C2006/3246, Transcript of Proceedings [2006] AIRCTrans 1218 (17 November 2006)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 16052-1

COMMISSIONER FOGGO

C2006/3246

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
AND
AUSTRALIA POST
s.170LW pre-reform Act - Appl’n for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)
(C2006/3246)

MELBOURNE

10.00AM, FRIDAY, 03 NOVEMBER 2006

PN1

MR R RICHARDSON: I appear in this matter for the CEPU. Appearing with me is MR R GORMAN.

PN2

MS G ROONEY: I appear for Australia Post and with me is MR M DOYLE.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Richardson.

PN4

MR RICHARDSON: If the Commission pleases. This is really in the first instance about consultation and I’ve been reminded by the Commission at various times you can retrospectively consol, but as a result of this hearing we’d like to get some consultation back on the rails on this particular issue. Now, the question is the setting up of a video coding suite at NEU which is in Richmond. It was first raised as a result of rumours. The delegate raised it with Mr Peter Bass who just said it’s part of the Christmas arrangements. At 29 August the joint consultative committee it was briefly mentioned again - - -

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m sorry, what was that date?

PN6

MR RICHARDSON: 29 August.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN8

MR RICHARDSON: And it may be best if I’ve got a document here that’s - I'll explain this document. It’s probably back at the front. It’s a letter that was sent to Ms Doyle by Australia Post on 18 October by facsimile and behind that, if I’ve included the two copies of the DLC, the JCC where the issue of the video coding suite is described.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Page 3 and page 4, are they both from the same JCC meeting?

PN10

MR RICHARDSON: No. One is from 29 August.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Which one?

PN12

MR RICHARDSON: The first one.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN14

MR RICHARDSON: And then the second is from 13 October.

EXHIBIT #CEPU1 EXCERPT FROM JCC MEETING OF 29/08/2006
EXHIBIT #CEPU2 EXCERPT FROM JCC MEETING OF 13/10/2006
EXHIBIT #CEPU3 LETTER FROM AUSTRALIA POST TO MS DOYLE DATED 18/10/2006

PN15

MR RICHARDSON: Okay. Well, if we go to CEPU1 what it says concerning - and it’s the fourth dot point in the second paragraph under Christmas arrangements:

PN16

NEU video coding suite utilisation of any video coding desk 10 during peak periods are currently being explored.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: What’s NEU?

PN18

MS ROONEY: Commissioner, it’s the National Engineering Unit. It’s the central unit nationally for equipment.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: For equipment?

PN20

MS ROONEY: Commissioner, the NEU has traditionally been sort of a test site when we brought in, say, future post equipment, all the mail processing equipment. It’s initially taken to the NEU and they test it, the engineers test that equipment and they’re responsible for the engineering aspects of it.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: So this isn’t just a new acronym you’ve made up? This has been in place for some time?

PN22

MS ROONEY: Many years, Commissioner. They have not been in Richmond all that long, but the NEU is a long standing unit.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN24

MR RICHARDSON: Okay. So at 29 August it was being explored according to the words of the minutes. On 26 September, and this was included in the notification, we sent a letter to Mr Peter Bass asking for more specific detail:

PN25

Until we’re supplied with all the details of your proposals and in the words Commissioner Smith have been provided with a bona fide opportunity to influence the decision maker we will not agree to such a change. Can you please as a matter of urgency provide us with the full details of your proposal by the close of business of 29 September. Once we have received that material we will be in a position to meet and discuss the issue.

PN26

So we were only reminding Mr Bass of the words of the agreement and to quote Commissioner Smith that’s incorporated in the consultation clause in the agreement.

EXHIBIT #CEPU4 LETTER FROM CEPU TO PETER BASS DATED 26/09/2006

PN27

MR RICHARDSON: Now, despite that letter having been received and not being responded the second mention of the video coding suite is in CEPU2 in the paragraph under Christmas arrangements. Now, at that stage they still don’t address the issues that have been raised in CEPU4 and they indicate that a staff information bulletin is still to go out and will be issued within the next couple of weeks. So at 13 October we still haven’t got any response. It’s mentioned in the minutes and there’s also a mention that the staff information bulletin will be out in a couple of weeks.

PN28

We then come to CEPU3 and under video coding it gives a bit more detail, but surprise surprise it says in the final sentence that no issues have been raised at the local level. This might have something to do with the fact that the staff information bulletin that tells people that this is happening hasn’t yet gone out. Now, we don’t know what you would label that as, but it’s certainly not consultation in our minds. But today’s hearing is not to continue on about consultation, it’s to try and get consultation back on track. And we say there’s a legitimate reason that the people - there’s two legitimate reasons why people have got some concerns for the proposition.

PN29

Firstly the video coding jobs are jobs that are aspired to by people who work at Dandenong and we understand that whenever there is an ongoing vacancy then there are a number of applications. Now, the difficulty is as we understand the proposal at the moment is that the plan is to use 45 casual staff for video coding which includes the 10 at NEU. The second concern we’ve got as an
organisation - - -

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: What’s the concern there, that it’s casuals or that it’s the NEU or that it’s both?

PN31

MR RICHARDSON: Well, it’s the casuals generally. It’s a job that people at Dandenong aspire to and yet all of the additional chances of performing that job and getting some experience in the job is being given to casuals.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: So you’re saying these jobs are ongoing?

PN33

MR RICHARDSON: No. What we’re saying is that if you’ve got 20 people who aspire to those jobs that we’d like to work through a process that people get some opportunity to do those jobs as something that next time an ongoing job comes up in video coding they can say well I worked on the video coding Christmas 2006 as part of their job application CV if you like. So we say that’s one of the concerns that people have got about the whole arrangement about the video coding.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: So the people who want to move in to have the experience in video coding, are they full time permanent employees, are they part time permanent, are they casual employees?

PN35

MR RICHARDSON: There are people who are full time employees currently.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Permanent

PN37

MR RICHARDSON: Permanent, yes.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN39

MR RICHARDSON: The second concern that we have, and this is the broader concern, is that as Ms Rooney has told us and while we didn’t know what the acronym stood for we understand the set up of that is different than the sort of set up that you would have for a workforce in one spot for the length of their work day and we’ve got no idea of whether the amenities are appropriate to the sort of work that they’re doing or the set up, whether it meets occupational health and safety standards, if it meets general amenities standards. But all of this could have been done if when material was legitimately, or when it was legitimately as we believe it was in CEPU4, we requested the information and said when we’ve seen the information we’ll sit down and talk to you.

PN40

That’s the way that we believe it probably should have been done, but rather we’ve got this mentioned in passing, talk about it being considered and then it’s locked in without any consultation. So none of these issues have been properly addressed and all that we’re seeking out of this is that they sit down and talk to us about the issues and some of the issues that we’ve got concerns about may evaporate in the light of the information they supply, there may be new issues that emerge and certainly the question about the aspiration of requirements of the members might be met by some arrangement that’s worked out to deal with the Christmas arrangement.

PN41

So we’re happy to go into conference after you’ve heard from the employers. That’s our position, thank you.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Ms Rooney?

PN43

MS ROONEY: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I’d just like to perhaps explain a little about the video coding and why we’ve put this proposal in the Christmas arrangements of 2006 and address the consultation issue. We feel that there’s been adequate consultation. It’s been focused at the local level and particularly with the video coding staff. The model that we’re using here is a tried and true and tested model for Christmas arrangements. There are sound operational reasons why DLC wish to trial this as a proposal and see if it was feasible and I’d like to state right at the outset because although Mr Richardson hasn’t said it in his submission it’s certainly in the document that there’s some sort of fear that this is a permanent arrangement, which it’s not.

PN44

Commissioner, you might recall in your tour of the Dandenong Leisure Centre that we have the multi-line OCR, the multiple optical character readers, and as part of the processing through those machines if the machine can’t read the address the letter physically goes into a central buffer in the machine and it goes in there for 90 seconds and in that 90 seconds an image of the address is transmitted to a console and you might recall the big room there with about a hundred consoles in it and the image goes to the screen and then an operator sees the image and sometimes it might be because the letter’s upside down and they can whiz it around the right way and they can type in the address and then that correct address is transmitted back to the MOCR, put on to the letter and the letter then continues to be processed through the machine.

PN45

So that’s what video coding is. It’s a line to the processing of small and large letters. We do have large letter video coding through the new equipment, however what we’re talking about here is the small letter processing through the multi-line OCRs. With those images if video coding is too busy we can put images what we call off line so that means that the letter doesn’t say in the 90 second buffer. The 90 seconds is going to be expired because there’s too many images going to video coding so the letter then goes really out off the machine. It’s not processed. It has to be separated out. We can then video code what we call off line so it’s not in real time.

PN46

That obviously puts the bar code onto the letter, but it has to be reprocessed through the machine. So all of the letters that are coded off line need to be reprocessed through the machine. Obviously that’s not the preferred option as it creates additional rework and it obviously might put at risk our service performance. Video coding requires the operator to be an accurate touch typist. It is the designated mail officer function, however not all mail officers have the capacity to code at the required speed and accuracy. For example it can take up to 52 hours to train a mail officer to reach the initial stage and usually considerably more hours and training to be at the required speed and accuracy.

PN47

At any one time at DLC there are generally about 80 trained and competent video coders, many of whom have had past data entry experience. The approach in processing is to always be welcoming of staff who wish to try their hand at video coding, however because it does require that speed and accuracy of touch typing not all of the staff are able to reach those speeds. So there’s sort of like a limited proportion of the mail officer population who end up becoming video coders and we do commit to a considerable training period. If we move to DLC’s operational requirements on an average DLC usually codes around 350,000 small letter images and about 80,000 large letter images.

PN48

In December due to the mail mix changing and that’s because with the machinery
if the letters are typed - like, if we’re looking at commercial mail where the envelopes are generally typed the machine reads a really, really high rate of those. It’s very easy for the machine to read the address. Christmas mail we’re looking at a completely different mix of product. You’ve got obviously a high proportion of hand address envelopes and the machine has more difficulty reading them. So that means that we have a higher level of video coding intervention in processing those small letters. During December the DLC, the images processed of and on a daily basis exceed one million in small letters and last year it peaked at 1.2 million images on 20 December.

PN49

In regards to large letters the number of images remains fairly constant at around 90,000 because it’s generally, you know, people are sending cards on smaller envelopes. On an average day DLC generally has staffing of around 60 on hand to handle the video coding requirements and at Christmas that need increases to in excess of 100 video coders, however there’s a limitation on the number of desks at DLC and also the number of trained coders. Now, as a consequence of if we don’t have enough coders we have more of the images going off line. I'll just give you hopefully an understandable graph, Commissioner. That just indicates the level of off line video coding that occurred last Christmas.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: I thought you said that the - I wrote down the
1.2 million images which went through video coding on 20/12/05.

PN51

MS ROONEY: Yes, that’s right. If you look at the 20th there it will show you that 99,226 were coded off line which means they weren’t coded in real time. They wouldn’t meet that second - - -

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, off line.

PN53

MS ROONEY: Yes, this is off line.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: But the day before is far high.

PN55

MS ROONEY: That’s right, it is.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: So in fact the 20th wasn’t the highest, the 19th was?

PN57

MS ROONEY: Well, it might have been the highest. It was the highest it was the images were processed. The day before was obviously higher for off line and that could have been just due to staff shortages or whatever, problems with the machinery. The other point about the operational requirements of DLC particularly in December is that video coding is subject very much to the peak processing window which is between 6 pm and about 12 midnight when we’re putting all the originating mail through the multi OCRs and we need the most availability of coders. So in other words we can not space out the work during the day. We need to fully utilise the video coding desks between 6 pm to midnight because this is when the mail that requires the most video coding intervention is being received and processed.

PN58

Now, to the National Engineering Unit, the NEU. Because it’s the test site for new equipment the NEU does have a permanent set up of video coding desks. They have not been just set up by DLC, they are permanently there. The proposal to use those desks at the NEU was intended to help alleviate that back log of images in the peak processing window so that we have fewer letters going off line, that we do more letters, that the percentage of on line coding is increased. At this stage the intention to use that location is from the first week of December through to the 22nd. Now, as I mentioned at the commencement using another site - - -

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: 22 December?

PN60

MS ROONEY: Yes to the 22nd. It’ll be finished by the 22nd. The use of an alternative site is quite a common model in Australia Post processing in December and we like jargon, Commissioner, as you know and we call these others sites during December, we call them an annex. Why we set up an annex is because the principal facility has space constraints. We have obviously higher increased volumes so we set up an alternative site, ie. an annex, to do some aspects of the processing and more often than not those annexes are generally staffed by the casual staff. So it’s a common model. We’re doing the same thing at the parcel facility and the gateway facility where we have annexes during December and DLC is using another site as well.

PN61

So using that sort of annex model is something that’s tried and true and tested and we’ve done for a number of years. The space constraint that causes us to set up an annex for other aspects of the processing is the same reason with the video coding. The use of those 10 desks at the NEU is exactly the same principal and practice that we’ve used for other annexes. As I’ve mentioned previously the NEU wasn’t at Richmond. It’s only been at Richmond for three years. Previously the NEU was located in the lower level of what was called Melbourne City Mail Centre which is the mail centre closed in April 2003. now, when that NEU site was co-located in the same physical location as the Melbourne City Mail Centre it was not new or unusual for Melbourne City Mail Centre to use the equipment at the NEU, particularly during Christmas peak.

PN62

It was like a sort of an annex too but it was kind of located on site and we certainly did use the equipment. The concept of what we call load sharing in video coding is also not new. Again with Melbourne City Mail Centre, Melbourne City Mail Centre also had a video coding suite of I think it was about 60 desks, anyway a substantial video coding suite and on a reasonably regular basis if DLC was having trouble coding, they were having too many images or just pressure of images being coded, that work would be transmitted to MCMC and it would be coded at Melbourne City Mail Centre on line. I should have mentioned, Commissioner, that the video coding link, you can link to another site.

PN63

It doesn’t have to be within the facility. You know, technology is that quick that you could send an image from DLC to Melbourne City Mail Centre, code it and back on time all within the 90 seconds. It was just like as if it was coded at DLC. So that load sharing was a common enough practice. The staff are use to it. Another operational issue that we identified during the 2005 Christmas peak processing at DLC was the difficulty in attracting a number of people who were sufficiently trained to be able to learn coding quickly and enough people in that catchment area around DLC who had data entry experience and who could learn coding very quickly, who were already touch typists in other words.

PN64

The agency was requested to provide 25 casual staff with 12,000 plus key strokes per hour because it takes less time to train those people who can key stroke at that speed and accuracy and they weren’t able to meet that quota of 25. So part of the idea about having this separate annex at Richmond was that it gives the recruiting agency more flexibility in trying to source people from a wider pool, you know from the northern and western suburbs as well as just right out there in the south east. I would just like to add, Commissioner, that for the last three years progressively we have been utilising fewer casuals through DLC this year. The plan is to use less than last year.

PN65

We’re not trying to swamp normal work with casuals, however there will be a need for additional video coders and we will need to use casuals because there are insufficiently trained staff at DLC. Now, I’d just like to focus on the consultation. As I mentioned the consultation has been very much focused at the local level. It started actually in July. On 25 July the video coding staff were given a toolbox talk by the video coding manager and the proposal about having a Christmas annex for video coding was explained. So when the shop stewards sought a meeting with the facility manager and they were saying it was a rumour, it wasn’t a rumour. We had actually gone and talked to the staff affected about it already and they were aware that the feasibility was being tested.

PN66

Obviously to do this we needed to test whether that computer link between DLC and NEU was feasible, whether the whole proposal was feasible. It was an idea and it was put to the staff and it was a mere idea and no issues were raised by them because as I said they are use to load sharing, many of them have done it before and it was explained to the shop stewards that it was a proposal. On 5 August the video coding manager sought volunteers amongst the video coding staff at DLC for a trial to ensure that the computer link from DLC to NEU was workable and we did have sufficient staff volunteering in that trial and there was a daily news bulletin that I can give to you, Commissioner, that shows that we were talking to the staff at a much earlier date.

EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 1 VIDEO CODING DAILY OFF LINE FIGURES FOR NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005
EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 2 NEU LOAD SHARING TRIAL DOCUMENT

PN67

MS ROONEY: Commissioner, between the 5th to 9 August the feasibility of load sharing and video coding from DLC to NEU was first tested and obviously the staff were aware of it because they were involved and there were volunteers from DLC located at NEU for the trial and they were able to code on line. Obviously DLC management continued to consider the operational issues and assess the need for that flexibility of an additional video coding annex for December and during this time there were JCC meetings at DLC and at the state level where the matter continued to be discussed and I’m advised that at those JCC meetings there wasn’t just a brief mention, it was discussed and people were aware that it was a proposal being considered.

PN68

On 10 October a second trial was undertaken to test the computer link between the two sites and again DLC coders volunteered to participate by some of them being located at the NEU for the trial and coding on line. After both trials the coding staff were asked to provide their feedback to DLC management which they did and they had detailed feedback on their experience of the trial. Now, longer term I’d just like to give the assurance that the model that’s been taken by Victoria when we brought in the automated mail processing equipment was to retain video coding on site at the processing facility. There seems to be some concern from the CEPU that they consider this as the start of DLC moving off site permanently.

PN69

It is not the case. From a DLC perspective there’s no intention of permanently load sharing video coding to the NEU site. Having video coding on site at DLC means that production management has greater flexibility in using coding staff in other areas within the facility when we don’t need so many of them in the coding desks. They are mail officers and they are trained as mail officers to perform other tasks. So obviously there’s more flexibility there by having it on site. It is possible for it to be permanently off site and we do have facilities elsewhere in the national network where that’s the case because of space constraints, but it’s certainly not the plan or intention in Victoria with DLC.

PN70

Commissioner, we’d say that we have been through a considerable amount of consultation. We’ve had meetings, letters. The Christmas arrangements are always subject to discussion. The model that we use for consultation with Christmas is to start at the state level and that started in August and the Southern Operations Victoria Christmas Operating Principals 2006 were given to the CEPU in August and in those principals it does state that we’re looking at this video coding annex as a proposal. So it’s been on the table since August. It’s no secret, it’s no major change, it’s a common model that we’ve used and the staff are use to the load sharing.

PN71

At both the JCCs at the state and DLC level we have continued to talk about it amongst other issues with the Christmas arrangements. We did get a dispute notice about it in the end from the deputy shop steward at DLC, however it was after this matter was lodged in the Commission. So up to then we hadn’t had any issues being raised.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: Who was that lodged by?

PN73

MS ROONEY: It was lodged by the deputy night shift shop steward alleging lack of consultation and staff concerned about work being outsourced and he was advised that the matter had been lodged by the CEPU.

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: Who is the deputy shop steward?

PN75

MS ROONEY: His name is Bill Fogarty.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have a copy of that?

PN77

MS ROONEY: I do, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 3 DISPUTE NOTICE LODGED BY BILL FOGARTY

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right.

PN79

MS ROONEY: Well, in conclusion, Commissioner, I’d just like to reiterate that this Christmas arrangement is not intended to be permanent. As with the annexes put in place for other processing activities the NEU video coding annex will cease to be used by DLC by the end of December and a DLC facility manager gave that assurance to the CEPU on 11 September in a letter to them. So they clearly stated this is just the usual Christmas arrangement.

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: What was the date of that letter?

PN81

MS ROONEY: 11 September. I think it was included in the notification letter, but I do have one here, Commissioner.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I don’t recall seeing this. It’s not in the CEPU’s material.

PN83

MS ROONEY: Okay.

EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 4 LETTER TO CEPU DATED 11/09/2006

PN84

MS ROONEY: In the third paragraph, Commissioner, it mentions that it’s a Christmas proposal. Commissioner, we feel that we’ve continued to meet our obligations under EBA6, that the consultation has been considerable, that there’s been a lot of involvement with the video coding staff and with opportunities for them to participate and provide feedback back to management about the trial arrangements. The Christmas arrangements have been discussed at the state level and as is the usual practice the details are discussed at the local level in the JCC meetings. There’s very little difference in our Christmas arrangement plan for 06 to 05 and that’s all been shared at DLC at the JCC meetings.

PN85

There’s no impact on the DLC workforce because of this proposal. The annex has been set up during peak processing only. The casual staff will still be supervised by a DLC supervisor, however there’s no long term impact as there are no other annexes set up by other facilities. There’s no impact on the conditions of employment of DLC staff or any reduction in opportunities for those staff. Any who wish to nominate for video coding are more than welcome to do so. As far as Australia Post is concerned we have complied with all clauses of the EBA, particularly clause 3 and clause 6. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Have you heard what the parties have had to say? I’m not sure what worth there is to going into conference. What further issues need to be resolved?

PN87

MR RICHARDSON: I guess there’s still - we’ve certainly got a lot more information than we’ve had up until now as a result of today’s hearing, but there’s still the concern, and Ms Rooney has skirted around the issue a bit, the rationale for Richmond seems to be at one stage that they haven’t got a big enough pool to draw people, that they only have to train them for a lesser time.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: That was one issue raised.

PN89

MR RICHARDSON: Well, again the question of training people who’ve got some basis of skills, what sort of training are they utilising on casuals?

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, perhaps it would be useful to go into conference and sort out because on the basis of what I’ve heard there must be something in this that the union hasn’t put on record as being some reason why we’re here today. Perhaps if we go into conference and provide that opportunity to the union otherwise my intention is to issue a statement and I'll get the transcript of these proceedings and I will note the commitments that have been made by Australia Post in relation to this being an exercise which is consistent with what happens elsewhere throughout its national operations, the fact that it’s a one off, the third fact that it was an arrangement which currently operated at MCMC when they were co-located and fourthly the fact that video coding can be done off site.

PN91

There is no intention on Australia Post to outsource this. I find the dispute notification in AP to be really lacking in detail. It’s high on assertion, but lacking in detail and particularly the issue will 10 extra make any difference anyway? Well, I’d suggest at Christmas with the sort of figures that have been tabled through AUSTRALIA POST 1 that additional employees are needed. For those reasons I think there is some misinformation around. There is no reason why
Ms Rooney should stand up and lie and my previous dealings with Ms Rooney as the representative of Australia Post have shown that she has always acted with integrity.

PN92

So I’ve got no reason to expect that she is going to stand up and give commitments on Australia Post’s behalf on record in these proceedings which management will then turn around and reneg on. And so for that reason I’m going to quote particularly I think the closing couple of comments and the fact that Australia Post has no intention to use this as an outsourcing exercise so that perhaps for those people who do have some concerns and don’t believe what is being told to them so far in bulletins will perhaps feel more comfortable because it’s written down and will be a statement recognised and issued by the Commission.

PN93

However, if there are any other issues that have not been for one reason or another put on record then we will proceed in conference.

OFF THE RECORD

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #CEPU1 EXCERPT FROM JCC MEETING OF 29/08/2006 PN14
EXHIBIT #CEPU2 EXCERPT FROM JCC MEETING OF 13/10/2006 PN14
EXHIBIT #CEPU3 LETTER FROM AUSTRALIA POST TO MS DOYLE DATED 18/10/2006 PN14
EXHIBIT #CEPU4 LETTER FROM CEPU TO PETER BASS DATED 26/09/2006 PN26
EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 1 VIDEO CODING DAILY OFF LINE FIGURES FOR NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 PN66
EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 2 NEU LOAD SHARING TRIAL DOCUMENT PN66
EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 3 DISPUTE NOTICE LODGED BY BILL FOGARTY PN77
EXHIBIT #AUSTRALIA POST 4 LETTER TO CEPU DATED 11/09/2006 PN83