C2005/6175, Transcript of Proceedings [2006] AIRCTrans 250 (27 February 2006)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 14192-1

COMMISSIONER HARRISON

C2005/6175

THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION
AND
ACQUIRED AWARENESS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PTY LTD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD TRAFFIC SERVICES AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ABLE SECURE TRAFFIC SERVICES PTY LTD
s.99 - Notification of an industrial dispute - Log of claims
(C2005/6175)

SYDNEY

9.33AM, FRIDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2006

PN1

MR G BEARD: I appear on behalf of the Australian Workers' Union.

PN2

MR S SHERMAN: From K P O'Donnell & Associates, Commissioner, appearing today on behalf of Able Secure Traffic Services Pty Ltd.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Sherman. Mr Beard?

PN4

MR BEARD: Thank you, Commissioner. First of all I can advise you that the parties that are subject to today's matter were advised of today's hearing through correspondence forwarded by the union on 3 January this year. A statement of service has been prepared for your file and attached to that statement is the receipt for registered post as proof of proper service. I will hand that document to you.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes.

PN6

MR BEARD: The brief details of the dispute, Commissioner, are that on 5 December 2005 the Australian Workers' Union served letters of demand, logs of claims and also included a copy of form R5 on certain employers who the union alleges have employees engaged in the construction and maintenance industry. The log of claims was a full and comprehensive document specifying certain allowances, wage rates and working conditions for those employers to apply to those employees.

PN7

The union asked for our response within seven days and as no positive response was received from any of those parties a formal notification of dispute was filed in the Sydney registry on 12 December 2005. Since the filing of that document, Commissioner, the union has in fact received correspondence from the party Evolution and I understand that that document was forwarded through to your office also on 7 February.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't seem to have that. I was looking at the file earlier just to ascertain whether any - whether there had been any responses. Do you have a spare copy?

PN9

MR BEARD: I don't as a matter of fact but I am quite happy to hand it to you.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you. I will just borrow it for a moment.

PN11

MR BEARD: Because of - as I say it was forwarded to your attention. I thought you would have received it.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you, Mr Beard. Yes I would like it back too.

PN13

MR BEARD: I will provide a copy of that document.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay thank you, Mr Beard.

PN15

MR BEARD: For you following the hearing, Commissioner because in essence the company is asking that the matter be relisted in Brisbane so that the company can in fact make submissions in regards to certain matters. The four matters that they relate to the union believes could have been done through correspondence. As I said the union advised the parties of this matter on 3 January and the matters that the company seeks to put forward in a hearing in Brisbane could have in fact, as I say, been in writing and could have been submitted for a formal determination today rather than further delaying this particular matter.

PN16

The matters that they seek to raise with you in Brisbane relate to the log of claims contained not matters pertaining and not industrial matters. We believe that that particular matter again could have been specified in writing and we also believe that the decisions of the Commission in regards to matters listed in the log of claims don't necessarily mean that the log of claims should be struck out and we believe that the log of claims that has been served in this matter is identical to the usual AWU log.

PN17

In fact a log that you have previously found to be sufficient in regards to a dispute finding. That the matters that - they would be looking to (9.38.56) it is not entertaining or not industrial don't exist. The company states that traffic control is not engaged in any of the callings covered by the rules of the AWU. Again that is an assertion from the company that we believe is incorrect. They do state that they are engaged in traffic control. There is no doubt. The Federal rules of the Australian Workers' Union allow the union to cover persons who are engaged in traffic control.

PN18

The third point that they raise is that the Commission should exercise its powers under section 111(1)(g). Well again, that particular section will relate to a position once a dispute had been found rather than to prior dispute finding and then the last matter that they raise is that the Commission must cease dealing with the dispute under section 111AAA of the Act. Now again 111AAA of the Act requires a formal application in writing in accordance with rule 21 of the rules and regulations of the Commission. Again the company has had the opportunity to do that but has not done so.

PN19

We believe that the matters put forward by the company for an adjournment and for a relisting of the matter in Brisbane are not sufficient for the Commission to take that into account and on that basis the union would be seeking to have Evolution Traffic Control be found in dispute today along with the other parties that were served with the log of claims. The dispute that was filed with the Commission on 12 December, Commissioner, just for the record I will relate that the schedule A, the list of employers is in fact the receipt for registered post in regard to the service of the letters of demand, logs of claims and form R5.

PN20

You will note that at schedule B there is a copy of the letter of demand and log of claims which as I said is the general log of claims that the union serves in these matters and previously has been found to be quite sufficient for the purposes of a dispute finding. The schedule C is a statement by myself in regard to the proper service of the letters of demand and logs of claims and schedule D is a statement by Mr Bill Shorten, the secretary of the union stating that the logs of claims was served in accordance with the unions rules.

PN21

Commissioner, you will note from the service list the parties are not confined to one state of Australia. That at this stage no employer has agreed to apply the demands and the log of claims and therefore we ask that you find and record the existence of an interstate industrial dispute in accordance with section 101 of the Act and direct the parties to confer. If it please the Commission.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Beard. Mr Sherman?

PN23

MR SHERMAN: Yes thank you Commissioner. Commissioner, on behalf of the company I represent we have no objection to a finding of dispute in this matter although we do reserve our right to object if the company is to be named in any roping-in award, Commissioner.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Thank you. Mr Beard, do you - is it your intention at this stage to seek to have Evolution Traffic Control covered by an award of the Commission? Bound by an award of the Commission?

PN25

MR BEARD: That's correct Commissioner. What we are seeking today obviously is the first stage of a two stage process where a dispute would be found.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN27

MR BEARD: The usual practise for me then is to write a letter to all of the parties found in dispute outlining the pursuit of the union and obviously the pursuit is to have them bound to the Australian Workers' Union Construction and Maintenance Award 2002.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. This is a matter pursuant to section 99 of the Act, of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, application by the Australian Workers' Union regarding a log of claims. I note in correspondence from Evolution Traffic Control Pty Ltd stating their objection to being found to be in dispute with the AWU. I also note the submissions of Mr Beard in today's proceedings that the steps requested by Evolution Traffic Control Pty Ltd are either not formally put before the Commission or they are premature in respect of these proceedings. I therefore find Evolution Traffic Control Pty Ltd to be in dispute together with the other companies served by the union.

PN29

In the formal sense the Commission finds and records that pursuant to section 101 of the Act a dispute exists between the Australian Workers' Union, Able Secure Traffic Services Pty Ltd of 1 Paradise Avenue, Miami, Queensland, Acquired Awareness Traffic Management of 13 Leonard Crescent, Brendale, Queensland, Advanced Traffic Control Pty Ltd, PO Box 914, Morayfield, Queensland, TM Edwards Traffic Control Pty Ltd of Morayfield, Queensland, Evolution Traffic Control Pty Ltd of Queen Street, Brisbane, FNQ Pty Ltd of Boundary Street, Bundaberg, Queensland, Guardrite Traffic Control of Ashmore, Queensland, Guardright Security and Traffic Management Pty Ltd, Ashmore, Queensland, Statewide Traffic Control Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Queensland, Traffic Management Services Australia of Wollongong, New South Wales and Traffic Services Australia Holdings Pty Ltd of Cremorne, Victoria.

PN30

The matters in dispute are those contained within the log of claims served on the companies by the National Secretary of the union on 5 December. I direct that the parties confer on the matters in dispute. Finally I find that the dispute extends beyond the bounds of any one state of the Commonwealth. A formal finding of this dispute will be attached to the file and all parties found to be in disputes, rights are preserved in respect of further proceedings. This matter will now stand adjourned.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [9.46AM]