed them.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XN MR WOOD
PN1634

Did you do something like this, that is exercise a citizen's power of arrest at the Fowles Auction House as well?---Yes, that's correct. That was a plain clothes operation where vehicles were inspected by prospective purchasers prior to the auctions out there. They'd had serious issues with thefts of accessories from vehicles and such like. There were about three of us working there and we'd observed - - -

PN1635

What do you mean by that, thefts from vehicles of what?---Radios, stereos, various parts of the car that were easily removable. There was one Brock Commodore that had a genuine radio, stereo in it that we observed over a period of time was slowly being loosened, nuts and bolts being taken off. We eventually caught the guy that did it and he pleaded not guilty all the way up to the steps of the gatehouse and then put his hands up.

PN1636

What period of time are we talking about there in relation to Fowles Auction House?---That would've been in 1990,1991, somewhere around there.

PN1637

Can I ask you now about paragraph 148 of your statement, Mr Carey? You take issue with what Mr Breheny says in his paragraph 16 and 17 and you say:

PN1638

There have always been duress alarms, bomb threats and evacuations for reasons other than fire alarms and since my involvement in the industry in 1982, security officers have responded in the same fashion, namely by investigating and reporting.

PN1639

Can you give the Commission examples of you or other security officers doing just that?---Yes, I can. I wasn't on duty, but officers that I know and have had discussions were here at Nauru House at the time. There was a suspicious article at a travel agency.

PN1640

When you say at the time, what time period are we talking about?---This would've been before 1985 when I was still pretty much working here full-time. There was a suspicious article discovered in front of a travel agency in Exhibition Street. The police had the area cordoned off and were doing what they do, but at the time we had the President of Nauru in residence on the top floor. So the guards that were on duty took the precaution of evacuating the President from the 51st floor down the stairs due to that threat.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XN MR WOOD
PN1641

Was there anything significant about the tenants at Nauru House in the period in which you were a security here?---There were a number of sensitive, I suppose tenants. We had Royal Dutch KLM Airlines and at that time in the early `80s they'd suffered a number of threats and extortions and bomb threats. There was the Bank of Israel also here and various others.

PN1642

Did you experience bomb threats in your position as a security officer here at Nauru House directed at either of those tenants or any other tenant within the building?---We didn't but we had very robust procedures in place regarding suspicious articles. Any unattended bags in the foyer area were immediately actioned as a suspicious article. We also found a number of suspicious packages around the premises over those years.

PN1643

What did you do with suspicious packages in those days once you'd found them?
---They were immediately reported to the police. They were isolated. The area was isolated and we called the police.

PN1644

In your view has that procedure changed in the last 20 years?---No.

PN1645

Yes. Nothing further in examination-in-chief.

PN1646

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Wood. Mr Quigley, did you want to ask any questions?

PN1647

MR QUIGLEY: No, your Honour.

PN1648

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Nolan?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NOLAN [11.00AM]

PN1649

MR NOLAN: Thank you, your Honour.

PN1650

Mr Carey, you've been present in court, haven't you, for most of the proceedings instanter?---Yes.

PN1651

Can I just ask you about some aspects of your statement? If I look at the first statement first and that is - could I take you first of all to paragraph 111 and you give some evidence there about the supervision of security officers and crowd controllers. You make the observation that in the 1990s there were fewer supervisors, particularly rooms. Instead there were senior guards who were paid a leading hand allowance. You say:

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XXN MR NOLAN
PN1652

The position of supervisor has come about as a result of client demand wanting competent and steady interface between themselves and the security officers. In addition Chubb Securities devolve responsibility to each site which empowers the site supervisors.

PN1653

When you talk about client demand, what do you understand to be the reasons for client demand having an appropriate level of supervision at the site?---The way the industry operates you will have a manager responsible for, I suppose, the direct supervision of a number of sites. So one of our client services managers might look after 15 or 20 different clients. Depending on the size of the site some clients consider that they require the site to be more closely managed. So, we will appoint a site supervisor or a site manager to provide that closer management in response to the client's wishes.

PN1654

So you'll do that in consultation with the client?---Yes.

PN1655

Will there ever be an occasion where you make an assessment yourself that a level of supervision is required that will form part of the proposal that you put to a client, for example, if you're tendering for work?---Generally, no, because if we make that assessment and factor in the costs, appropriate costs for a manager for a site that another company doesn't, then we won't be competitive. So that's why it's always done in consultation with the client because the client has to meet the costs of paying for that level of management.

PN1656

Without trespassing on areas of commercial confidentiality, can you give us some examples of the sites where you've had consultation with a client and it's led to the appointment of supervisors and local supervision?---Yes, Melbourne University, 101 Collins Street, GlaxoSmithKline out in Bayswater. Just off the top of my head there's three. How many more would you like?

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XXN MR NOLAN
PN1657

It would be the case, wouldn't it, that that requirement coming from the client as it has, it would be safe to say that reflects a recognition by the client or a concern by the client that the level of security provided ought to be provided at that level. In other words, that there should be a more enhanced security presence at their particular location?---Again I think it's desired by the clients to have the sites managed more closely, overseen more closely.

PN1658

Yes. And that would reflect, would it not, a focus on the need to have proper security at these sites and perhaps would it be the case in years gone by?---I'm not sure what you mean.

PN1659

Doesn't it reflect a keener concern and a keener appreciation of the needs of proper security at those sites than would previously have been the case?---I think to a large extent it's an increased recognition of the clients of the value of the security that they're getting. Quite often clients will see a security cost as much like an insurance cost, a necessary evil, and begrudge having to pay it. Whereas, there are a number of clients now that are recognising that good security on a site is actually an enhancement to their business and seen as an investment.

PN1660

That would be, would it not, because there's been significantly more attention paid to the requirements of proper security in recent years?---No, I don't believe so.

PN1661

You don't believe so?---No.

PN1662

So you don't think for example that the shooting at Monash had some impact upon some of your clients in terms of reviewing the level of security they had?---I'd imagine most clients would in view of circumstances like that, review their security. Yes. I know Monash did at the time.

PN1663

I'm sorry?---I know Monash reviewed their security at the time.

PN1664

Yes. Wouldn't it be the case that Chubb would be keen to point out to potential clients, factors such as that, to urge clients have another look at their security requirements with a view to enhancing the level of security and supervision of security they have?---Well, if you're going to try and protect every client against an incident such as Monash where a disturbed person has got a hand gun and I don't think that's realistic. Each side has to be assessed on the threats to their particular business and their particular location.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XXN MR NOLAN
PN1665

Yes, but it would be case, wouldn't it, that Chubb and other providers of security services would bring these sorts of incidents to the attention of potential clients. Other universities perhaps, other institutes of education say "well, look, you know we should really take these things into account. These are events that have now been brought home to us how important it is to have security"?---We actually provided the security at Monash at the time that that incident occurred and as a result of the review there was no change to the security provided by Chubb at Monash.

PN1666

But what I'm suggesting to you is that Chubb and other security companies would go to other potential users of security services and point to incidents like the Monash incident to see to it that the clients were sufficiently aware of the requirements that are placed upon them to provide adequate security. Particularly where they've got large client, students or, you know, big populations moving through their establishment?---We don't do that. No.

PN1667

You don't do that?---No. We will respond to queries from clients regarding situations like that, but we don't go and use an incident like at Monash to try and, if you like, scare clients into increasing their security. That's not a professional attitude.

PN1668

I'm not suggesting you'd scare them, but I'm suggesting that you'd, in the ordinary course of events, say to them, "Well, look, you're aware of what's happened at a place like Monash. That's generated a lot of publicity. It might be timely for you to have a think about the level of security and the extent of security you've
got."?---No we wouldn't make - we wouldn't have - - -

PN1669

You wouldn't do that- - -?--- - - -that sort of conversation with a client.

PN1670

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Not a good marketing tool you don't think?---Well, we get accused often enough of being ambulance chasers I suppose. You know, the war of Iraq was good for our business and various other things. There's no need for us to actually promote that part of the business.

PN1671

MR NOLAN: You don't have to promote it because people are sufficiently alert to these things and conscious of them. They come to you and make an inquiry?
---Pretty much. I mean, those sorts of things are very well publicised.

PN1672

What you're saying is that the reason you don't go and actively market these things is if you get sufficient approaches?---We respond to the client's requests.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XXN MR NOLAN
PN1673

But you get approaches along those lines when these things are in the news?
---Well, when something like that happens I would imagine any responsible employer would review their arrangements. Yes.

PN1674

But what I'm asking you is, in your experience has Chubb frequently received inquiries when particular events in the news have brought these sorts of things, the security issues, to people's attention?---It does happen. For instance, 9/11. Just about every business in the country seemed to want extra security at that time because it was just such an unknown situation.

PN1675

You were happy to comply?---Well, we complied as best we could. Yes.

PN1676

You didn't tell them that they were, you know, scaring themselves unnecessarily and they should forget about it?---We couldn't say that because nobody knew what the situation was.

PN1677

But you wouldn't have said that as a matter or - it's plain business anyway, would you? You would've been happy to comply if they'd made a request?---Yes.

PN1678

You're not in the business of talking your potential clients out of hiring you, are you?---That does happen. We have offered security solutions to clients where we've lost a guard service, to introduce electronics to secure a premises because that's a better security solution for the client.

PN1679

You've provided the electronic Chubbs - - -?---Electronics have. Yes.

PN1680

So you haven't lost business. In the sense you've used it as an opportunity to leverage your provision of other services?---Yes. Chubb operates as a separate division. So really, in effect, we're competing against even other divisions. So a loss of revenue in the guards division is a loss in the guards division. A gain in electronics it's a gain in electronics. Overall is - - -

PN1681

A gain to the company?---The country - the company over the country, that's fine, but we've got our own budgets to meet. So, in effect, they're competitors.

PN1682

Can we just move forward to paragraph 116. You make some observations there about the certificate III and you say that you offered an opportunity to guards to undertake certificate III training. You say, "The offer was made pursuant to the Government Traineeship Program which provided the employer with subsidies for engaging trainees." Of the guards offered, it was 700 you say completed the course successfully and I take it that they're people who, subject to the ordinary rates of attrition, are still employed by Chubb are they?---A number would be, yes, I would imagine.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XXN MR NOLAN
PN1683

You apparently got the benefit of their additional education doing the
certificate III?---We also provided a bonus to security officers to complete that training. So they received I think, it was about a $700 payment at the end of that training as well.

PN1684

Plainly then, the company regarded the acquisition of certificate III by numerous guards as being a positive thing for the company?---Yes.

PN1685

Over at paragraph 122 you make some observations about the impact of passing on costs and not being able to pass on costs?---Yes.

PN1686

You talk about the profit margins and so on. Now, the position is this isn't it, that you make observations elsewhere that Chubb pays the award, and I think the implication is if not the express concession, that in a competitive contracting industry, all of those potential recipients of work with contracts as nearly as possible, should tender on the same basis?---Yes.

PN1687

That's the suggestion, isn't it?---Well, that would be the situation we'd like to see. Yes.

PN1688

It follows, doesn't it, if there is any increase in the award that you will all still be on the same basis because the award rate is the rate, from time to time, upon which the tender and proposals are submitted?---That's right. But in that clause I was actually talking about being able to pass on any increase in the award to our existing client base.

PN1689

If there was some amelioration of that, if an award increase was phased in some way to take into account the expiry of contracts, that would be less of a difficulty in that event, would it?---Yes, absolutely.

PN1690

If we go to paragraph 132 and you say there that you've noted there's more and more contracts, particularly in the government and public sector. "There are specifications that security officers must be professional and competent and often referring to the Australian standards for guarding and patrols". You go on to say, however, "Clients have explained to you that this requirement is inserted for their own internal auditing requirements reflecting the trend of increasing accountability and audit requirements". You go on to say, "The public sector is increasingly accountable to the community for the efficiency of service, and the private sector is accountable to shareholders and owners and so on". Now, you're not suggesting by that, are you, where you say that clients have offered you this explanation that there's something that altogether cosmetic or token about that requirement?---No.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XXN MR NOLAN
PN1691

This is a requirement that, as you have observed, is more commonly a feature of these contracts?---It is. More and more contracts are building in Key Performance Indicators into the contract now, and they quite often use, the Australian Standards as a measure for those KPIs.

PN1692

They will stipulate offer, but the labour supplied by Chubb must be appropriately competent?---Yes.

PN1693

You would take that as meaning that the people were appropriately trained and had appropriate qualifications to meet the task that they are expected to perform for the client?---That's correct.

PN1694

It's part of your overall business that you see to it that people are properly and appropriately trained?---That's correct.

PN1695

You don't mean to suggest by anything in your statement that there's anything dubious or doubtful, or purely cosmetic about the training scheme which you offer your employees, do you?---That scheme is now completed, to be honest, a large driver of that, was the subsidies available to us through the training scheme results.

PN1696

That's a Certificate III exercise you've been talking about, but I'm speaking more generally now. In terms of the general training that Chubb offers or sees - ensures that employees in these areas obtain, you're not suggesting that there's anything dubious or hollow about the kind of training and standards of training that the security officers are required to receive?---Which sort of training are you talking about?

PN1697

Well, the Certificate II?---I would see the training that I consider to be the most valuable training, is the site specific training that they receive on the site to be able to work on a particular site.

PN1698

But you were aware that, more generally, the obligatory requirements, among others, oblige people to reach certain levels of training?---Basically, you've got to have a Certificate II to get a licence, yes.

PN1699

But you're not suggesting that that's insignificant or of no account, are you?---It has some value that a guard that's completed Certificate II could not then just walk onto a site and function as a security officer.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XXN MR NOLAN
PN1700

He'd have to know, wouldn't he, that particulars of the site's requirement?
---That's correct, but again the Certificate II contains classroom theory, practical experience is the best teacher. I mean managing conflict and things like that, you can role play in the classroom, it's all very nice. When you're out in the real world, you need the experience or the guidance of somebody that's been there before.

PN1701

It's better, is it not, to have some preparation for something that, than just to leave it cold?---Yes, yes.

PN1702

You wouldn't expect somebody to go and be confronted with a situation, for example, managing conflict without having some preparation by way of the Certificate II training, would you?---Not now, no.

PN1703

You've given some evidence as well in your statement about various examples of technological change that you've encountered in various locations. Is it your evidence that such technological change is you've struck in the various locations you've inspected have really made the job easier?---Yes. To a large degree, yes.

PN1704

But you're not suggesting are you, that there should be some reduction in the rate of pay for security officers because of this?---No.

PN1705

You've accepted the award at least as it's applied since 1990 as being a legitimate exercise in coming to grips with the requirements of payment and wages and conditions for security officers?---I believe it works well.

PN1706

You'd accept that from time to time, it's been appropriate to review the operation of the award?---Review the operation of the award?

PN1707

Well in various aspects, well I have in mind, say the crowd control is a classification that was introduced into the award in a series of exercises, was it not?---Yes.

PN1708

Similarly, there have been other allowances, and so on, introduced along the way?---Yes.

PN1709

So far as you're concerned, I think we've already established this, the award is really fundamental to Chubbs operations, perhaps in a way that awards or not so fundamental to other areas of industry?---Due to the nature of the security industry, yes. I would imagine it would be similar in cleaning as well.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XXN MR NOLAN
PN1710

Yes, and to the extent that you've departed from the award, you give some examples of the certified agreements that you've entered into. It would be fair to say, wouldn't it, there were really a limited number of certified agreements where there are special circumstances that allow established additional pay and benefits for security officers?---Yes.

PN1711

In other cases, there's not necessarily any increase to the basis award rate. There may be some adjustment of particular terms and conditions of employment?
---Yes.

PN1712

It would be true, as a generalisation, to say, wouldn't it, that the agreements such as they are, don't really provide for a significant level of over award payments for security officers, for example?---Some of them do, not significant, I don't suppose, but some of them end up in an over award situation. Toyota, for instance, where there's an additional allowance, dollar for 5, I think it is now.

PN1713

But they're very much the exception rather than the rule, aren't they?---Yes.

PN1714

That's because this award rate is really the fundamental bedrock for all - - ?
---That's right, you've got to be very, very careful in negotiating these sorts of agreements not to make ourselves uncompetitive.

PN1715

Uncompetitive, yes. You've given some evidence, I think, in your second statement, about the - here I have in mind what you say at paragraph 11 where you took exception to one of Mr Donovan's comments, and he stated that - he said many years ago, "the superior officer job was seen as a fill in job", and you point out that "you started well before then, and you've got to the position that you've got to now". You, of course have long since left the award behind in your various positions with Chubb, have you not?---Yes.

PN1716

You're somebody who's come up from the floor as it were, to a management position with Chubb?---Yes.

PN1717

There's nothing in the award, is there, that provides for some sort of career progression, so that people could end up a position such as yours?---Nothing in the award. The award's linked to the jobs that the guards perform.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XXN MR NOLAN
PN1718

That's right. There would be, can I suggest to you, relatively few in the management of Chubb - I might be wrong about this. Correct me if I'm wrong, who have actually worked as security guards?---You would be wrong.

PN1719

I'd be wrong?---Yes.

PN1720

I see. Are you saying there's a significant number of Chubb executives who actually worked as security guards?---In our current structure, I would say, probably 50 per cent of the managers started in the field. Steve Sullivan, who's the newly appointed general manager for the State, started as a casual guard.

PN1721

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Started as a - - -?---Started as a casual security officer.

PN1722

MR NOLAN: Was that when he was at university, was it?---No, it was when he was actually in the army, he worked casually as a security officer while he was in the army

PN1723

You're allowed to moonlight when you're in the army. We won't go there. I think you've already said a moment ago, that the positions in the award are allocated by reference to the actual work the employee does. There's no career progression simply by service within the award, is there?---No, I'm not aware of it.

PN1724

No. So that if you don't perform the duties that go along with the grade 4, you don't get paid that money, and you have no prospect unless and until you perform those duties?---That's correct.

PN1725

There may be some minor exceptions to that. I think the position. I can't now remember whether you had the people at Federation Square?---That's group 4.

PN1726

Group 4, but you'll recall there was evidence about Federation Square where a decision was made by the client that everyone was to be paid that particular level, after a settling in period, and it may be that some of those people did perform all of the duties of level 4, but that would be the exception rather than the rule in your experience, would it not?---Yes.

PN1727

Yes. That's all the cross-examination, thank you.

PN1728

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Nolan. Mr Quigley, did you have any other questions that you want to ask?

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY XXN MR NOLAN
PN1729

MR QUIGLEY: No, sorry, no, your Honour.

PN1730

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Wood, any re-examination?

PN1731

MR WOOD: Yes, your Honour, thank you.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WOOD [11.25AM]

PN1732

MR WOOD: You were asked some questions about the - if you like, the way in which Chubb goes about obtaining work and you were asked some questions about, sorry, you weren't asked questions you gave an answer that immediately after 9/11, I think you said, "almost everyone in the country wanted extra security". Has that level of demand been maintained since immediately after - - -?---No, it dropped - it dropped off very quickly once people stopped panicking.

PN1733

I just missed that last part, sorry?---It dropped off - the demand dropped off very quickly once people stopped panicking basically.

PN1734

How quickly did it take or how long did it take for people to stop panicking?---I think Coca-Cola cancelled all their additional patrols within a week.

PN1735

Comparing the level of demand now to the level of demand just prior to 9/11, what would you say?---I think it's - there are some businesses that we provide services for which have maintained a slightly higher level of security such as the airport, for obvious reasons, and the Defence Department. That's not primarily due to perhaps, 9/11, but the war, Iraq and various other things that Australia has been involved in. But generally, the general business community, if you like, there's no additional work around because of that particular incident any longer.

PN1736

You were asked some questions about the certificate II in Security Guarding, and with particular reference to the module in relation to Conflict Resolution, and you were asked a question along the lines of ,in order to deal with conflict on-site you wouldn't expect a guard to go out to site without a certificate II in Security Guarding, and your answer was "Not now". What did you mean by that?---Well, the industry has changed now, it's as I said, a certificate II was required to get a licence, or we understood it to be, despite what Inspector King said yesterday, in actual fact, a security officer needs a certificate II to get a licence. Prior to that, there was no need for a certificate II to have a security licence, so there were people that would start in the industry without that training, as I did.

PN1737

Did that impact, do you think, on their ability to provide proper services, or adequate services?---No.

PN1738

Do you think that the precondition for licencing has changed that in any way?
---No.

PN1739

Has it made it easier or more difficult to obtain guards?

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY RXN MR WOOD
PN1740

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honour, we're cross-examining this witness in re-examination for about the last 5 minutes.

PN1741

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN1742

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They were the last ones, I think the last one was.

PN1743

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think it was the nature and way in which the questions were being put to Mr Nolan.

PN1744

MR WOOD: That's what I thought. I'll re-ask the question. Has there been any impact caused by the requirement to have a certificate II in Security Guarding as a precondition for a licence upon Chubb's ability to obtain or maintain security guards?---I - I believe there has. It requires a - a fair commitment from a prospective employee in paying for the course, and committing the 2 weeks or how every long the training will end up, before they even start in the industry, and know whether or not they're suited to that industry. There's a lot of people have a - a misconception of what's involved in security work, and find that the industry and the shiftwork doesn't suit them. It doesn't suit their lifestyle and they don't continue in the industry. So, if they're not fairly sure about what they're doing I don't think they're going to even put a toe in the water and try because of the training that's required.

PN1745

You were asked some questions about career paths in relation to a career path under the award, are there career paths that Chubb offer security guards by way of training or paid training or scholarships, however defined, to do additional training to allow them to move up into the management and executive level?
---Yes, there is. We provide an in-house training course to allow site supervisors to further equip them with the skills they need for that particular function. UTC, our parent company has offered a scheme called the Chubb Scholarship Scheme, where any full-time or part-time employee of Chubb Security can do a tertiary course at an approved university on any subject, it doesn't need to be
work-related, and Chubb will fully fund that, for fees, for books, and paid time off to study as well, and that's any employee in the company.

PN1746

Have you, yourself, taken advantage of that scheme?---I have. I commenced law this year.

**** PHILLIP GORDON CAREY RXN MR WOOD
PN1747

Excuse me for one moment, your Honour.

PN1748

I just want to ask you another question about the answers you gave in relation to the questions about an increase in demand for security service post events such as, 9/11 and the Iraq war. No, actually, I won't.

PN1749

That's all in re-examination, your Honour.

PN1750

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Wood. Thank you for your evidence, Mr Carey, you're excused?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.32AM]

PN1751

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Wood?

PN1752

MR WOOD: I hope my friend Heys, is here, your Honour, he should be outside. So, I might formally call for Heys.

PN1753

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, you're just going to call the witness in?

PN1754

MR WOOD: I'll just call him, yes.

<WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS, AFFIRMED [11.34AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WOOD

PN1755

MR WOOD: Mr Heys, can you face the Commissioner and give your full name?
---William Francis Heys.

PN1756

Could you give the Commission your address too please, Mr Heys?
---(Address supplied).

PN1757

You're currently employed as an industrial relations consultant, Mr Heys?
---It's not a contract of employment, but I take project work, contracts.

PN1758

Yes. You were previously employed by the union applicant in this proceeding?
---I was.

PN1759

You've been asked to prepare a statement which describes in large part events which occurred 1989, 1990 and 1991 and since that time. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN1760

Do you have that statement in front of your, Mr Heys?---I do, yes.

PN1761

Does it run to some 24 pages and 117 paragraphs?---Yes, it does.

PN1762

It doesn't appear that you have the attachments to that statement which I might just hand to you now. Do you have those attachments, Mr Heys? There should be 28 attachments to your witness statement?---Yes, I'm just checking.

PN1763

I'll just give you a moment to check those attachments. Perhaps while Mr Heys is with that, I can just deal with one matter I think, Mr Wood or Mr Quigley noticed. I've just prepared more as an aide memoire, which I hand up to, your Honour, dealing with Mr Heys' evidence. The procedure was perhaps more formal when he might've - not just with Mr Heys' statement but with the others, engaged in a round of objections and submissions this building and so on and of course, we've tried for a very good reason to avoid that level of formality in this proceeding.

PN1764

So having that in mind and also bearing in mind what seems to be a practice in the Federal Court these days of obliging counsel to notify objections in advance and then to usually more often than not, admit statements subject to relevance, I thought it useful to deal with some of what we day about this statement in this way so that, your Honour, has the benefit of something you can take away and look at.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XN MR WOOD
PN1765

I'm not inviting your Honour to make any rulings on particular paragraphs at all, at this stage. I think the proceeding should just take its course, but this really serves to perhaps put everybody on notice the kind of submissions we'll ultimately make about the extent to which Mr Heys' evidence is relevant and whether some of it in fact ought properly be taken into account and we explained the reasons for that in a short document. Also we point out, and we do this against particular nominated paragraphs, that a lot of the latter part of the statement really is in the nature of what might be properly described as submissions.

PN1766

We'll make appropriate submissions about that at the time, but we simply raise that now to say that Mr Heys' can give such evidence as appropriate. But it shouldn't be taken by our acquiescence we're not taking the view that we've indicated the document, the relevance of some of that material and indeed we object to the fact that in some respects at least that all Mr Heys is doing in effect, is providing a second source of industrial advocacy which function has been more than adequately undertaken by Mr Wood. So, rather than have him as Mr Wood's little echo, we thought we'd rather go through the laborious process of pointing that out by reference to each individual paragraph and we'd do it in this way.

PN1767

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If we do it this way though, is that going to obviate the need for you to cross-examine on some of these aspects?

PN1768

MR NOLAN: That's right. That's the approach I'd take and I've got to live with the consequences of that decision and what I not quite asking Mr Wood to agree with that, but I thought a better and more expedient way to do it because at the end of the day we'll be making submissions about weight and relevance and so on and we haven't approached any of these witnesses' statements as though they're affidavits filed in a Federal Court proceeding, and subject to the laborious process of objections in advance and rulings on particular paragraphs and so on and I didn't propose to do it in this case either.

PN1769

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks, Mr Nolan. Mr Wood, are you content then to address those issues in final submissions, the points that Mr Nolan makes about the aspects of Mr Heys' evidence in the document.

PN1770

MR WOOD: Yes, your Honour. We rather imagine given that this document my learned friend was kind enough to give to me just before you came onto the bench this morning, we rather imagine that what will happen is that Mr Nolan in final submissions will say you shouldn't give much weight to this paragraph or this part of Mr Heys' statement. We'll say, "well, you should" and moreover the witness was or wasn't cross-examined on those paragraphs or that part of the statement and then my learned friend, Mr Nolan, will reply and say, well, we need to cross-examine because it shouldn't be given much weight anyway because it's in the nature of submissions or it's - - -

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XN MR WOOD
PN1771

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And then it's a matter for me as to whether or not I reject it or not.

PN1772

MR WOOD: It's a matter for you, your Honour. So we're content with that, but obviously we'll be making whatever points we can make in final submissions to support the material in the statement.

PN1773

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr Quigley, did you want to say anything about that?

PN1774

MR QUIGLEY: No. We agree with what my friend, Mr Wood, said your Honour.

PN1775

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Wood? Perhaps I should mark that document.

EXHIBIT #LHMU47 OBJECTION TO WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR F HEYS

PN1776

MR WOOD: Mr Heys, I think you were in the middle of looking through the attachments, 28 of them, to your statement. Have you had an opportunity to look at those whilst we had a discussion about the relevance or admissibility of your statement?---Yes, I have, your Honour.

PN1777

I understand that there are a number of amendments that you wish to make to your witness statement and I start with paragraph 43. I understand that you wish to add something at parentheses at the end of paragraph 43 because in paragraph 43 you appear to say:

PN1778

After an adjournment and a review of the position the union agreed with the employers that the appropriate relativity at level 5 was 100.9 per cent at this point in time.

PN1779

Which was early February 1991.

PN1780

The other relativities had not been agreed between the parties.

PN1781

Yet at paragraph 21 of your statement there's a reference to the agreement made some six or some months earlier whereby there was an agreement to fix the level 1 rate at 87.4 per cent?---Yes, that's correct.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XN MR WOOD
PN1782

I understand that what you wish to say at paragraph 43 is to delete the full stop after the word "parties" at the end of that paragraph and insert in parentheses the following:

PN1783

(with the exception of level 1).

PN1784

Is that right?---Yes, it is.

PN1785

Could I turn now to paragraph 58. There's a reference at paragraph 58 and references in all the paragraphs from 43 through to 58 about the way in which the relativities in the classification structure were determined. One of the things you say here is that:

PN1786

We were also guided by the decision of the Victorian Commission in relation to what was then known as the Commercial Clerks' Award. This was decision D90 to 605. Unfortunately it appears this decision has become lost as there is not a copy of it, either at the Australian Industrial Relations Commission Library or the Public Records Office, Victoria.

PN1787

Since you made that statement, is it your understanding that Ms Frenzel, formally an employee, like you, of the union has found that decision and some related decisions and have you been provided with copies of those decisions?---Yes, I have been provided with the first and second SEP adjustment and the D902605.

PN1788

Did you get in total three decisions relating to alterations to the, if I might use a colloquialism, The Clerks' Award, those are decisions dated 21 December 1990, 27 April 1990 and 26 September 1989?---Yes.

PN1789

Have you read those decisions?---Yes.

PN1790

Does the fact that you've now had the opportunity to read those decisions change your evidence or confirm your evidence or do neither?---It confirms the evidence.

PN1791

Why do you say that?---In my evidence, the final three relativities to be determined in what became levels 2, 3 and 4, were contentious, largely around the application of information technology. The Storemen and Packers decision and the Clerks decision coming out in the latter half of 1990, were significant for both sides in determining the attitudes that we took in the negotiations.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XN MR WOOD
PN1792

At paragraph 70 at the top of page 14, there's a typographical error, I understand, saying:

PN1793

The security award was varied first in Victoria.

PN1794

In the transcript, page 24:

PN1795

Mr Jones who appeared fro -

PN1796

Should that read:

PN1797

for the Contract Security Industry Employers.

PN1798

?---Yes, it should.

PN1799

At paragraph 79 you say, you talk about the testing of the classification structure of the Coles Myer Taronga Complex and you say:

PN1800

This altering the parameters of the system, was precisely the indicator of higher work value relied upon by the union in the inspections in September 1990. This was particularly the case of the Coles Myer Taronga Complex.

PN1801

Then you say:

PN1802

The notes of the inspection at page 13 revealed that.

PN1803

and there's evidently something missing. Is it sufficient that we amend paragraph 79 to delete the first word of the last sentence, that is delete "the" and insert "I refer to the" and then the sentence continues "notes of the inspection at page 13" and then full stop and delete "revealed that"?---Yes, that would communicate the meaning.

PN1804

At paragraph 94 you refer to the creation of skill based career paths and you refer to the guiding principle of the February and August 1989 national wage cases. Then you explain that the issue of training was within the contemplation of the party but I understand that you think the cross reference in the parentheses at the end of that paragraph is wrong and it should be see above at paragraph 42, not 41, and at attachment FH10, not FH9. Is that correct? Don't let me rush you in this?
---I'm just checking back to 42. Yes, it is page 42 - paragraph 42, I'm sorry, that I was - I intend to refer to.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XN MR WOOD
PN1805

What about the attachment. You were referring to attachment FH9 or FH10?
---It's FH10.

PN1806

With those amendments just made to your statement, Mr Heys, is your statement and the attachments attached to it, true and correct?---Yes.

PN1807

I tender the statement.

PN1808

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Wood, I don't take what was said in relation to paragraph 58 as an amendment. I understand the evidence really there to be "since making my statement" because he was making the - - -

PN1809

MR WOOD: Yes, that's right. I probably should have dealt with that after tendering the document, your Honour.

PN1810

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well.

EXHIBIT #CHUBB 21 THE WITNESS STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS AND ATTACHMENTS SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENTS TO PARAGRAPHS 43, 70, 79 AND 94

PN1811

MR WOOD: Your Honour, treating the evidence given in relation to paragraph 58 as in fact evidence-in-chief, that's all that I have from Mr Heys.

PN1812

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Woods. Mr Quigley, did you have anything to ask Mr Heys? Mr Nolan?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NOLAN [11.52AM]

PN1813

MR NOLAN: When you first left the Miscellaneous Workers' Union, wasn't it the case that you did work in the baking industry, in connection with the baking industry?---No, it's not correct.

PN1814

It's not, all right?---I was an employee of the LHMU and worked on baking biscuit industry awards.

PN1815

I'm asking you about the period when you first left the LHMU. I'm asking you about that period and suggesting to you that your work then, you did some work in connection with the baking industry then?---The work that I did in relation to the baking industry awards was as an employee of the LHMU.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1816

Perhaps I can ask you this then. Where you say from 1995 to 1996 you worked at the Australian Centre for Best Practice, was that the first work you did immediately upon leaving the LHMU?---Yes.

PN1817

What did you do? You say you worked as a consultant with a range of private sector and manufacturing companies. Which companies were they? If you can't remember the companies?---No.- - -

PN1818

Perhaps you could just indicate which areas or industries are there?---I was actually trying to summon up a list. The Unifoods, Nestle, Pridar, Downer Ferrari, and they were the principal projects in which I was engaged, and there were others that I had some role in.

PN1819

None of those were companies to do with the security industry, were they?---No.

PN1820

You say after that you, in January 1999, worked as an industrial officer with the Health Services Union of Australia. Perhaps I can ask you this first of all. Between 1996 and 1999, what did you do?---I basically worked as a privateer, working for a range of different companies. I had a major- - -

PN1821

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I had an image of mutinies and, sorry go on.

PN1822

MR NOLAN: We won't go to the pieces of eight, perhaps just not yet. Again you were involved in industrial relations type activities, were you, for a range of employers?---Yes.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1823

But again, not in the security industry?---Not in the security industry.

PN1824

Then, in January 1999, you got a job as an industrial officer at the Health Services Union of Australia, Number 1 branch?---Yes.

PN1825

That went through to October 2000. Once again, that was not an organisation that was concerned with the security industry, was it?---No.

PN1826

Since the year 2000, what have you been engaged in?---I had major health problems with bypass and blocked arteries in my legs and rheumatoid arthritis, and effectively I did very little for 2 years. Then I started to - as doctors manage these things, I gradually increased my workload, started some session teaching in TAFE and industrial relations, and started to pick up work again as an industrial relations consultant for a range of clients.

PN1827

Those clients did not include any security industry clients?---No, they did not.

PN1828

So it would be fair to say, would it, that since you left the union back in 1995 or thereabouts, to the time when you were approached to provide this witness statement for this case, you'd had no working relationship with - whether as an employee or otherwise - with the security industry?---No working relationship, no.

PN1829

No other relationship?---I would say that I observed security guards going about their work, as you do. Once you've been involved in an industry and have a bit of knowledge, you just notice things. I suppose my observations are based on previous experience and knowledge. Things that other people don't notice, I tend to.

PN1830

So, apart from just that kind of interest that went back to the time you were employed by the union, you didn't have any working relationship or any professional relationship with any security firms?---No.

PN1831

You didn't work as a security officer yourself?---No.

PN1832

The first time in fact you had any professional engagement to do with the security industry since you left the union was when you were approached to give evidence in this case?---Yes.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1833

When were you approached to give evidence in the case?---I think that I was first contacted in September of last year.

PN1834

Who contacted you?---The solicitor acting for James.

PN1835

Who was that?---Suzannah Moore.

PN1836

You didn't know Ms Moore before that?---Yes, I had met Ms Moore previously.

PN1837

Was that to do with activities other than security activities?---Yes.

PN1838

You were approached to give evidence, and I take it you agreed to give evidence on the basis that you were paid to provide your time and expertise to Chubb, is that right?---Yes.

PN1839

You had indicated to them that you could provide some evidence about the award negotiations that led to the State award that was made back in the early '90s to cover the security industry, is that right?---Yes.

PN1840

Throughout your statement - could I just ask you to look at paragraph 25, as an example of this. You've offered some observations upon the state of mind of the various parties involved in the negotiations or attitudes and so on. For example you say at the end of paragraph 25 the parties were also mindful that a move to a skilled, rather than a task based classification structure, would accommodate continuing technological change within the industry, do you see that?---Yes.

PN1841

Which parties are you referring to?---The employer parties, the union and the Commission.

PN1842

Which particular employer parties can you, sitting today there in the witness box, recall having discussed that specific topic in the course of those award discussions?---All of them, they're not mentioned.

PN1843

All of them? All of the employer parties involved in the discussion?---If I can perhaps be more accurate. All of the employer representatives, the wages board members, those that attended the negotiations.

PN1844

You've provided in the course of your evidence, a number of attachments that include transcripts of hearings, and various other matters before the Wages Board, and the notes of various conferences and inspections and so on, and you've pointed to those in the course of your statement. You've not been able to point to any minute or note that's recorded that observation, have you?---I think that there are references in the attachments to a skilled task based classifications.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1845

But you read through all of those attachments when you prepared the statement, didn't you?---Yes.

PN1846

You were careful to support any of the claims you made in your statement, so far as you're able to, with specific references to the transcript and decisions, and material on the record, weren't you?---Yes.

PN1847

Notwithstanding that, careful scrutiny of all those documents after all these years, you weren't able to nominate a passage of any of those documents that supports that suggestion that's contained in that sentence, were you?---I didn't do so in the preparation of this witness statement. However, there are comments that are in the transcript that go to the requirements of the '89 National Wage Case principles that classification structures be developed with a focus on skill levels rather than tasks.

PN1848

Yes?---And that was one of the bases upon which the whole exercise of the ..... rates adjustments process took place.

PN1849

Yes, but the claim that the parties were mindful that a move to this new structure would accommodate continuing technological changes in the industry, is not something that you've been able to support by reference to any of those voluminous records that you've attached, is it?---I can't answer yes or no to that unless I was to go through all of the material again looking for that specific point.

PN1850

You took the trouble didn't you with relation to all the other references and they're voluminous, aren't they, to attach documents. You didn't take the same trouble to support that proposition that you advance in paragraph 25, did you?
---Not specifically, no.

PN1851

So, is it fair to say then, that you didn't regard that particular claim of being of much significance in the scheme of things, were you prepared this statement?---I regarded it as implicit in any discussion of the implementation of the
1989 National Wage Case decision in relation to classification structures. The Commissioner's decision obliged the parties in developing classification structures to look at skill levels rather be task focused and to consider the current and future needs of industry in undertaking that task. That's one of the principles underlying the whole structural efficiency principle and so I didn't see the need to explicitly - - -

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1852

Your evidence though today, is that this was a requirement, so far as you understood back then that was implicit and understood to be implicit by you back when you were involved in the making of the award, is that right?---Yes.

PN1853

Your expectation or your understanding of the attitudes of others who participated in the negotiations is that it would have been implicit to them as well?---My memory was that it was actually expressed by the Commissioner during the conciliation phase that led to the making of the award.

PN1854

If we look at all those transcripts you think there's a chance that we might find something that approaches such a comment made by one of the Commissioners there, do you?---I refer to conciliation proceedings and there are no record of the conciliation proceedings in the materials that I've tendered.

PN1855

You are aware of the people, the employers, who were involved in this exercise back in 1989, 1990?---Yes.

PN1856

You could have presumably located at least some of those and asked them about their recollections of those negotiations if you were reminded to do so?---I could have, yes.

PN1857

You didn't take the trouble to do that, did you?---No.

PN1858

That's notwithstanding the fact that you were making a claim in your statement that says that they were mindful of particular things that were involved and you say, I take it important to what was put to the Commission?---I'm sorry I'm, I'm- - -

PN1859

You're presuming aren't you to talk for those employers who were present back in those discussions over a decade ago in what you say in paragraph 25, aren't you?
---No, I'm not presuming to speak for anybody.

PN1860

Aren't you? So your understanding then - well let's get this clear - so when you said what you said in paragraph 25, what you were really conveying there was something that you thought was implicit in the attitude of all those participating in the award discussions back then over a decade ago?---In part, yes.

PN1861

If it was in part, what about the rest of it?---The rest of it, as I said, that during the negotiations there - the future needs of the industry were very much in the minds of the negotiating parties.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1862

You're presuming to speak for the other parties who were involved in those negotiations aren't you?---No, I'm stating my clear recollection that these matters were discussed and were a major part of the negotiations. So, you know, I think that I can state that if you are actually discussing something vigorously and arguing about the impact of technological change on the work of security officers, then and into the future, that those with whom you're having those vigorous discussions are actually listening and that therefore they're mindful that it's relevant.

PN1863

I see, so notwithstanding that you've now characterized this as a major part of the discussions, looking at the records that are available to everyone today, it's not something which is touched upon so far as you were able to discover anywhere in any of the award proceedings that led to the making of the award?---It is mentioned in the submissions that I gave to the Commission in support of the relativities at level 2, 3 and 4. There is references to the Storeman and Packers decision and the Metals decision and the skill level indicators in the classifications structures that were adopted in those decisions and the - so relativities is determined.

PN1864

So if we go back to the transcript which I understand is available to us is it not, to the extent that, that was mentioned it'll be there in the transcripts?---Yes.

PN1865

To the extend that there was anything else you're trying to rely on your memory more than a decade after the events you were just speaking about at this stage?
---Yes.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1866

In those circumstances the transcript would be really the only reliable indicator of what was said back then, wouldn't it?---No. I think that my memory's quite reliable.

PN1867

You do. When you say that the parties were mindful that a move to this new structure would accommodate continuing technological change within the industry, of course, the parties could have no knowledge at all, could they, of the likely technological changes that might be encountered in the industry?---I think that we did. We knew the broad general trends and we had the guidance of others awards. There were basic, intermediate and high level keyboard skills. They'd been included as indicative tasks in metals and had been applied in the two other awards I mentioned and we sought to do the same thing in relation to the security industry.

PN1868

There, where you're taking about continuing technological change within the industry, you really had in mind these keyboard skills and developments that you'd observed in Storeman and Packers and Commercial Clerks. Is that what you're talking about there?---Yes.

PN1869

Really, that observation was limited to those developments that you observed in those two award areas?---Sorry, I don't understand.

PN1870

Well, I'm saying that when you talk about, "The classification structure accommodating continuing technological change within the industry", the specific technological change that you had in mind that you were speaking about there is the technological change that you had observed at the time which had been the subject of debate in the Storeman and Packers case, and in the Commercial Clerks case?---It was more than that. That was part of it.

PN1871

It was more than that, what was the rest of it?---The rest of it was that there had been considerable inspections in the security industry. That there had been a significant number of issues arise where the union and its members took the view that the current - that the classification at the time was insufficient. There was a classification in there that was - where there were really a vast range of skill differentials but because it was task focused, there was one rate of pay.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1872

Can we just get back to the question and that is, speaking specifically about continuing technological change, what were the continuing technological changes that you had in mind apart from the ones you've already identified. Namely, the ones that arose in the Storeman and Packers Award case and the Commercial Clerks case?---The technological change that had occurred in the security industry.

PN1873

Yes. And what, was that apart from those that were identified in the Storeman Packers and Clerks? Give us an example of something?---Yes. The then classification structure had a security guard 1A classification. The security
guard 1A was defined as somebody who was reading a computer print out or a computer screen. A recording device that terminated and you needed a computerised print out or a video display unit. That was an adequate description of some of the work performed in the industry. However, there were other sites within in the industry where, what I refer to as, "the dumb terminal", where you just read the screen, where it wasn't appropriate because the guard was interacting with the machine, using keyboard to retrieve data and enter data and to call up various reports. There were other sites where the guards actually change the settings within the system such as to create access data cards, to close off certain sections of a building, to access using those cards at certain times of the week. That they could adjust air conditioning systems and monitor air quality throughout various parts of the building. And that was manifestly a far more skilled interaction with information technology than the "dumb terminal", which was all that was in the classification structure. So, had this vast range of skill levels that was only covered by one classification, and at the time that it was unjust and had to be changed.

PN1874

Those things you've just described, that is the balance of the technological change that you refer to, over and apart from what you'd observed having occurred in the Storeman and Packers' Award and the Clerks' Award. Is that the position there?
---It wasn't the balance. I just gave examples and - of what I had observed and the complaints that were coming from members about the classification structure not adequately reflecting the skills that they were required to do their job, and that there were other examples. Those particular examples were occurring at a number of sites. It's not the balance, they're indicative of many, many sites.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1875

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is all of the things that were observed, those matters that are recorded in the transcripts or the minutes that are attached to your statement?---I want them, your Honour, recorded in the minutes of inspections of the - - -

PN1876

That's the answer. The minutes of inspection?---Yes. The minutes of the inspections and also in the responses to the testing documentation.

PN1877

Yes.

PN1878

MR NOLAN: Just to follow up on that. So if somebody is coming to it now, to get an idea of the things that you're referring to in paragraph 25, once we look at the testing questionnaires and the minutes of the inspections that happened back in 1990, is that the situation?---The inspections were chosen in order to demonstrate what I'd believed to be a very strong argument that the technological change that had occurred in the industry would continue to occur and needed to form part of the materials that the board and the parties had before them in conciliation, and ultimately arbitration, it if was necessary.

PN1879

Perhaps I can just ask you the question again. If one looks at the notices of those inspections and the questionnaire response you've appended to your statement, one is able then to gain with appreciation of the things that you refer to as the technological change, the continuing technological change in paragraph 25 of your statement?---Yes.

PN1880

So far as you were concerned, it wasn't the case was it that you took the view that the award hadn't been made back in 1990 that there was then never going to be an occasion for any revisiting of the award?---I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand the question.

PN1881

Perhaps I could ask it to you again?---No worries.

PN1882

It's not your evidence, is it, that once the award had been made back in 1990 that the award was so perfectly formed that there was never going to be an opportunity or never likely to be an opportunity for the award to be revisited in the foreseeable future?---No, that's my understanding.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1883

You would've expected as an industrial officer that from time to time there would be consultation with members and that the members would have particular views about the adequacy of the, or appropriateness or fairness of the award and that the union would endeavour to have the award improved and adjusted. That's part and parcel of industrial cut and thrust, isn't it?---Yes.

PN1884

Your acquaintance with what's happened in this award since you left the union would show you, wouldn't it, that there'd been adjustments made to it since it was made back in the days that you speak about, by the Victorian Commission?---Yes.

PN1885

There was a need to do something about the crowd controllers and bring them into the award, wasn't there?---Yes.

PN1886

They were left out entirely back in 1990, weren't they?---Yes.

PN1887

That was an important area of security that needed to be subject to award regulation, you'll agree?---Yes.

PN1888

That was an area that the union attended to in due course in a number of steps that led to the crowd controllers being included in the award, do you agree with that?
---I understand that to be the case, yes.

PN1889

Yes. To the extent that apart from the recent inspections that you undertook, perhaps I can ask you this, you've given some evidence about some recent inspections that you've undertaken in the security area, they were done, I take it, at the behest of those who engaged you to provide the statement?---I actually asked those engaged in, for that opportunity.

PN1890

You made the suggestion and they permitted you to go around and have a look at some of these locations?---Yes.

PN1891

For the purposes of making the comparisons that you've made in the statement? That's right, isn't it?---I wanted to be certain in what I was going to put into the witness statement, yes.

PN1892

Had you prepared most of the witness statement before you undertook those inspections?---I prepared a draft, yes.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1893

You prepared a draft of your statement, and then you undertook those inspections. Is that the sequence of the events?---Yes.

PN1894

By reference to this statement how much of the present statement, do we see it here, was contained or substantially contained in the draft that you prepared?---I can't be certain, but I would say that the initial draft was about a third of the size of the material that's my statement, today.

PN1895

It would be fair to say the initial draft dealt with the historical material about the making of the award back in 1990?---Substantially, yes, but not entirely.

PN1896

But at that stage, you had had no contact with the security industry in any professional capacity since you left the union back in - when was it, 1995? That's right, isn't it?---Until to my initial contact with Chubb, that's correct.

PN1897

The initial phase of your involvement entailed the preparation of a draft statement relying on the historical records that you've referred to, and your memory of events that went back over a decade, is that a fair assessment?---No. My first approach was to read the materials associated with this case, and the witness statements and I was asked to give a view. Then, so - I actually looked at the materials before I began to even draft - even on the back of an envelope-type draft of the witness statement.

PN1898

Between the time when you left the Miscellaneous Workers Union back in 1995, and when you were approached by Ms Moore to provide this statement, had you endeavoured to obtain work as a consultant with any security firm?---No.

PN1899

Would it be fair to say then that notwithstanding that you were out on your own trying to get work as an expert consultant, you had no interest at all throughout the whole of that period in providing your expertise to any security industry employer?---Yes, that's correct.

PN1900

As you've said yourself in your statement here, you were intimately involved with the making of the 1990 award, weren't you?---Yes.

PN1901

You were the main union person involved in obtaining that award?---Yes.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1902

It's fair to observe, is it, that having done that and left the union, you had not the slightest interest in pursuing or using that expertise in the security industry until you were approached to provide this statement?---Yes.

PN1903

Was there any particular reason for that?---Yes, I put it down to two reasons. Namely, asked, and secondly, I was - generally the work that I undertook I've learned a lot and considerably broadened my experience and broadened my skills, and I have learnt a lot in the past 10 years.

PN1904

It never occurred to you in that time to try to use the experience that you'd gained in the security industry, or the security award, in that area to be engaged as a consultant, or some sort of expert adviser?---No, it hadn't.

PN1905

It's true to say, isn't it, that you when you left the Miscellaneous Workers Union you left in circumstances that were quite acrimonious?---Yes.

PN1906

No doubt you were still personally hurt by the circumstances that led to you leaving the union?---Not really, no.

PN1907

You're not? But the circumstances at the time you agree were quite acrimonious?
---Yes.

PN1908

Wasn't it the case that when you got this request to provide this statement, that it really provided you with an opportunity to pay the union back for the circumstances that led to you leaving the union as an employee of an officer, back in 1994?---No.

PN1909

It didn't?---No.

PN1910

It didn't factor in your thinking at all?---No. My response was wry amusement, actually, you know, it's ironic that it didn't have any consideration one way or the other.

PN1911

It didn't have any consideration one way or the other?---Yes.

PN1912

You're saying that by that stage you were approached to provide the statement you'd gotten over the acrimony that surrounded your exit from the union?---Yes. But, it was in the past, I've accepted it, it - yes.

PN1913

But you appreciated, didn't you, that you were called in a) to provide a statement of support to Chubb, in its opposition to the union's application?---Yes.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1914

You appreciated that if your statement was treated sufficiently seriously with sufficient gravity by the Commission it would have the effect of damaging the union's case, didn't you?---I knew what I was being asked to do, yes.

PN1915

Did you understand what you were being asked to do was provide something that would assist in damaging the union's case?---Yes.

PN1916

Appreciating that, you were happy to provide the statement?---Yes.

PN1917

In that connection you were happy to attribute to others, for example, the employers who you dealt with back in 1990, the particular views that you've sought to represent in your statement as being held by all the participants in the discussions?---I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?

PN1918

Well, I'm suggesting to you in that connection at various points in the statement you purport to speak for everybody who was involved in the negotiations, don't you?---No, I don't purport to speak for them. I make an observation that the impact of technological change was very much a part of the discussions and the negotiations and that if you're actually talking to somebody about some issues you can assume that they're mindful of what you're talking about.

PN1919

So those observations that you made about that, are made on the basis of assumptions that you made at the time and since, about the state of mind that others had?---You could call them assumptions, but I think society would fall apart if you couldn't assume that if you're actually discussing particular points at issue between people that the other side weren't actually listening and thinking and responding, that they weren't mindful of what they were doing.

PN1920

Well, isn't the only sure guide of the extent to which they were mindful or responsive to something that's raised, is if they actually said something of if something was recorded in the proceedings before the Commission?---It would be one indicator, yes.

PN1921

It would be a pretty important indicator, wouldn't it?---Yes.

PN1922

As an experienced industrial officer you'd know that if one was going to rely on a particular concession that was made in the course of negotiations, it would be absolutely vital to have that concession recorded?---Not necessarily, no.

PN1923

Not necessarily. So you'd be indifferent to recording something when you knew that long periods of time could elapse perhaps and that it could be said to you much later on that a particular thing was agreed or not agreed to?---You always look to have the outcome, the agreement, accurately recorded.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1924

That's right?---And that was the award classification structure that emerged from negotiations and was incorporated into the award. Technology and the skill levels associated with the use of technology were on the face of it determinative, at levels 2, 3 and 4 of the classification structure. So the result was there.

PN1925

But nonetheless you would agree with me that if there was something that was relied upon in an award settlement that was a significant factor, the prudent course would be to make sure that that was recorded somewhere so that years later down the track, the parties had a sure guide to what was and what wasn't agreed to at the time?---Yes.

PN1926

It would be expected that any industrial officer who was careful about attending to such matters would be more inclined to have a matter recorded than just left to the parties recollections. That would be the case, wouldn't it?---Yes.

PN1927

Can I ask you to just look to your statement and to turn over to page 17. Now you make some comments on some portions of the evidence here. Look at paragraph 84 for example. You're speaking here about the National Gallery:

PN1928

Whether or not it's the state of the art technology and the latest of what's available I'm unable to say, but what I can say is that the National Gallery of Victoria presumably developed detailed specifications for the security and environmental systems installed in these new premises and the systems they chose involved work as within the skill levels outlined in level 4 of the current classification structure.

PN1929

Did you have any discussions at all with any of the management at the National Gallery of Victoria?---No.

PN1930

So, to the extent that you've made any observations about the National Gallery, those observations are purely on the basis of your scrutiny of the witness statements and not on the basis of any discussion you had with anyone else. Is that right?---My scrutiny of the witness statements, my knowledge of what I had seen in the security industry in relation to - I think those paragraphs relate to what I mentioned before about the assignment and activation of access cards. Basically, I'd seen that in 1990 and in 1991 and the witness statement that I'm referring to.

PN1931

Well, perhaps I've misunderstood some part of your statement here, but did you yourself undertake an inspection of the National Gallery of Victoria?---No.

PN1932

So, what you commented on was the witness statements and the people who spoke about the National Gallery of Victoria?---Yes.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1933

You, yourself have not seen the control room of the National Gallery of Victoria?
---No. I'm relying on my reading of the witness statements.

PN1934

Witness statements, all right. Well, at those other locations which of them did you actually attend and look at in connection with this exercise?---If I can answer in this way, the only inspection that I undertook in relation to the - in 2004, 2005 was the ANZ control room.

PN1935

Can I ask you to look over to page 18 and look at the part of your statement that commences at paragraph 87?---Mm.

PN1936

Paragraphs 87, 88, 89 and 90 for example, apart from the quotation from one passage from Ms Frenzel's witness statement, can I suggest to you, they really amount to nothing more than the sort of submissions that you'd make if you were an industrial advocate, making submissions, rather than somebody sitting in the witness box in a proceeding like this. Would you agree with that?

PN1937

MR WOOD: Your Honour, I think I should object to that. We're either going to ask this witness to make submissions on whether or not his evidence is submissions or not.

PN1938

MR NOLAN: I know. It is a very fair question.

PN1939

MR WOOD: Oh, really. I make that formal objection.

PN1940

MR NOLAN: He's probably inclined to make submissions about it. I'm just asking to give an answer.

PN1941

Well, can I invite your reaction to my contention that all of those things are really about submissions, aren't they.

PN1942

MR WOOD: I make the same objection, your Honour.

PN1943

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What's the basis of the objection?

PN1944

MR WOOD: From the submissions, in which case you'll give them such weight as submissions deserve, your Honour, or their evidence, in which case you'll give them such weight that evidence deserves. This witness' opinion on whether they are evidence or submissions, is not going to assist you in your attempt to characterise them as either evidence or submissions.

**** WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS XXN MR NOLAN
PN1945

MR NOLAN: That might be true as far as it goes, but there's some method in my madness and I'd ask the Commission to indulge me and invite Mr Heys to answer the question, to respond to this.

PN1946

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can't you approach it in a different way.

PN1947

MR NOLAN: If I could approach it this way, I suppose. Let me cut to the chase then, Mr Heys, those paragraphs are really an example of this. You're really not giving expert evidence about the security industry in much of the statement. You're really advocating a case against the union's claim, aren't you?

PN1948

MR WOOD: I make the same objection, your Honour.

PN1949

MR NOLAN: I think I should give him an opportunity to respond to that suggestion.

PN1950

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll allow the question. I'll give the answer such weight as it may do.

PN1951

What do you say, Mr Heys?---My response would be to characterise it as an opinion.

PN1952

You say the current wage fixing principles, "In my view" suggest that it's an expression of your own opinion, is that the case?---Yes.

PN1953

MR NOLAN: I'll make appropriate submissions at the time. There's no further cross-examination.

PN1954

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you Mr Nolan. Mr Quigley, do you want to ask any questions?

PN1955

MR QUIGLEY: No, your Honour.

PN1956

MR WOOD: No re-examination, your Honour.

PN1957

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you Mr Wood. Thank you for your evidence Mr Heys. You're excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.48PM]

PN1958

MR NOLAN: That's where we're at in terms of witnesses for this part of the hearing. I indicated to your Honour yesterday, and I'll; do so again. What we would like to do, and what we hope we'll be able to do, is to consider those of the other employer witnesses that we need for cross-examination and let Mr Woods and yourself and Mr Quigley know about that as soon as we can. I'm hoping by mid next week. On the assumption that we won't be requiring many, and I think that assumption's probably a fairly safe one, what I have in mind, subject to yourself of course, and Mr Woods and Mr Quigley, is that we could, if required use the early part of that first week that we've got set down to deal with any witnesses that remained to be cross-examined. I wouldn't imagine we'd need much time at all, but then use the second week to deal with submissions.

PN1959

I'd like to be in a position to - and we could perhaps have some exchanges about this, but provide some further written submissions that we can speak to, in that connection, and do that either during that week or before that first week in May, so that we'll be in a position to speak to them in the second week. That may mean that it might be preferable to maybe start on the Wednesday of the second week rather than the Monday, so the people have an opportunity to read submissions and prepare responses and so on. That's certainly our thinking at the moment, and I'd like to think that if that all comes to fruition, that will assist you, sir, to organise, no doubt, any other pressing commitments that bear down upon you.

PN1960

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What you're proposing then is, that if you don't use the whole of that first week for witnesses, the remainder of the week be vacated and resume on the Wednesday?

PN1961

MR NOLAN: The next week we could have Mr Woods and I'm sure we could speak about what we think we probably need in terms of the oral submissions.
Mr Quigley, of course, we can work out sensibly how much time we'd need for that, and then we'd work from there.

PN1962

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks Mr Nolan, what do you say,
Mr Wood.

PN1963

MR WOOD: Your Honour, we've been able to work out everything between ourselves, and subject to your convenience, in a way that's enabled things to run reasonably smoothly. I've got no reason to think we won't work this out.

PN1964

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Quigley?

PN1965

MR QUIGLEY: Yes, your Honour. The only concern we have is that if the other witnesses are resumed, that they're not ..... the week before.

PN1966

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Nolan, you will notify - or we'll discuss it with the parties. The parties, or the conduct of the parties representatives in this case has been commendable, and I do agree that everything so far has been able to be worked out between the parties. I see no reason who we shouldn't continue in that vain. All right then, we'll adjourn.

<ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [12.51PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

PHILLIP GORDON CAREY, AFFIRMED PN1562
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WOOD PN1562
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 13 WITNESS STATEMENT OF PHILLIP CAREY AND ATTACHMENTS WITH AMENDMENTS. PN1594
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 14 AMENDED SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF PHILLIP CAREY PN1600
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 15 CROWD CONTROLLERS' REGISTER PN1607
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 16 2000 SECURITY OFFICERS STANDING INSTRUCTION PN1614
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 17 2004 SECURITY OFFICERS STANDING INSTRUCTION PN1614
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 18 1995 SECURITY OFFICER STANDING INSTRUCTION PN1614
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 19 MSS GUARD SERVICES VICTORIA SECURITY OFFICERS HANDBOOK 1990 PN1617
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 20 WORMALD SECURITY SECURITY OFFICERS STANDING INSTRUCTIONS PN1621
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NOLAN PN1648
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WOOD PN1731
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1750
WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS, AFFIRMED PN1754
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR WOOD PN1754
EXHIBIT #LHMU47 OBJECTION TO WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR F HEYS PN1775
EXHIBIT #CHUBB 21 THE WITNESS STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FRANCIS HEYS AND ATTACHMENTS SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENTS TO PARAGRAPHS 43, 70, 79 AND 94 PN1810
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NOLAN PN1812
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1957