C2006/2925, Transcript of Proceedings [2006] AIRCTrans 1109 (29 September 2006)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 15779-1

COMMISSIONER CRIBB

C2006/2925

APPLICATION BY AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, CLERICAL AND SERVICES UNION
s.553(1) - Appl’n for variation of award (maintain min. safety net entitlements)
(C2006/2925)

MELBOURNE

10.22AM, TUESDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2006

PN1

MR J NUCIFORA: I appear for the Australian Services Union in all four matters before you today. I also have appearing with me MS J MILES, who will be assisting me.

PN2

MR P EBERHARD: From the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I appear on behalf of VECCI and also the ACT and region Chamber of Commerce and Industry in 2925, which is the Community Employment Training and Support Services Award 1999 and 2926, which is the Crisis Assistance, Supported Housing Award and solely on behalf of the ACT Chamber in 2928, which is the Social and Community Services (ACT) Award 2001.

PN3

MR M PEGG: Appearing on behalf of Job Australia and our member organisations who are respondents to the awards in the matters of the Community Employment Training Support Services Award and the Crisis Assistance Supported Housing Award.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Nucifora.

PN5

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you Commissioner. I understand these matters are being heard together. If I can maybe put the substantive submissions in the first matter and hand up the documentation for that and then we'd rely on those submissions for the subsequent matters. Commissioner, the first matter before you is an application pursuant to section 553 of the Workplace Relations Act, to vary the Community Employment Training and Support Services Award 1999 in relation to expense related allowances, in particular in this award meal and vehicle. Commissioner, as per the Commission's directions, the ASU served the employers listed in the order for substituted service. Commissioner, that was an order that you issued on 12 September and, if I may hand up confirming service, copies of a bundle of documentation which, if I may hand that up, it's documentation that includes a draft order and of course the application for the order for substituted service.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Nucifora, is that with respect to all of the matters?

PN7

MR NUCIFORA: No, that's just in relation to 2925. If it's the best way to go Commissioner, if we go through each of the documentation for each matter because there is a lot of overlap between the employers that have been notified, but they're not all the same. There are slight differences between each of the applications.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: I'd like to mark the documents you've just handed up. Did you say it had a copy of the draft order with it? Yes, it does.

PN9

MR NUCIFORA: Yes, it is a bundle of documentation and it also includes a transmissions report confirming that all the employers have been notified.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: That's fine.

EXHIBIT #A1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS

PN11

MR NUCIFORA: Sorry Commissioner, that was N1?

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: A, sorry.

PN13

MR NUCIFORA: Yes, as I mentioned earlier it contains the covering letter with reference to the matter being listed today. The employers with their fax numbers there of course, are those that were included in the order for substituted service that you issued on 12 September. It includes the application to vary the award and it also includes the draft order and, as mentioned earlier, the transmission report confirms that on the last two pages, that all the employer organisations including, we now have a changed name for ACCER, John Ryan, Brian Lucas and at this new - or at the ACCER, the new fax number in Sydney. Commissioner, the Commission must not make an order to vary an award under section 553 unless one of the provisions of section 552 is satisfied.

PN14

In our submissions, the provisions of section 552(1)(c) would be applicable in this matter in that it deals with a variation which is essential to the maintenance of a minimum safety net entitlement. Section 553(2), pursuant to that section, the Commission must take steps to ensure all parties are aware of the application as per the order for substituted service. We say that you, having issued the order for substituted service in line with past practice in this particular award, satisfies that requirement. The Commission's required to consider and be satisfied in relation to a number of matters under section 553(4) before making an order to vary the award. The application as mentioned, deals with reimbursement allowances covering meals and travelling, for instance, where employees use their own vehicle.

PN15

Commissioner, each of the allowances which is the subject of the application is a reimbursement of expenses which have been agreed to, have been incurred by an employee in the course of their work. The payment of the allowance in each case does not advantage an employee, but rather restores the employee monies necessarily expended by the employee as a direct result of their employment by the employer. An increase sought to each allowance is based on the relevant Consumer Price Index measure. Increasing the allowances by the relevant CPI does no more than maintain the allowance of a rate commensurate with the expense incurred, and we would say through the traditional objective measurement.

PN16

Commissioner, further to that Exhibit A1, there was a further communication with the employers by email and that's set out the calculation of the variation to the two - the meal and the travelling allowance. If I may tender that as an exhibit, Commissioner. Before we tender that, that is only the covering email. I do have a number of documents -the documentation that was scanned in, in the email which went to the ABS statistics and the relevant tables. In this case, as set out in the email of course, with the meal allowance there is an increase of 4.3 per cent and we indicate it's the meals out and take away foods sub-group that is commonly used, certainly for this award and is used in other awards. We give the relevant timeframe between March 2005 and then of course the June quarter of 2006.

PN17

So the difference between the two also gives you the calculation. Now that form of calculation, the way we do that, I do have that here and I can hand that up. But my friends have been through that in the past in the previous years and, of course as I say, that confirms that this is really a variation to expense related allowances. It doesn't relate to any other form of allowance such as a skill or a work based allowance. We also mention there that the last time these allowances were varied was during 2005 and the print number is there, PR959209.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: I'd like to mark it as an exhibit, Mr Nucifora.

EXHIBIT #A2 METHOD OF CALCULATION FOR PROPOSED VARIATION TO MEAL ALLOWANCE AND TRAVEL ALLOWANCE

PN19

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner, the ASU contends that the increase sought is essential to the maintenance of the allowances of the minimum safety net. I'll take you to the conditions, the five conditions set out in sub-section 553(4)(b). Firstly as per sub-section (4)(b)(i), the award as varied would not be inconsistent with the decisions of the Australian Fair Pay Commission. We say, Commissioner, that given that the Fair Pay Commission has made no decisions concerning any matters which might arise or which might impact on the subject matter of this application, and secondly the AFPC is unlikely to do so as allowances of this nature and work related allowances will remain within the powers of the AIRC, as allowable award matters.

PN20

Now, I'll refer there Commissioner, to section 513(h)(i). Clearly in that section it refers to - yes, 513 is allowable award matters and it refers to - sorry, 513(1)(h)(i), monetary allowances for expenses occurred in the course of employment, and that's clearly what we are referring to in our application. Commissioner, the ASU also submits that allowances do not feature within the AFPC powers that are set out in sections 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act. We say therefore that sub-section (4)(b)(i) would be satisfied. Under sub-section (4)(b)(ii), the award as varied would only provide minimum safety net entitlements for employees bound by the award. It's our submission, this is the case because the variations would only maintain the level of reimbursement at the level necessary to compensate an employee for the expense incurred, and clearly we are talking about employees bound by the award.

PN21

Pursuant to section(4)(b)(iii), the award as varied would not be consistent with the outcomes, if any, of award simplication and award rationalisation. Award rationalisation is required by section 535 of the Act and award simplication is required by section 547, with the provision of the establishment of principles by a Full Bench under section 548. Commissioner, it's our submission that under section 548(2)(a) and (b), the application of the principles may relate to making and varying an award in relation to allowable award matters and terms that may be included in awards about allowable award matters and, as referred to earlier, allowances - they are allowable award matters. So we say it's not inconsistent with the outcomes and we rely on the words in (4)(b)(iii), if any.

PN22

It's our submission that if any means of the legislation contemplates that the Commission will hear an application in relation to a variation under these provisions before any decisions are made in relation to simplification and award rationalisation, or in the event that there are no inconsistent outcomes. In this matter we've complied with the first situation that there are no such outcomes which would be inconsistent with the application. Commissioner, in relation to sub-section (4)(iv), provides that the making of the award would not operate as a disincentive to agreement-making at the workplace level. Commissioner, I don't have a whole lot of evidence of the number of agreements that would otherwise be underpinned by this award or would be relevant to this award. But there are certainly agreements that are out there.

PN23

We would say that there's no evidence that the variation of the award would in any way act as a disincentive to agreement-making at the workplace level. No more or less than it has in the past. Even if there were evidence of a lack of agreement-making, we would submit the level of expense related allowances and certainly the increases or the variations that we are submitting, we would say would not be expected to have an impact one way or the other as a disincentive to agreement-making at the workplace level and we're not aware in this award or indeed any of our - the numerous ASU awards has a variation or the annual variations to allowances acted as a disincentive to agreement-making at the workplace level.

PN24

The last requirement in sub-section (4)(v) is any other matters prescribed by the regulations. As I am reliably informed by our own internal units research, and I personally am not aware of any regulation the Commission otherwise needs to be satisfied with. Commissioner, I rely on the draft order emailed to your office last Thursday, as directed on the notice of listing, if I may tender that as an exhibit separately. It's already there in Exhibit A1. This draft order is identical to the one that was sent out to the employers and remains unchanged, if I may tender that as a third exhibit, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #A3 DRAFT ORDER

PN25

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner as you're aware, the draft order has been circulated and there have been a few, if any, responses apart from those that you've heard today, or you've received by email. We are seeking an operative date from today's date. It is more than 12 months since the last variation, although we don't believe there is such a requirement. We do believe that if the variation is approved, having today as the operative date is not inconsistent with past practice or certainly inconsistent with the principles as they exist. Commissioner, we are aware that the living wage case, the last reference to a living wage case before the Full Bench was adjourned on 21 December 2005 because of pending changes to the Workplace Relations Act, we now know as Work Choices.

PN26

The statement issued by the Full Bench in PR966840 referred to the future of safety net adjustments. The statement makes no reference to the statement of principles pronounced by the Commission in the safety net decision of PR002005. It is our submission that we are at liberty to make an application to vary this award having regard to the principles that remain in operation, to the extent that the legislation permits. Commissioner, the order has been prepared having regard to the 2005 safety net principles and I refer in particular to principle 5(a), as I recall, principle 5(a) being of, as I mentioned before, PR002005 the safety net adjustment of 2005. Principle 5 is adjustment of allowances and servicing and 5(a), if I may quote,

PN27

Existing allowances which constitute a reimbursement of expenses incurred may be adjusted from time to time where appropriate, to reflect relevant changes in the level of such expenses.

PN28

It is that particular principle that we say ought be considered in such an application before you and certainly in dealing with sections 552 and 553. So Commissioner, we believe we have met all of the requirements, and in particular that it's a variation essential for the maintenance of the minimum safety net entitlements under the award. I've taken you through the five criteria as per 553(4)(b). Commissioner, we understand from all of the employers we've notified and those that we've heard from, that there is no opposition to the variation before you and we seek to have that particular award - sorry, Mr Eberhard has kindly reminded me there is in the draft order an essential change. If I could refer you to it now, in terms of item - in A3, item A1 and 2, that relate to transitional provisions in Victoria, that they be removed.

PN29

We agree with Mr Eberhard's amendments to the drafting of the rest of the order. We then change items A3 and 4 to A1 and 2. Then of course we have indeed the operative date of 19 September 2006. We have sought to, in all the drafting including the order and the application, sought to follow the new format of course as a result of the legislative changes to the Act. Apart from that variation to Exhibit A3, we seek to have the substantive variation varied and approved, operative from today's date, if the Commission pleases.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Nucifora, just a question. All of the draft orders except for this one, which is Community, Employment, Training and Support Services Award, have a six month period for the order to be enforced, but this one is 12 months. Was there any - - -

PN31

MR NUCIFORA: No particular reason except that that was following the pattern of the way those awards were varied in the past. But we're happy if this is changed.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: I was just curious.

PN33

MR NUCIFORA: It was just we followed - having computers where you can try and follow - makes it easier to follow the pattern from the past.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: It's called cutting and pasting.

PN35

MR NUCIFORA: We always say what has worked in the past we should try and follow. But certainly we'd be consistent, and normally six months - if the Commission pleases.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Nucifora. Mr Eberhard.

PN37

MR EBERHARD: Commissioner, neither VECCI nor the ACT Chamber would oppose the application to vary the application, also to vary the draft order with respect to the transitional wage rates. Nor do we oppose the application that's been substantively made by the ASU with respect to both the expense related allowances on the proviso that the application - sorry, the operation of the application should commence on and from the first pay period on or after today's date, if the Commission pleases.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Eberhard. Mr Pegg.

PN39

MR PEGG: Commissioner, Jobs Australia has no objection to the application from the ASU, as amended.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Pegg. Mr Nucifora, just a question of clarification. We haven't quite finished this particular award matter but once we do, how do you wish to deal with the other ones? Do you wish to - - -

PN41

MR NUCIFORA: As there are slight differences, we'll rely on the submissions we put in the first one and we would hand up the same documentation.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: Well look, I might just finish with these submissions on this matter. The Commission has received written communication from CCI (WA) and with respect to the unions application regarding the Community, Employment, Training and Support Services Award 1999 and have asked for the following to be entered into the record on behalf of the CCI (WA) members. What they ask to be included is as follows,

PN43

Our position without prejudice after discussions with Jobs Australia, representing other respondents, is to recognise that the Commission is empowered to vary awards within the restrictions imposed by the Act, section 553 in particular. The amendments appear to be in accordance with the traditional method of varying reimbursement allowances under the safety net arrangements and the calculations given the accuracy of the relevant CPI figures appear to be accurate. Providing the union satisfies the Commission as to the requirements of the section and sub-section (4)(a) and (b) in particular, the respondents consent to the variations. In addition, with respect to this particular award, I'd like to record that QCCI does not object to the application to the draft order subject to it satisfying the Commission's regulations under section 553.

PN44

Then that's it with respect to this award. Mr Nucifora, would you like to deal with the other applications?

PN45

MR NUCIFORA: Yes, thank you Commissioner. What I seek to do is hand up all the documentation as separate, but as once. So separate exhibits and then take you through any of the changes, but otherwise rely on the submissions we put in 2925. Before I - in this matter in 2926, before the next matter before you, this is the variation to the Crisis Assistance Supported Housing Award 2002. If I may hand up three lots of exhibits as in the previous matter. The first matter I wish to tender - sorry, the first bundle of documentation dated 11 September 2006, is notification to all the employers included on the order of substituted service that you issued on 12 September, Commissioner. If I may tender that as an exhibit.

EXHIBIT #B1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTATION

PN46

MR NUCIFORA: Exhibit B1 includes, once again, a change to one of the employer representatives from the ACCER. It of course has a covering letter referring to today's listing at 10.30 am and the application and also the draft order. The draft order in this, if I can just refer you to item A3, $54 would have been great per kilometre, but it ought read 54 cents and that amendment's been made to the draft order that I sent to your Associate on Thursday last week. Commissioner, likewise we have the transmission reports to confirm that all of the employers were notified as per the requirements. I once again rely on the submissions of the earlier matter in relation to the requirements of the Act and the Commission. The second document that I wish to tender is a copy of an email, an explanatory email, dated 14 September to the employer organisations explaining how the calculations were made.

PN47

It's really only an extract from the email that went it. Well, it's the email, the attachments more thoroughly explained how the calculations were reached based on the tables, and particular for meal allowances, meal out and take away foods and the motor vehicle allowance in this case. This is unique because the percentage increase is actually 11.5 per cent. That is because this allowance hadn't been varied since March 2003 - sorry, hadn't been varied since June 2003 and the index that we rely on there goes back to March 2003. So that's why, while petrol prices have spiked, they certainly have spiked as much as that, 11.5 per cent. But it hasn't been varied since 2003 and of course we then take it through. We refer to the actual variation PR932618 to explain it. So I may tender that as an exhibit Commissioner

EXHIBIT #B2 METHOD OF CALCULATION FOR PROPOSED VARIATION TO EXPENSE RELATES ALLOWANCES OF MEAL AND MOTOR VEHICLE

PN48

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you Commissioner. Finally there is before you the draft order. That was sent through with that one amended that I referred you to in relation to of course removing the dollar sign. It's my understanding that - sorry, if I may tender that as an exhibit, that draft order with the amendment.

EXHIBIT #B3 DRAFT ORDER

PN49

MR NUCIFORA: Commissioner B3, as I mentioned before, varies only the meal allowances - sorry, meal allowance and the vehicle allowance in items A1, 2 and 3 and we're seeking an operative date from today's date and we rely on the submissions in the earlier matter. We understand that there is consent from the employers on the draft order and of course the calculation that we rely on there. As I indicated earlier, we rely on all the substantive submissions in the earlier matter and we seek to have this matter - we seek to have this variation approved, given that there is consent or there is certainly no opposition from any of the employer organisations, Commission pleases.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Eberhard.

PN51

MR EBERHARD: Thank you Commissioner. I would have thought by now
Mr Nucifora would have known that we're not allowed to use the C word in appearances before the Commission, but we would not oppose the application as sought by the ASU in this matter, nor do we oppose an operative date of the first pay period on or after today's date, Commission pleases.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Eberhard. Mr Pegg.

PN53

MR PEGG: Jobs Australia has no objection.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Pegg. Mr Nucifora.

PN55

MR NUCIFORA: Sorry, that was the end of 26?

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN57

MR NUCIFORA: If I may likewise now in matter 2927, if I may hand up similar documentation. It's a similar application to vary the Family Day Care Services Award. It says expense related allowances, really it's only the one variation and that's the meal allowance. Commissioner, the letter dated 11 September is a covering letter for the bundle of documentation that we'd like to tender as an exhibit.

EXHIBIT #C1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTATION

PN58

MR NUCIFORA: Exhibit C1 confirms that each of the employers covered in the order for substituted service issued on 12 September have been served with the application and notice of listing of today's hearing and a draft order. On the last page of that bundle, the ASU C1 - sorry, Exhibit C1 is a transmission report confirming that all of the employers involved have been notified of the application. The next exhibit is exhibit - sorry, is the email sent out to employers by way of explaining the calculation to the variation and that's dated
14 September 2006. If we may tender that as an exhibit.

EXHIBIT #C2 METHOD OF CALCULATION FOR PROPOSED VARIATION TO MEAL ALLOWANCE

PN59

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you Commissioner. Finally, we can rely on the draft order in Exhibit C1 as being - there's no change to that. So the order that was so sent through to your office last Thursday, we confirm is the same. So we rely on that, we rely on Exhibit C1 for the draft order there. We're seeking an operative date from today's date, 19 September. Once again, we rely on the substantive submissions in 2925 before you and we understand that there is no opposition from any of the employer organisations and we rely on that position to have this matter approved before you, the Commission pleases.

PN60

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Nucifora. Mr Eberhard.

PN61

MR EBERHARD: I'm not appearing in this matter.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: And neither is Mr Pegg. Fine, good thank you.
Mr Nucifora.

PN63

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you Commissioner. In the last matter before you in 2928, which is an application to vary the Social and Community Service (ACT) Award, if I may hand up by way of service, similar documentation. In fact, I've got - there is a bundle of documentation with a covering letter dated 11 September, which if we could tender that as an exhibit Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #D1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTATION

PN64

MR NUCIFORA: This is by way of confirming service. It has of course the covering letter of the notice of listing, the application, draft order and transmission report confirming that the employers were properly notified. We rely on the draft order and that it hasn't been amended. The other exhibit we should tender is a bundle of documentation with a covering letter dated Friday 15 September and this is in the earlier matter was sent out as an email and this one here was sent out as a letter. In fact what you have there is all the attachments that went along with the emails in the previous matter. So that is a - that exhibit has certainly an explanation in the covering letter, but also the source documents for how the calculation was made to, in this case, the meal allowances. If I may tender that as an exhibit.

EXHIBIT #D2 CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING CALCULATION OF MEAL ALLOWANCE

PN65

MR NUCIFORA: Thank you Commissioner. We rely on the draft order contained within D1 and there are variations to the two meal allowances in items A1 and 2, as per the explanation - explanatory letter in D2. We also have, of course, in item B the operative date of today's date and once again, in that draft order and in fact the whole application, we rely on the substantive submissions that we made in C2006/2925. We understand once again that there isn't - there is no opposition from the employers and we otherwise seek to have that application varied before you, if the Commission pleases.

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Nucifora. Mr Eberhard.

PN67

MR EBERHARD: Thank you Commissioner. On behalf of the ACT and Region Chamber of Commerce and Industry, I can advise the Commission that that Chamber would not be opposing the application here today, if the Commission pleases.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Eberhard. I need to also record that with respect to this matter, Australian Business Lawyers have recorded in writing to the Commission that there is no opposition to the variation in the terms sought made by the Australian Services Union. While we're on that subject, with respect to matter C2006/2927, which was the Family Day Care Services Award 1999, I need to record that

PN69

QCCI does not object to the application to the draft order, subject to it satisfying the Commission's regulations under section 553.

PN70

I have read straight from a letter to the Commission from QCCI. Now, the Commission has before it four applications by the Australian Municipal Administrative Clerical and Services Union to vary firstly, the Community, Employment, Training and Support Services Award 1999, that is matter C2006/2925, the Crisis Assistance Supported Housing Award 2002, which is C2006/2926, the Family Day Care Services Award 1999, which is C2006/2927 and the Social and Community Services (ACT) Award 2001, which is C2006/2928. All of these applications are pursuant to section 553(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

PN71

The purpose of each of these applications is to increase expense related allowances by movements in the Consumer Price Index in order to maintain minimum safety net entitlement. With respect to the Community, Employment, Training and Support Services Award, the variations are to increase the meal allowance and the vehicle allowance. With respect to the Crisis Assistance Supported Housing Award, the variation seeks to increase the meal allowance and the motor vehicle allowance. With respect to the Family Day Care Services Award 1999 and the Social and Community Services (ACT) Award 2001, the applications for each of those seek to increase the meal allowance. Each of these applications is not opposed by the other award parties.

PN72

In considering each of these applications, the Commission is required to be satisfied regarding a number of matters. In reaching its conclusions regarding each of these matters, the Commission has taken into account the submissions of all of the parties. Section 553(2) requires the Commission to take such steps as it thinks appropriate to ensure that each employer, employee and organisation bound by the award and any other interested parties are made aware of the application. On the basis of the notification by the union to all of the parties contained in Exhibits A1, B1, C1 and D1, I am satisfied that employers, employees and organisations bound by the award have been made aware of each of these applications.

PN73

Further, the Commission is required to be satisfied with respect to the requirements of section 553(4). With respect to section 553(4)(a), on the basis of the submissions put before the Commission this morning, the Commission is satisfied that the variation is essential to the maintenance of minimum safety net entitlements under each of these awards, as allowances are an intrinsic part of the safety net that is provided by each of the awards. In addition, each of the applications seeks to vary reimbursement allowances which do not advantage employees, but rather restore employees money which has been expended as a direct result of their employment by the employer and which have been agreed to have been incurred by the employee.

PN74

In terms of section 553(4)(b), the Commission has to be satisfied that a number of conditions have been met. The first one is sub-section (4)(b)(i), which requires that the award - that each of the awards as varied would not be inconsistent with decisions of the AFPC. On the basis of the submissions before me, I am satisfied that this requirement, with respect to each of the applications, has been met. Allowances are not included in the powers of the Australian Fair Pay Commission as set out in sections 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act. Further, monetary allowances for employment related expenses are an additional - sorry, I'll take that back, are an allowable award matter pursuant to section 513(1)(h)(i) of the Act. With respect to sub-section (4)(b)(ii), the Commission is satisfied that each of the awards as varied would provide only minimum safety net entitlements, as each of the applications seeks to maintain the reimbursement at a level which compensates an employee for the expense incurred.

PN75

Sub-section (4)(b)(iii), the Commission is satisfied that with respect to each of the applications, this condition has been met. This is on the basis that all of the allowances in each of the applications are allowable award matters and also the Commission is of the view that each of the variations would not be inconsistent with any of the outcomes in the future of the award simplification and the award rationalisation process. Sub-section (4)(b)(iv) requires that each of these variations would not act as a disincentive to agreement-making at the workplace. On the basis of the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that this condition has been met for each of the applications.

PN76

The submissions this morning have indicated that agreements have been made in workplaces in each of the areas of award coverage. There is also no evidence before the Commission that any of these variations would make any difference to the extent of agreement-making at the workplace level, as has been the case in the past and is likely to be the case again in the future. Sub-section (4)(b)(v), the Commission is satisfied that there are no other requirements prescribed by the regulations about which I must be satisfied with respect to any of the applications. Therefore, this condition has been met with respect to all of the applications. Accordingly, the Commission is satisfied that the requirements of section 553 have been met with respect to each of the four applications.

PN77

The union's four applications are therefore granted. Each of these awards will be varied in terms of the draft order that has been tendered with respect to each of the respective awards, namely Exhibit A3, B3, C1 and D1. With respect to each of the draft orders that I have just mentioned, none of those were opposed by the other award parties. The order with respect to each of these awards shall come into force from the first pay period commencing on or after today's date, which is Tuesday 19 September 2006 and each of the orders shall remain in force for a period of six months. The Commission stands adjourned.

<ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [11.08AM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #A1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS PN10
EXHIBIT #A2 METHOD OF CALCULATION FOR PROPOSED VARIATION TO MEAL ALLOWANCE AND TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PN18
EXHIBIT #A3 DRAFT ORDER PN24
EXHIBIT #B1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTATION PN45
EXHIBIT #B2 METHOD OF CALCULATION FOR PROPOSED VARIATION TO EXPENSE RELATES ALLOWANCES OF MEAL AND MOTOR VEHICLE PN47
EXHIBIT #B3 DRAFT ORDER PN48
EXHIBIT #C1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTATION PN57
EXHIBIT #C2 METHOD OF CALCULATION FOR PROPOSED VARIATION TO MEAL ALLOWANCE PN58
EXHIBIT #D1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTATION PN63
EXHIBIT #D2 CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING CALCULATION OF MEAL ALLOWANCE PN64