C2006/2234, Transcript of Proceedings [2006] AIRCTrans 663 (21 April 2006)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 14829-1

COMMISSIONER EAMES

C2006/2234

VISYPAK OPERATIONS PTY LTD T/AS VISYPAK CARTON SYSTEMS PTY LTD
AND
AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS
s.127(2) - Appln to stop or prevent industrial action
(C2006/2234)

MELBOURNE

10.13AM, MONDAY, 10 APRIL 2006

Continued from 16/3/2006

Reserved for Decision

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: There’s no change of appearance I don’t think? Yes, Mr Hale?

PN91

MR HALE: Yes, Commissioner. On the last occasion you granted Mr Douglas leave to the extent that he put to you opening submissions in relation to the section 127. And in his submissions for why he should stay he said that the Commission should know that he’s very helpful in relation to these matters. We would say that on this occasion Mr Douglas’ firm at least has been anything but helpful. In relation to our submissions that we put to the Commission there has been, and I believe you were copied in, a statement from the company in relation to the witnesses being able to attend. I can hand up a copy of that so that you know which one I’m talking about.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN93

MR HALE: Now, on the day that our submissions were due to be put in, and I’d set aside 30 March to finish off the submissions and get them to the other parties within a reasonable time, and the Commission may remember that I appeared before the Commission as currently constituted in the matter of Shedden UHDE on that 30 March and that put me somewhat behind in relation to the submissions I was attempting to get in in accordance with the directions. As it was I think I got them to the Commission and the parties around close of business on the day in accordance with the directions.

PN94

Because of the hurry I was in I grabbed the first number that I could find for a fax number and that was the fax number of Mr Gordon and I faxed it off to
Mr Gordon. Then I was in Sydney on the Wednesday and Thursday of the week just gone and the employer’s submissions were due in on the Thursday. I returned to the office on the Friday morning and I found in my in-tray the document that I just handed up to the Commission and that is in relation to the immediate issues. I had a read through the document. That was the only document. There was no employer’s submissions.

I had a read through it and I said well, they’re very interesting submissions, but I would have thought that they would have done something else and that was what I took to be their submissions. This morning I found out that they had sent another lot of submissions on the Thursday and that that lot of submissions had been addressed to the union attention Dave Oliver. I’ve spoken with Tony Mavromatis and apparently there was one attention Tony Mavromatis. Ms Allison tells me that she was rung prior to them being sent through and said are you in the office, we’re sending it through now and they’re addressed to Suzi Allison.

PN95

So it seems that the company has deliberately not sent me a copy of their submissions and I don’t see that as being helpful to the Commission in that we only received, or I only received, their submissions this morning. Now, I’m sure that it was a deliberate attempt because of the way in which it’s been set up to try and prevent me and some sort of pay back because I sent it to Mr Gordon instead of sending it directly to Heinz and Partners. Now, we ask if you’re prepared to go ahead with it this morning, but I would be pressing that Heinz and Partners are not helpful to the Commission in this manner and I would be pressing that their limited right to appear before you not be extended in relation to this hearing. Thank you.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Douglas?

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: Commissioner Eames, there should be a letter that has been faxed through today. Mr Hale’s office was rung just like everyone else before. We were told he was in Sydney and he was told that they were coming to him and we were asking them to be forwarded to him. There has been nothing deliberate. If something has failed it isn’t a failure on our behalf. We have done everything we can to notify Mr Hale. Mr secretary, Jenny, rang on several occasions. Mr Hale was in Sydney. I was actually in Sydney on Thursday and Friday myself. So every effort was made.

PN98

If that’s happened that’s a terrible oversight that’s occurred in Mr Hale’s office. It’s not our office. We did deliberately try and make sure Mr Hale - I knew where Mr Hale was and that’s why I had Jenny speak directly to his secretary to notify Mr Hale. So I’m really taken aback by this today, Commissioner. There should be - if I could have a copy of the letters that were faxed through, I think they came to your chambers as well - mentions of when they were sent, who they were sent to and the comments in respect of it.

PN99

Now, if it has gone wrong on our side, and I hasten to add I’m reliably informed it hasn’t and I apologise, but it’s certainly not something deliberate. I might say I still don’t have the contents page from the witness statement either.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Do you want to add anything, Mr Hale?

PN101

MR HALE: Commissioner, can the company produce a copy of the submissions that has attention Tom Hale written on it? Because it seems as though they’ve sent it attention to everybody else in Australia except Tom Hale and if it had been sent to our office attention Tom Hale it would have gone straight into my
in-basket.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Is this the one of 5 April that you’re talking about?

PN103

MR HALE: No. The 5 April is the one that I handed up which I did get a copy of and it is addressed to me.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN105

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, I’m happy to go and ring and to ensure and to get it sent. I had a facsimile sent through to me this morning which has service details. I haven’t been able to get it as yet, but I asked for it to happen, I was assured that it did happen and I am satisfied from what I was told that it did. Now, if it’s gone wrong somewhere between Mr Hale and I, I apologise if I had played some party. It’s not deliberate.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: In terms of the - do you have a copy now of that document, Mr Hale?

PN107

MR HALE: I’ve got a copy of the one sent to Dave Oliver this morning.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: What date?

PN109

MR HALE: It was dated the 6th.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: 6 April?

PN111

MR HALE: Yes. It was served in time, but the problem is that it wasn’t - if it had been addressed to the secretary of the union then the staff would have worked out who it really meant to go to. This was addressed to the secretary of the union attention Dave Oliver. So the staff quite rightly put it in Dave Oliver’s basket.

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, to the extent that there might have been an error do you need any additional time in order to go through that document before we start? Because I intend to deal with this matter today.

PN113

MR HALE: And we want to deal with the matter today. It’s our - - -

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN115

MR HALE: Right. But the difficulty it causes for us is that I then haven’t had the opportunity to speak to the delegates and they didn’t have the opportunity to bring in any material which may have assisted, or may assist our argument, particularly when the company is saying things like they didn’t receive a copy of the email. Now, the email - or one of the witnesses for the company are saying they didn’t receive a copy of the email until some later time. Now, you can get email receipts and that sort of thing. We can clearly establish that if we’ve got the information at the time when we should have.

PN116

Now, the delegates on the job weren’t given copies either. So okay, it may have been our responsibility to get that to them, but we didn’t get it. So we didn’t get the opportunity to them get it to the delegates and say what supporting information can you put?

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Douglas, are you able to have your staff or someone from Visypak to make some enquiries?

PN118

MR DOUGLAS: I’ve just asked Mr Miller to do that.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. Well, I think - all right. Let’s see what documentation is available, but I propose to go ahead and deal with the matter today. The issues that are substantially in question I would have thought are dealt with in the, subject to what I’m about to hear I suppose, dealt with in the fax or the email of 5 April, but to the extent that it might be necessary in due course to allow for some additional time or whatever then we’ll deal with that as we go.

PN120

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, the second thing is I haven’t an opportunity to see - I thought there was some dispute about the summons so I haven’t seen any of the documents that are subject to the summons.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: In relation to the summons the request that was made I amended to some extent so that the material would come to me. I’d in fact received last week the material from the union, which I assume they are going to some extent rely upon in relation to the bona fides of the meeting and the forum and all the rest of it. I notice that there are some copies made of some of the documents and not of others. My assumption, and correct me if I’m wrong
Mr Hale, is that with some of the documents you’re happy for the other side to have copies of that and you’ll deal with that as you go through, but there are other aspects of documentation that you don’t want to share with the company but you’re happy to provide to the Commission.

PN122

MR HALE: Yes, Commissioner. We were happy to provide all of it to the Commission. There are some aspects that we don’t want to give to the company and that’s, I guess, we don’t want it falling into the hands of the AIG or any other employer organisation that deals with strategies.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: At least the CIA aren’t part of this, so that’s good. We’ve eliminated that possibility.

PN124

MR HALE: I’m not really aware of that entirely. But I guess what we’re saying is that in relation to that material we were going to rely on it only to a fairly minimal standard anyway in that we weighed up the pros and cons of putting that forward as evidence for ourselves and we decided that the benefit to our case compared with the benefit to the employers generally getting their hands on some of that information, we decided that we wouldn’t put it up as evidence.

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what we’ll do is when we get to the point where you’re going to lead some evidence, if there’s any of this documentation upon which you want to rely you need to identify it for my purposes. I'll make a judgment as to whether or not the company ought to be seeing that documentation. If in fact I make a decision that it should be for my yes only, when I come to making a decision I'll give some reasons as to why I do that and that will preserve people’s rights, hopefully, in relation to anything else.

PN126

MR HALE: All I intended doing in relation to that information was saying you’ve seen it, you can tell that there’s some stuff in there we were not raising in the legislation, but there’s also quite a bit of stuff in there where what we’re saying to our members is this is what you need to know about the legislation.

PN127

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand that. When you come to deal with that we’ll deal with those specific issues as we go. I'll give you an opportunity,
Mr Douglas, to have a say about all that when we come to it. All right?

PN128

MR HALE: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN129

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Let’s proceed and in the interim if there’s any material that arise that you think might address some of the issues that
Mr Hale’s raised earlier, Mr Douglas, you might just alert me to that and if it’s necessary to have a break we can do so.

PN130

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, as a matter of procedure I would ask the other witnesses step outside.

PN131

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that’s appropriate.

PN132

MR DOUGLAS: Mr Cavarra is here who is not giving evidence and the company is concerned we’ve got somebody who’s coming along who’s not here to give evidence and really should be at work. We don’t understand why he’s here at all. Yes, he’s a union delegate, but there are several other delegates here today.

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. We know another issue about that as well. What’s the story, Mr Hale?

PN134

MR HALE: Well, Mr Cavarra is a shop steward out there. The issue is one for the shop steward to be able to attend.

PN135

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but have we got enough people from the plant that a report back can be given? We’ve got yourself, we’ve got an organiser, we’ve got some other delegates by the look of it and some members of the workforce. How many do we need?

PN136

MR HALE: No, I don’t want to lose any members of the workforce. There’s no members of the workforce.

PN137

THE COMMISSIONER: Who are the people that we’ve got with us then? Aren’t they people who are from Visypak?

PN138

MR HALE: Yes. Well, they’re delegates.

PN139

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay.

PN140

MR HALE: It’s not, it’s no - so yes, they are.

PN141

THE COMMISSIONER: And are there people here who aren’t going to be actually participating in the proceedings?

PN142

MR HALE: Yes and that’s Mr Cavarra who’s one of the delegates.

PN143

THE COMMISSIONER: Why do we need him when we’ve got other delegates?

PN144

MR HALE: Well, he is one of the delegates. There’s only four delegates and the four of them are here.

PN145

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, three will be giving evidence?

PN146

MR HALE: Three will be giving evidence.

PN147

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, that should be enough, shouldn’t it? They’re not going to shaft him I don’t think, to use a very colloquial expression. I assume you’re playing on the same team?

PN148

MR HALE: Well, I think they are, yes. Just excuse me.

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, sure.

PN150

MR HALE: They all came in in the one car. He’s prepared to go back to work, but is the company prepared to put him in a cab?

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: What about the union?

PN152

MR HALE: Well, we didn’t object to him being here.

PN153

THE COMMISSIONER: Of course not. But the company have and I think they’ve got a point. He’s not necessary for these proceedings in my view.

PN154

MR HALE: No, but we can start going back through the argument, but the agreement provides for when he’s attending the Commission hearing.

PN155

THE COMMISSIONER: We’ve got three delegates here. We don’t need four. Three of them are giving evidence. It’s appropriate that they’re here. We don’t need every delegate in the place when we’ve got three here. It’s not necessary for him to attend. If he needs to be recompensed in terms of a cab fair well, the union better have a think about that or maybe Mr Mavromatis can help. I don’t know. But the union can make some arrangements about his return to work. He’s entitled to be paid for the time that he’s in relation to it all, he should return to work now.

PN156

MR HALE: Commissioner, the established customer practice is that all the delegates do come.

PN157

THE COMMISSIONER: I don’t need him here for my purposes.

PN158

MR HALE: Yes. So Tony Mavromatis, he is prepared to take him back to work, however we don’t want this to be seen as setting any precedent that the company dictates which delegates come to the Commission.

PN159

THE COMMISSIONER: The company’s not. It’s my decision.

PN160

MR HALE: Okay.

PN161

THE COMMISSIONER: He’s not necessary for these proceedings particularly in the light of at least a couple of other delegates being here or participating in these proceedings and ultimately obviously can give a report back quite capably about what happens here today, plus your good self and Mr Mavromatis. All we need is a partridge in a pear tree and we’ve got the whole lot. All right? Let’s move on. And if the other witnesses then can wait outside while we start through the process.

PN162

MR HALE: Just one other bit of housekeeping, Commissioner. Mr Douglas in his fax points out that one of the attachments to Mr Lally’s statement wasn’t attached. So if I can - - -

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN164

MR HALE: And in fact you’ve got the whole manual I think.

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. That’s fine, thank you. Mr Douglas.

PN166

MR DOUGLAS: If it please, Commissioner, my assumption is if this is an application for private arbitration as the ..... it would be the AMWU who leads evidence for the second time or first? Is the question you’re raising am I entitled to appear?

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I’ve granted you leave to appear in the proceedings and that continues. But the original application was made by Visypak, wasn’t it?

PN168

MR DOUGLAS: That was for a section 127.

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: Under 127. I know this developed into almost a
..... but anyway. What you’re putting is you believe the union should go first?

PN170

MR DOUGLAS: Yes.

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Hale, have you got a view about that?

PN172

MR HALE: Perhaps if I could just develop it to be fair?

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN174

MR HALE: The argument of the union is that this was training and that they should be paid.

PN175

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN176

MR DOUGLAS: On that basis we adjourned the 127 application and undertakings were given and the onus rested with them, I think you said yourself, Commissioner. They will need to come along with such evidence to satisfy yourself that it actually was training. Now, that was the basis upon which the arbitration was to proceed and on that basis I assumed that the onus rested with them to show that it was training so they should be paid.

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Hale?

PN178

MR HALE: Look, Commissioner, I’m not conceding anything in relation to the onus of who’s to prove what in that we would be asking the Commission to look at it as a question of equity and make a decision accordingly. We don’t have a problem with going first. We do have a problem with by going first Mr Douglas is then trying to say that that means we’ve got the obligation to prove it. We say that there’s an obligation under the agreement that they pay the amount of money.

PN179

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand the argument, yes.

PN180

MR HALE: So I guess putting aside the onus, we don’t have a problem with going first.

PN181

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, let’s do that and that avoids that problem. So I'll call on your good self to open.

PN182

MR HALE: Commissioner, this is an argument about the operation of the agreement in relation to the payment for (a) training, or in the alternative, union meetings. Now, the sections or the clauses in the agreement - or the relevant clauses - are clause 9 trade union training which sets out the provisions for trade union training. The other alternative is clause 10(d) of the agreement and that provides for shop stewards and safety reps not to incur a reduction in ordinary time rates of pay for attending meetings with their union or hearings of the Australian Industrial Commission that involve the parties to this agreement.

PN183

So that we would be saying in that latter one that if the Commission were to decide that the forum that was attended by the shop stewards was not training then we would say that it would fall within (10)(d) in that people who attended were elected shop stewards and they were attending meetings with their union and the meetings involved parties to this agreement. So that it involved the employees that the employee reps were representing and that the meetings were of a nature that would affect the upcoming EBA negotiations. In relation to the trade union training we say that prior written notice was given to the employer and that’s evident on the evidence from both sides.

PN184

That prior written notice was in accordance with the established customer practice for what was required of notice. The company has never, and we can bear this out with the witness evidence, have never required six weeks notice of a training course before. Now, we say that the question before the Commission is a fairly simple question. It’s whether if the company were agreeing or were paying in accordance with the agreement then would they have been required - well, the agreement and the established customer practice - then would they be required to pay the delegates for that day that they attended the forum?

PN185

All the other information that the company has tried to introduce, trying to make out that the union had breached the assurances that we gave the Commission in relation to a return to work, we say are a smokescreen. In relation to the time spent on the preparation of the witness statements, and I think this might be an appropriate time to say something on behalf of Mr Flinch, that the company has said that he attended and didn’t make a witness statement. We did prepare a witness statement for him and it was after I got them in on the second occasion to go through their witness statements and ensure that they needed anything changed or what they’d dictated was accurate and those type of things, that he told me that he wouldn’t be available today.

PN186

So I had a look at his witness statement and I said to him well, you’re not saying that much more than what Jeff is so that if you’re not available we’re probably better off not putting in the witness statement because the company will have a right to call you for cross examination. And I don’t think up until that point that he understood that he might have to go into the witness box. I think he thought that he was just giving a statement and that would be the end of it. So for the company to try and portray it as being some sort of an attempt by the union to, I don’t know, string things out or something like that that certainly wasn’t the intention.

PN187

And the fact that I was up in Sydney on the Thursday and I didn’t think that there was anything in what I believed was the company’s submissions at the time that we really needed to address, otherwise I would have needed to get back to the employees the third time over the phone or however to address some of the things that were in the witness statements so that we could have properly prepared answers here today. So the company is probably, there’s been less time spent than what would normally be the case in the preparation. So what we would do would be call Jeff Lally and the company can have all the opportunity they wish to cross examine.

PN188

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you.

PN189

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, this might be a helpful time.

PN190

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN191

MR DOUGLAS: Here is the facsimile to Mr Hale showing service on him on 6 April at 4.30 pm with his name on it and I’d accept an apology.

PN192

MR HALE: Well I will apologise, Commissioner. That is there.

PN193

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s fine. That’s dealt with then. Let’s keep moving.

<JEFFREY LALLY, SWORN [10.43AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HALE [10.44AM]

PN194

MR HALE: Did you have a witness statement prepared in relation to this matter?---Yes.

PN195

Have you got a copy of that witness statement with you?---I do.

PN196

Is there anything that you’d like to change or amend in that witness statement?
---Yes. After going through it again this morning in section number 4 where it says I personally handed a copy of the letter to which would have been
Mr Adelman, in this case I can’t actually recollect that that is fully what actually happened. I may have handed it to Geoff Perkins a day or so later.

PN197

Okay. But there’s nothing else in your statement?---No.

PN198

Okay. So that statement is a true and accurate record of what you’ve got to say in relation to this matter?---It is.

PN199

THE COMMISSIONER: Just in relation to that line, what’s to happen with that then, Mr Hale? Are we excising that line?

PN200

MR HALE: Yes. We would seek to - - -

PN201

THE COMMISSIONER: So:

PN202

I personally handed him a copy of the letter from the union -

PN203

Be wrote out?

PN204

MR HALE: That’s correct.

PN205

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. You wish that marked?

PN206

MR HALE: Yes, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #H1 STATEMENT OF JEFFREY LALLY

PN207

MR HALE: I have no further questions for the witness, Commissioner.

PN208

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Douglas will have some questions.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XN MR HALE
PN209

MS ALLISON: I’m sorry, Commissioner.

PN210

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m sorry, Ms Allison.

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS ALLISON [10.46AM]

PN211

MS ALLISON: Would you describe to the Commission how long you normally give the company notice for trade union training?---Generally it’s around about a week’s notice prior to any of our engagements of meetings or training.

PN212

And who would you give notice to?---Generally it’s Geoff Perkins who is the productions manager of the plant.

PN213

Okay, thank you.

PN214

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Mr Douglas.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DOUGLAS [10.46AM]

PN215

MR DOUGLAS: May I please, Commissioner. Mr Lally, you’d normally give just one weeks notice, would you?---That would be the normal practice. Occasionally it can be a little bit earlier than a week. Sometimes, you know, within a day or two later than a week. But it’s generally the normal practice.

PN216

Can I just show the witness this please? Mr Lally, this is a letter dated 7 March, isn’t it?---Yes.

PN217

And that’s for some trade union training which you wish to attend?---That is.

PN218

Which you gave to Mr Perkins shortly after you received it?---I did.

PN219

And what is the date of the training?---16 and 17 May.

PN220

That’s not one week is it?---No.

PN221

Now, can I mark that for identification, Commissioner?

PN222

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

EXHIBIT #D1 LETTER DATED 7 MARCH

PN223

MR DOUGLAS: You’ve been a shop steward around about five years. Is that right?---That’s about right, yes.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN224

And you’ve done a fair amount of training?---You can say that.

PN225

Yes. In fact prior to 8 March in that part of the year you’ve done more than the five days, haven’t you?---I don’t believe that to be correct.

PN226

Now, the enterprise bargaining agreement is on 30 June 2003, wasn’t it?---Sorry?

PN227

The enterprise bargaining agreement commenced on 30 June 2003?---No.

PN228

It commenced on 11 November 2003 through to 30 June 2006. Is that right?
---That’s the date in that is November you just said?

PN229

Yes?---Was when it was certified. It actually was effective from 1 July 2003.

PN230

So each year would run from 1 July to 30 June. Is that correct?---That’s correct.

PN231

All right. I want to show you a document which I'll mark for identification. This is a history of your trade union training leave prior to 8 March?---Sorry? That is?

PN232

That is the history of your trade union training leave that you’ve taken?---No, it’s not. Actually as far as what I can see there it is a pay code of what is being entered in the computers at the site at Broadmeadows.

PN233

So you are saying that doesn’t reflect it?---It just says union leave paid, but it doesn’t mean that that was paid union training leave.

PN234

All right. Is there any other form of union leave available to you?---Yes.

PN235

Which union leave is that?---There’s a leave when we were discussing through the last enterprise bargaining agreement with the company on the issue of protection of entitlements. That was one. There is others when there is an issue that directly affects between the company and union and related matters it is also paid.

PN236

All right. Can you identify which ones aren’t training leave in that group?---No, I can’t.

PN237

You’re saying it’s not an accurate record. Surely you can identify which ones aren’t accurate?---Surely so can Mr Perkins through the - - -

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN238

I ask the questions?---Sorry?

PN239

You answer the questions, I ask them. Mr Perkins has had his chance. Answer the question please?---Then can you repeat the question again please.

PN240

Please identify those items which are not trade union training leave?---That I can’t at this point in time.

PN241

Right, thank you. Can I mark for identification?

PN242

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Have you seen a copy of this, Mr Hale?

PN243

MR HALE: No, I haven’t.

PN244

THE COMMISSIONER: Have a look at it first.

EXHIBIT #D2 DOCUMENT SHOWING UNION LEAVE PAID

PN245

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner. Now, your witness statement seems to suggest there’s two sorts of training, trade union training that you have. There’s one which is done in small groups such as the delegate level 2 and the Visypak delegates training?---What? When you say small groups - - -

PN246

I’m asking you are they relatively small groups? 20, 30 people?---At the maximum, yes.

PN247

And for that type of training you are presented with some documents to train them. Is that right?---Yes.

PN248

And you present those at the start?---Most of the time and throughout the .....

PN249

Yes. And then there’s another type of training which you describe as sort of mass training. What are the sort of numbers that go to that?---It can vary. Anything up to maybe, I suppose, 100, 150 to maybe about 800, 900.

PN250

And at those you don’t give documents given to you throughout the process of it?
---Yes.

PN251

You do? So there’s a structured methodology in the training that you have in those mass trainings?---Yes.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN252

But in this case the one we’re talking about on 8 March what you got was given to you at the end. Is that right?---No.

PN253

That’s what your witness statement says. You just told me and you’ve told this Commission that this is absolutely true?---Mm.

PN254

We were given -

PN255

paragraph 8 -

PN256

- the AMWU delegate bargaining manual at the end of the day which sets out the material that we discussed which I’ve attached a copy to this content.

PN257

?---That was one of the documents.

PN258

Well, have you got any other documents with you today that form part of that training? It’s a yes or no question.

PN259

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hale?

PN260

MR HALE: Commissioner, this is starting to cut across what the company was fishing for in the summons. Is Mr Douglas now going to try and attack it from a other direction and try and get the witness to hand over documentation that we’ve already been summonsed and we’ve provided to the Commission?

PN261

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, he’s been simply asked whether there were any other documents. Let’s see the answer for a start and we’ll go from there.

PN262

THE WITNESS: Sorry, the question?

PN263

MR DOUGLAS: Were there other documents that were provided to you during the course of the training?---Yes.

PN264

Is there any reason why you failed to disclose those in your witness statement?
---Probably an oversight.

PN265

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry?---Probably an oversight.

PN266

MR DOUGLAS: Okay. Commissioner, if I can just explain. The very basis of this being training relates to the very types of training. I’m not here for AIG, I’m just here to find out the truth of whether there was training or not. With respect I have to have some latitude to understand what the training was.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN267

THE COMMISSIONER: No, that’s fine. Can’t fall with where we are at the minute.

PN268

MR DOUGLAS: Yes. So, you received documentation throughout the training. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN269

After each training module, before each training module?---Moreso at the start of the training, yes.

PN270

Are you able to identify what those documents were?---Parts I could and that was parts that dealt with up and coming strategies to enterprise bargaining agreements and what can and can no, could or can and may or may not be included in enterprise bargaining agreements that do deal with the new industrial relations laws.

PN271

And in respect of that document - I may be asking the wrong person, Commissioner - has that document been delivered up under the summons?---I don’t know.

PN272

All right.

PN273

MR HALE: Well, there’s a series of miniaturised overheads. I think there’s parts of that that deal with that, aspects of the law or something like that.

PN274

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you conceding - I need to be clear about this,
Mr Hale - the documents to which you’re referring now which I have here, are you saying that they’re the documents that the witness is referring to that would have been distributed at the meeting?

PN275

MR HALE: I didn’t attend the meeting myself.

PN276

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Perhaps if I can show them to the witness. Are you comfortable if I do that, Mr Douglas?

PN277

MR DOUGLAS: Yes.

PN278

THE COMMISSIONER: And he can identify them that that’s the documentation that he’s referring to.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN279

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is.

PN280

THE COMMISSIONER: That was pretty quick. Came to that conclusion very quickly. The only reason I say that, Mr Lally, is that we’re not playing games here and we need direct answers to direct questions. Mr Hale will do what he can in terms of looking after your’s and the union’s interests. But you identified this very quickly when it was very hard to think what it might have been when you were asked questions from Mr Douglas. Now, I don’t take it any further than that, but you need to deal with these proceedings properly. Understand?---I understand that.

PN281

Right, okay. So in terms of what they might contain I'll make a judgement in due course and make some reference to them if needs be in any decision that I issue. Mr Douglas?

PN282

MR DOUGLAS: Yes. So Commissioner, they’re not something that I can look at?

PN283

THE COMMISSIONER: There are aspects of it that create some problems. I’m satisfied that there are parts of this that would be, if I can describe - and these are my words - strategies that might be used in relation to enterprise bargaining.

PN284

MR DOUGLAS: Yes.

PN285

THE COMMISSIONER: There are some other elements that might not be described that way but are on broader issues. So to that extent I can understand Mr Hale might have some concerns about this being a public document as such.

PN286

MR DOUGLAS: Well, Commissioner, maybe I can do it another way that would provide Mr Hale with some comfort and me with some evidence. Who were the speakers at the forum?---There were a number of speakers. One being Dave Oliver, another being Doug Cameron. There was also - - -

PN287

Julian Rowe?---That’s correct. And there was also Greg Combet from the ACTU, he spoke for a day.

PN288

You’re not thinking Mr Combet was there on the 29th?---No.

PN289

Do you recall Mr Combet presenting on 29 March, the national delegates meeting?---I wasn’t at that.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN290

So the people who spoke to you were all very senior members?---Yes.

PN291

Of the AMWU and the ACTU?---Yes.

PN292

But there were none of the educators from the AMWU. There’s four educators. None of those spoke, did they?---I don’t understand what you mean by educators.

PN293

I'll give you some names, just bear with me a second. Andy Giles, did he speak?
---No.

PN294

Brett O’Brien?---No.

PN295

Is there anyone else you can think of at all who spoke?---There was an organiser Chris Spindler who was more or less conducting the meeting. Tony, but he wasn’t there for the full day.

PN296

All right then. Your evidence is, as I understand it, they taught you about the new legislation and the effects for the shop floor daily issues. That’s correct?---Pretty much so, yes.

PN297

And different approaches to negotiating enterprise bargaining agreements?---Yes.

PN298

And there was nothing else spoken about? That was it?---There was the union membership was spoken about on the day, a few other broader issues to do with the union. There was also talk about the, I can’t think of the name, the company who had 20 workers go be put off only a matter of weeks ago. I think they’re a car and ..... company or something like that. There was talk, you know, a bit of a briefing given on that.

PN299

So as I understand you started at 9 o'clock?---Yes.

PN300

Went through to lunch time?---Yes.

PN301

Who spoke first?---It would have been Dave Oliver. He spoke, he was initially the speaker.

PN302

Okay. Can you just identify in relation to this delegate bargaining manual which part Mr Oliver spoke about?---That’s very broad and Dave Oliver’s speech was very broad. It probably covered a number of issues that were actually on there in brief. You know, anything from taking leave entitlements to job security to, you know, the new industrial relations law, you know, enterprise bargaining agreements.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN303

Yes. And how long did he speak for?---Dave may have spoken for about 15 or 20 minutes.

PN304

And who spoke next?---I think it was Doug Cameron.

PN305

How long did he speak for?---His would have gone close to two hours, a bit more.

PN306

Two hours? And utilising the delegate bargaining manual that we’ve got here, or at least we’ve got the contents page, what did he speak about?---Again very similar to things about, you know, broader issues like Dave Oliver would have spoken about and he also spoke about union membership and all the issues that I’ve mentioned previously.

PN307

So union membership - can you just expand on that for me? What does that mean?---Where it currently sits, how many.

PN308

Okay. So that’s a one minute sort of thing?---With overheads and, you know, things like that. No, it wouldn’t be just one minute.

PN309

So how long?---Probably five, six, seven minutes as in, you know, different aspects on union membership.

PN310

So the remainder of what he spoke about for two hours closely followed what’s in here? It might have been from bits and pieces of it, but it was directed towards training, wasn’t it?---Well, pretty much yes. From that, yes. From the document that the Commissioner has there in front of him which I can’t, I’m not going to, I can’t disclose all of the contents on. That was a lot of the stuff that, most of all just about all the stuff that he went through.

PN311

Okay. I’m okay with that. I don’t need to see it, I just want to hear your evidence. So that would have taken you up to 11.15. So, did you have morning tea then?---We had morning tea in between some of the speeches, yes.

PN312

You said between some?---Yes.

PN313

Okay. So did Doug take you up to lunch then? Did Doug take you up to lunch?
---Yes.

PN314

Okay, all right. Lunch was about an hour?---Yes, give or take a few minutes, yes.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN315

During the speech was there, the various speeches that we’ve had which was Dave Oliver and Doug Cameron, were they interactive? Were they trying to get people’s feedback from the floor?---Yes, there was question and answer times.

PN316

I just want to use a phrase and you tell me whether I’m right or wrong. Just bear with me for a second, I’m sorry. If we describe what occur - sorry, Mr Lally. I'll come back to that in a second. So after lunch who was the next speaker?---From my recollection it would have probably was Greg Combet I think.

PN317

Greg Combet, okay. How long was he speaking for?---Twenty minutes to half an hour.

PN318

What did he speak about? Again content out of this delegate training manual?
---Yes. Broad, yes. Broad speech.

PN319

Okay. When you say broad speech I need to understand that and so does the Commission. What is broad speech?---Broad speech, touched on some of the issues that are here in front of us from the bargaining manual, told us where the ACTU are at this point in time, the reason why he was able to speak in front of us that particular day. Again he also touched on the company was called Dana at the time. He touched on that. He touched on apprentices in a fairly big way.

PN320

And once again interacted?---Yes, question and - - -

PN321

Trying to get the views of people?---From what I do remember there was some questions then asked.

PN322

Yes. And after he finished his speech who spoke next?---Julian Rowe.

PN323

All right. Now he would be on for a while?---Yes.

PN324

He normally does. So did he take a couple of hours?---Yes.

PN325

And he would have got right in this in detail, wouldn’t he?---Yes. Again he was also running off that other stuff, yes.

PN326

So just roughly so I can understand without having to see them, were the overheads recycled a number of times or were they just continuous?---They were continuous.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN327

Okay. So how many overheads were there in total roughly, just a best guess just so I know?

PN328

THE COMMISSIONER: There’s 79.

PN329

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was going to say approximately 80.

PN330

THE COMMISSIONER: Good call.

PN331

MR DOUGLAS: So if I tried to define what was occurring is this, and this is a very legalistic term but give it your best shot, is it an assembly for the discuss of questions of public interest? Is that the type of thing that it was? A group of people coming together, some skilled people there that discuss generally how you as delegates felt about what was happening?---No.

PN332

No it wasn’t?---No. No, not in my eyes.

PN333

That’s okay, I just want your evidence. So again a great deal of detail from
Mr Rowe about these issues coming out of the training manual and you had the overheads. Was there any other documents besides the overheads that you had?
---Not that I recall.

PN334

Now, in respect of the overheads, as I can’t see them so you’re going to have to humour me a bit here, are the overheads marked by the person who was speaking?

PN335

THE COMMISSIONER: Not that I can see.

PN336

MR DOUGLAS: Are they dated?

PN337

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I say there are headings, dot points about various issues that are raised here in going through, it looks like, several sections. Some of them are photographs, some of them are scales and graphs, that sort of thing. But essentially it’s a heading followed by three, four, five dot points associated with - - -

PN338

MR DOUGLAS: Is there a date on it, that’s all I’m asking?

PN339

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s how they’re set up. And just with the union logo on the top.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN340

MR DOUGLAS: With 8 March on it, Commissioner?

PN341

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

PN342

MR DOUGLAS: No?

PN343

THE COMMISSIONER: No, there’s no date.

PN344

MR HALE: I might be able to, if I’m guessing what Mr Douglas is fishing for, I might be able to enlighten him there.

PN345

MR DOUGLAS: Are you giving evidence?

PN346

MR HALE: No.

PN347

THE COMMISSIONER: You’re going to assist me with this document are you, Mr Hale?

PN348

MR HALE: Yes. It was actually a series of national delegates meetings. So it wasn’t just held in Melbourne. It was held throughout at least all the capital cities in Australian throughout March. So if Mr Douglas is trying to find out whether those overheads were done specifically for this meeting, no they weren’t. They were done for the series of delegates meetings.

PN349

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN350

MR DOUGLAS: Now, I understand that you see there is a difference between trade union training that has a training element and for that you accept you should be paid, but where it’s political in nature you don’t believe you should be paid for it. Is that right? You may come to an agreement with the company to be paid, but you don’t believe there’s a right that exists under the EBA?---I’m still not exactly sure the difference between political or not.

PN351

Well, trade union training is the assist you to be a trade union representative and political is to discuss political issues that are relevant at the time, but don’t assist you in training of your day to day shop floor issues and helping you negotiate EBAs. Okay? Or do you feel you should be paid for all?---It’s there to assist in my role as a delegate with my fellow workers and the company and no, I don’t see any reason why not.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN352

So do you see a distinction between attending a political rally and trade union training, or do you see no distinction?---For me personally? It all depends on the actual issue.

PN353

Is there a time you see a distinction?---I could.

PN354

Okay. Well, give me an example of a distinction?---I suppose if it was a political rally about whether our government was going to help another government in a way that I didn’t believe that they should, then I would be entitled to be paid for that because it doesn’t have any direct distinction to me, myself and my role and my fellow employees.

PN355

Well, for instance if it was a rally or a forum or whatever you’d like to call it that really just tells you what the ACTU campaign is about, that talked about the relationship between labour in the unions and the attack against the Liberal Party, that would be essentially political, wouldn’t it?---I could see it that way.

PN356

Rather than could, is it fair to say that a description that I just gave you is one which would be of a political nature rather than a training nature?---It depends on the content that comes out of the ..... it depends on how the way I see it, yes. It depends on the content that comes out of that forum, whether you could see it as being whether it be training or just straight out political.

PN357

So is Visy meant to determine that? How is it to know that when it’s just a nebulous issue for you?---Nebulous?

PN358

When it’s an issue that you are having a lot of trouble defining and can only define by attending it?---In regards to that particular day I received documentation from the company which told me that there was training. So am I not to believe that in that particular case there wasn’t training?

PN359

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry? You received documentation from the company?---No, from the union.

PN360

I thought you said the company?---I may have. I apologise for that.

PN361

I was going to say, that will change things a little bit.

PN362

MR DOUGLAS: Let’s read this document carefully just so that we’re not mistaken. Now, I notice that you call this the Melbourne Delegates Training Forum repeatedly through your statement?---I did.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN363

Yes. Can you show me where it’s described as that? I'll just pass you the document which I'll mark for identification if I can, Commissioner.

PN364

THE COMMISSIONER: Having this marked?

PN365

MR DOUGLAS: Yes, thanks.

EXHIBIT #D3 DOCUMENT

PN366

MR DOUGLAS: Where does it describe it as the Melbourne Delegates Training Forum?---It says Melbourne Delegates Forum and throughout the document it tells me that there is support, training and information for the delegates.

PN367

Okay. Can I just have that document back for a second. I'll get a copy, sorry. Now, if I can just invite you to read along with me. Inside the rectangular box it says:

PN368

AMWU invites you to have your say about the future of the union.

PN369

Doesn’t it?---Yes.

PN370

So those words are saying the AMWU, your union, is inviting you to have a say, isn’t it?---Inviting me to, yes.

PN371

Yes. And it’s inviting you to having a say about what falls beneath it, which is fighting back against the new industrial laws and how to best protect and improve members rights at work. Isn’t it? So it’s inviting you to have a say about that, yes?---Yes.

PN372

It’s inviting you to have a say about strengthening workplaces, isn’t it? Yes?---As it says.

PN373

Yes. And it’s inviting you to have a say about improving support, training and information for delegates, isn’t it? Is that right?---Yes.

PN374

So can you show me where on this flyer it says it’s training?---Right there in front of us.

PN375

Well, you just agreed with me it doesn’t say that?---I agreed to your interpretation then. But my interpretation also says in my belief that it invites me to training.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN376

Well, can you tell me how you get that interpretation because that’s what we’re here for?---The way I see it is it invites me to have my say about the union, it also instruct, giving me information on how to strengthen workplaces, improve support, training and information for the delegates.

PN377

All right. But you formed that view not really as a result of what the words say there, but on some other basis, didn’t you? Because the words don’t say that. You accept that?---No. On that basis is how I read it.

PN378

Okay. Now, you’ve heard what I’ve said about it and you agreed with me what I’ve said is grammatically right. So what’s your view about it now?---I still believe it was training.

PN379

THE COMMISSIONER: You can address me on that, Mr Douglas.

PN380

MR DOUGLAS: Yes, okay. Now, I want to show you an article that was written by a journalist. Commissioner, I'll hand one up after I read it. I'll just read it for you. It’s headed AMWU Delegates Plan to Fight. It’s by Stuart Martin in Melbourne with the Green Left Weekly.

PN381

The Australian Manufacturers Workers Union, AMWU, held the first of a series of national delegates meeting at Story Hall on 8 March.

PN382

Now, that’s the one you went to, isn’t it?---Correct.

PN383

The meeting updated delegates and the union acted is about the campaigning against the Federal coalition's governments new industrial relations law.

PN384

So it did that, did it?---Did I say that?

PN385

But is that your understand?---It did, yes.

PN386

The meeting was well attended, at least by 300 delegates.

PN387

Does that sound about right?

PN388

MS ALLISON: Commissioner, can we make an objection to this? I would like an explanation of what the relevance of a description in a Green Left socialist weekly newspaper and their opinion about this delegates meeting, what relevance that has to the facts at the moment?

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN389

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Douglas? I haven’t got a copy of it so I don’t know.

PN390

MR DOUGLAS: The relevance is it describes what happened at the meeting. Now, I’m not saying it has to be true. I’m asking Mr Lally whether it reflects what his understanding of what it was. I’m not calling the person who made it, I’m just setting out what someone describe has occurred and I’m asking Mr Lally what his view is because the only way I can see what happened there is through the eyes of other people. I wasn’t there.

PN391

MS ALLISON: Well, Mr Douglas can ask questions about what occurred at the meeting, but to present us with an article from a socialist Green Left Weekly newspaper and what their view on the meeting really has nothing to do with the matter in dispute.

PN392

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s fair enough. If you’ve got some questions that you want to put to the witness, that’s fine. If you want to use some opening in terms of the questions that you might put, that’s fine.

PN393

MR DOUGLAS: That’s all this is. That’s all it is. It’s not something I’m tendering into evidence. I’m just reading it out and saying is this true, is this true.

PN394

THE COMMISSIONER: So it’s not going to be tendered?

PN395

MR DOUGLAS: It can’t be tendered.

PN396

THE COMMISSIONER: No. Well, just ask your questions of the witness.

PN397

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, are you satisfies with the way that I read a paragraph and put it?

PN398

THE COMMISSIONER: What I’m saying is you can put a proposition to the witness framed as your question and see whether he agrees with it or not.

PN399

MR DOUGLAS: May it please. Did the AMWU national secretary Doug Cameron tell the meeting the government and tax on union rights as a class issue to maximise big businesses profits at the expense of working people? Do you recall that?---To remember it like that I honestly couldn’t. So yes.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN400

THE COMMISSIONER: If you can’t remember say so?---Okay. No, I can’t remember.

PN401

MR DOUGLAS: Do he raise the issues of section 457 of the Immigration Act about bringing in temporary workers and was concerned about the exploitation of those workers?---Whether that was section 457, he did mention bringing in workers from overseas. One of them was a car component company of some sort from whether it was Croatia or the former Yugoslavia or something like that, there was a group of workers coming in from there. As to whether he said that was slave labour, I’m not sure. And as to sending them back to their home countries, that again I’m not sure.

PN402

Okay.

PN403

THE COMMISSIONER: Rather than relying on the document if you can just answer?---Yes, okay. I’m sorry.

PN404

Because that’s why I’m indicating that Mr Douglas should frame his own questions and you giving your own answers.

PN405

MR DOUGLAS: Was a major emphasis in the meeting on community and union campaigning?---I believe a major emphasis of it was the new industrial relations laws.

PN406

But was that emphasis on how the union itself would campaign against those and campaign in the community about it?---No, it wasn’t the main emphasis.

PN407

Was there a significant discussion about the 28 June rally and how to prepare for it?---No.

PN408

Was about a recruitment campaign and re-establishing site shop committees as being a major issue that was raised?---I think at all every time we have any of our, I suppose you’d call it, hierarchy of the union when they address anybody there’s always a mention of membership, how we can kind of build on our membership or at least keep our membership at where it is at this current point in time. Actually, I forgot the second part of that question.

PN409

I think I understand. Was there discussions about the fight with the Liberal Party and how that would be achieved at a political level?---Not that I recall.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN410

So Mr Combet didn’t speak about that at all?---Not that I recall.

PN411

And Mr Oliver didn’t speak about it at all?---As targeting the Liberal Party as such, not that I recall.

PN412

But in marginal seats?---No, not that I recall.

PN413

Have you been on the AMWU website recently?

PN414

MS ALLISON: Sorry, Commissioner. Again what is the relevance of the AMWU website to questions about the meeting that occurred?

PN415

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Douglas?

PN416

MR DOUGLAS: I’d say it’s begging the question a bit. It’s about the marginal seat campaign that’s spread across the website. I’m just seeing whether he’d read it.

PN417

THE COMMISSIONER: If it was read on the website, so what? What’s that got to do with the rally?

PN418

MR DOUGLAS: Because what I would suggest is this was part of the discussions that occurred at the rally. This is something that’s foremost in line with the AMWU.

PN419

THE COMMISSIONER: You can put that question to the witness.

PN420

MR DOUGLAS: Yes. What I want to suggest to you is that a major part of what occurred at this forum was explaining the campaign that the ACTU supported by the AMWU were making against the Industrial Relations legislation?---Yes.

PN421

That’s true?---Major part of that particular day was discussion on the new reforms, IR laws, yes.

PN422

That’s not quite answering my question. What I’m suggesting to you is a major part of it was the actual campaign against the Industrial Relations?---Campaign against it?

PN423

Yes?---That’s a - campaign is a very broad word. It’s what can I do to help keep my members informed. They can be part of a campaign. There was mention of, as the date 28 June was mentioned, how to - I’m only going over the question that you asked me previously, so.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN424

And there was significant discussion about how the ACTU was driving that campaign in the media against the Liberal Party?---That’s something I don’t recall.

PN425

Okay. There was also discussion, was there not, about the relationship between labour and the ACTU and unions generally and the need for unions to place pressure on the Labour Party?---I can remember some discussions saying that Labour Party hadn’t actually helped the unions in recent times.

PN426

All right. Now, just so I understand the documents the Commissioner has, he has the slides the you say were provided and copies of that was provided at the beginning of the day or during the day?---Yes, that was the beginning of the day.

PN427

And did you make any notes on that?---No.

PN428

Did you make any notes anywhere?---On that particular day, no.

PN429

So you went to five hours of training so you could go back to your members and you didn’t make a note of anything you were trained in?---No, I didn’t.

PN430

When you went to the delegate level 2 training did you take notes then?---Yes.

PN431

So for five hours no notes taken. You just brought the slides back?---That and the, what was that thing called? Training manual.

PN432

And when did you know you were going to get the training manual?---At the end of the members forum.

PN433

All right. So during the whole of this time when you weren’t taking notes you didn’t know you were going to get a manual at the end, did you?---Not at that stage, no.

PN434

Thank you. Now, in your statement - I'll move away from that now. You refer to training involving mass meetings at the EBA time. So for the time of the discussion of the EBA you say in your witness statement that that included no discussion about union mass meetings being something you can have training for?---Yes.

PN435

What I want to suggest to you is that’s simply not true, that there was no discussion about mass meetings at all during the EBA negotiations?---You weren’t there.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN436

I understand I wasn’t there, but you have to answer my questions?---That was a statement, wasn’t it? As far as I was concerned that was a statement, not a question.

PN437

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it was put in the form of a question. Are you able to answer it?---Can I get him to repeat that again then?

PN438

MR DOUGLAS: I suggest to you there was no discussions that union mass meetings were a basis for receiving trade union trading during the EBA negotiations?---Not correct.

PN439

Have you got any document anywhere that demonstrates that that’s true?---No, I don’t.

PN440

And yet minutes were taken by both sides, weren’t there?---There would have been.

PN441

And I’m right in saying that nowhere in your minutes and certainly nowhere in the company’s minutes is there any mention of union mass meetings giving rise to an entitlement to training leave?---I don’t take the minutes. I have a secretary that takes the minutes so therefore you have to ask him whether - - -

PN442

You see them, don’t you, the father of the chapel .....?---I see he’s abbreviated minutes. I don’t see what he writes down.

PN443

But in the minutes that you’ve seen taken by your secretary there is no mention, is there, that union mass meetings give rise to an entitlement for training leave?
---That I can’t answer because that happened. It was over three years ago. We would have to go through a mountain of paperwork that we would have to be able to answer that correctly.

PN444

Okay. Do you have any recollection of being written down?---Then again I don’t take those minutes so I can’t - - -

PN445

That’s okay. Now, there have been mass meetings that you’ve had where the company has come along and got section 127 orders, hasn’t it, since the EBA?
---Yes, they have.

PN446

So you’re aware the company has never been of the view since the EBA that mass meetings give rise to an entitlement to paid trade union leave?---No. There has been occasions where it hasn’t been paid, there has been occasions where it has been paid.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN447

Well, there’s been two times that there’s been 127 orders, and once off to the Federal Court with that, where it wasn’t accepted. That’s right?---I think so, yes.

PN448

And you were involved in all of those, weren’t you?---I would have been.

PN449

And you never gave evidence at any of those times saying there was an agreement that it would be paid for, did you?---No.

PN450

Why not?---I wasn’t asked to.

PN451

Well, you’re aware in respect to the Federal Court proceedings there’s a risk of fines for the individuals in the business, weren’t you?---I am.

PN452

You recall the last time we were here on 16 March the Commissioner required you to forthwith, there was an undertaken given by your union to forthwith advise employees who are your members to return to work, don’t you? You were present when the undertaking was given?---I was here when we said we would go back to the site and advise the members to return to work.

PN453

But you were here when the Commissioner used the words forthwith, weren’t you? Do you want me to read it for you? Would that help you? From the transcript?

PN454

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Allison?

PN455

MS ALLISON: Commissioner, I know the company loves going on and on about this kind of thing, but again it defeats me where the relevance to the issue that is being arbitrated today is.

PN456

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Douglas, was do you say about that?

PN457

MR DOUGLAS: It goes on two levels. One is just to the credit of what’s being said and done and for the fact that there are such significant abuses that have occurred by the union. This is another example of what we say happened at the training and that’s how it ties in. This wasn’t training. This was a forum. When you make an order it should be respect, or an undertaking, and here it clearly wasn’t. What we are saying is, as all extraordinary lengths of time that followed afterwards, the taking of witness statements, it all demonstrates an incredibly cavalier nature. And no regard at all to whether it’s training or not, this is all recent invention. This is putting it back together afterwards.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN458

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m happy for the question to be put. I want to get this whole matter resolved out of these proceedings.

PN459

MR DOUGLAS: Now, Mr Lally, you were present in the Commission when the undertaking was given when the Commissioner said:

PN460

On the basis that this agreement is accepted my understanding is that the union representatives present -

PN461

and that’s you Mr Lally -

PN462

- in these proceedings will advise their members to resume work forthwith and I trust that will be conveyed to the members who, as I understand, are currently on strike.

PN463

?---Those are the words of the Commissioner, yes.

PN464

Yes. What do you understand forthwith to mean?---Forthwith? That my obviously given time to have left here to convey back to the members that they should return to work.

PN465

So if I ask you to forthwith leave the witness box that can take two hours, can it?
---No, because I’ve only got to take one step.

PN466

So you’re seriously suggesting the word forthwith to mean two and a half to two hours?---Could.

PN467

You were asked, weren’t you, by the company to ring and advise them, the members?---Not that I recall.

PN468

Mr Perkins asked you to do that, didn’t he?---No.

PN469

All right.

PN470

THE COMMISSIONER: Just for clarification can I ask, because I’m relying on my memory to some extent, at the time of that stoppage were the employees in the canteen? Do you recall?---Yes.

PN471

That’s what I thought. Thank you.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN472

MR DOUGLAS: And you go back to work around about 7 o'clock, didn’t you?
---Yes, just before 7 o'clock I believe.

PN473

And you finished here around about quarter to six?---That’s probably correct.

PN474

And then you had a meeting with the members that went for about an hour?
---Probably not quite an hour.

PN475

And then they retuned to work?---That’s correct.

PN476

And you reckon that fits within the meaning of forthwith?---When it comes
to - we took an undertaking when we left here to advise the members that we had undertaken that we could try to get them back to work. So in respect to my members they are the ones that make the decisions, not myself. They are the ones that makes the decisions whether they actually return to work or not or if they were going to continue to support what was being happened previous in the day. So they do have the right to be addressed as to the ongoing of the day and to make the decision whether that was they were going to return to work.

PN477

And that was your understanding of the intention of the undertaking, was it?
---Yes.

PN478

Now, you saw Mr Hale on two occasions to take witness statements?---I did.

PN479

And I won’t ask the conference, that’s all right, but those meetings went for how long?---I don’t recall exactly what time on each occasion that I left work. On the first occasion I didn’t leave, I wouldn’t have left the union office until it was about half past five that night.

PN480

How long did it take you to do the witness statement, that’s what I’m asking?
---Mine?

PN481

Yes. Yours on the first day what time did you start giving instructions for your witness statement?---I couldn’t recall what time it was.

PN482

Let’s have a best guess?---I don’t recall what time it was I left work.

PN483

All right. Well, let me give you a hint. On 21 March you clocked off work at 10.44 am and you didn’t return to work. So you would have got into the union office by about 11.30?---At best.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN484

Yes, okay. So say 12 o'clock. Your total witness statement is one and a half pages. You gave instructions to Mr Hale. How long did the instructions take with Mr Hale?---He probably wrote the witness statement, mine, over probably a three hour period.

PN485

Three hours?---Yes.

PN486

You’re serious?---I am dead serious.

PN487

You hand wrote it, did you?---No.

PN488

What was troubling your mind so hard that it took three hours to do one and a half pages?---Because what the contents of the actual witness statement you see in front of you isn’t fully what was put down on that particular day.

PN489

Okay. And Mr Hale dealt with you alone, did he?---No. The most on that particular day the majority of my witness statement was given to Andrea.

PN490

To another person?---Yes.

PN491

And she dealt with you alone? There was no one else in the room?---No, the other stewards were present with me.

PN492

So when you were giving your witness statement everyone was hearing what evidence you were going to give?---Whether they took any notice of it.

PN493

THE COMMISSIONER: This is on 21 march we’re talking about?---Yes. I think if that was the day, the first day that we went into the office to give witness statements, yes.

PN494

MR DOUGLAS: All right. So rather than doing you first and then getting you back to work, all three of you sat in the room, all spoke about what you were going to say in your witness statements and then you all finished and you left about 5.30?---We sat around with Andrea and the other stewards were present. Put down a lot of information and said look, a lot of it isn’t currently present because I think Mr Hale was tied up with other engagements as well on that particular day, for him to then go through the witness statement and then we would reconvene at a later time to actually get it to where it is now.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN495

Okay. So Mr Hale after you left then faxed you out or sent you out the witness statement you drafted?

PN496

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?

PN497

MS ALLISON: Commissioner, again. I mean, the witness has answered the question about the time it took him to give evidence. Mr Douglas is taking some liberty with the scope that the Commission gave him. This isn’t a forum to be raising every single issue that the company may have with the unions. If it is then when the company witnesses get up there’ll be plenty of questions not relating to the training day that we will be seeking to ask questions about and voice, you know, our concern that the company’s not acting in accordance with the EBA and in good faith. But this isn’t the appropriate forum to be dealing blow by blow with every issue.

PN498

If the company has an issue about when we get delegates for Commission hearings, how long it will take for evidence, where we take evidence, let’s deal with that at another time. That is not the point of the matter today.

PN499

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I take your objection. Can we move on a bit further, Mr Douglas?

PN500

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, the only question I have is about the second one in asking what happened on that occasion.

PN501

THE COMMISSIONER: On the 29th?

PN502

MR DOUGLAS: Yes.

PN503

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I’m happy for you to put that question.

PN504

MR DOUGLAS: So on the 29th what time did you attend the union office?
---Again I’m unsure of the time.

PN505

Well, you left work at 8.25 am and you didn’t return to work. So roughly what time do you think you got there?---On that particular morning then traffic was absolute chaos, I’ve never seen it to be honest that bad. That probably took us an hour and a half to get in.

**** JEFFREY LALLY XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN506

And how long did it take you to settle your witness statement?---After I had to wait probably about half an hour or so for Mr Hale because he was engaging in some other business then we sat down and went through the witness statement and changed bit by bit here and there and then we broke for some lunch, came back again in the afternoon and continued to go through until we got to what we have in front of us at the moment.

PN507

So you broke for lunch?---Yes.

PN508

Yes. I don’t have any further questions.

PN509

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Anything further, Mr Hale?

PN510

MR HALE: Yes, Commissioner.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HALE [11.46AM]

PN511

MR HALE: In response to a question by Mr Douglas you said that it’s normally about a week’s notice that you’ve give and he pointed you to that May training. How much training leave, as distinguished from coming to the Commission leave, would you have done in the last 12 months?

PN512

MR DOUGLAS: I object because he was unable that question for me. That’s exactly the question I asked. How much leave did he actually have on trade union and he said he didn’t know the answer to the question.

PN513

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that’s right.

PN514

MR HALE: Okay. Well, I'll rephrase it.

PN515

THE COMMISSIONER: He couldn’t clarify it.

PN516

MR HALE: What courses have you done with the union in the last 12 months?
---I think it was called the Delegates 2 course which we, I think, we attended for three days.

PN517

So have there been any other the equivalent of this rally type training during that period?---During that period of time there was numerous times when were in at the scheduled meetings with the company to deal with our protection of entitlements issue and that’s probably the main part of what I believe would be the makeup of that time. But the exact breakdown I couldn’t give you, but I know that we’ve tried to have numerous meetings with the company on protection of our entitlements, some which the company attended, some which they didn’t.

**** JEFFREY LALLY RXN MR HALE
PN518

THE COMMISSIONER: But not like the 8 March forum?---No.

PN519

I thought that’s what - - - ?---Yes, sorry. Yes, nothing like that day.

PN520

MR HALE: Okay. So have you ever attended a meeting like the 8 March before?---Yes, I have.

PN521

Okay. How long ago was that?---That was almost 12 months to the day previous. It was actually on 17 March 2005.

PN522

Okay. So that wouldn’t have fallen within that document Mr Douglas showed?
---No.

PN523

Did you get paid on that occasion?---Yes, I did.

PN524

How much notice would you have given on that occasion?---I believe I probably would have given around a similar period of notice. Around about a week.

PN525

On this occasion when you gave the flyer to - who did you give the flyer to?
---I’ve got one here.

PN526

No, who did you give it to?---Who did I give it to?

PN527

Yes?---Where I made the amendment this morning, I would have given it to Geoff Perkins, the production manager.

PN528

Okay. So when you gave the document to Geoff Perkins did he say anything about the short notice?---Not about short notice, no.

PN529

Okay. Now, I think you agreed with Mr Douglas that the agreement would go each year from 1 July to 30 June?---That’s correct.

PN530

So from 1 July last year how many times would you have been in the Commission representing your members in relation to a particular issue in the Commission?

PN531

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, I have to object because I’m not sure how this relates to the document before us and I’m not sure how it arises out of cross examination.

**** JEFFREY LALLY RXN MR HALE
PN532

MR HALE: Well, it relates to the document in that if you exclude everything that isn’t training then you can get to a figure of what is training and that Mr Douglas has tried to get the witness to say that he has had more than five days off by
8 March. Now, as the witness explained to Mr Douglas there are other forms of union leave that he gets paid for that is on that document and one of those is for attending the Commission.

PN533

MR DOUGLAS: With respect, Commissioner, he doesn’t take it that high. He wasn’t able to say at all. He just simply wasn’t able to say.

PN534

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you’re seeking to clarify now as best you can what they are. I’m happy for that to be clarified if we can do it, but I’m conscious of the fact that your witness couldn’t recall. But anyway, let’s see if you can help him.

PN535

MR HALE: Yes. How many times would you have been in to the Commission since 1 July last year?---At a guess maybe three.

PN536

So would it help if you remembered the issues?

PN537

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I mean, how long is this going to take? Can we get to a date? Is there a date that’s significant in terms of this that arises from the document?

PN538

MR HALE: No. The point that I’m trying to address, I suppose, is Mr Douglas’ point that he’s exceeded his five days.

PN539

THE COMMISSIONER: And the witness couldn’t clarify it.

PN540

MR HALE: That’s correct. But if he can clarify how many days he spent in the Commission, how many days - - -

PN541

THE COMMISSIONER: He’s not. He’s taken a guess at three. We’ve got some dates here that looks to be around probably 10 days. Unless you’re able to quickly get to particular dates, that might help. I’m actually conscious of the time that’s all, Mr Hale.

PN542

MR HALE: Well, Mr Douglas himself has referred to three 127 applications.

**** JEFFREY LALLY RXN MR HALE
PN543

MR DOUGLAS: Two.

PN544

MR HALE: Two 127 applications, is it? And a Federal Court action or is that part of the same?

PN545

MR DOUGLAS: Look, I don’t want to give evidence, but that was more than a year ago. This isn’t my strongest argument, Commissioner. I’m not going to die in a ditch over this. I’m just raising an issue. Mr Hale’s not helping us. He can’t identify a date. He’s asking me to find a date now. This isn’t going to - - -

PN546

MR HALE: No, I wasn’t.

PN547

THE COMMISSIONER: Anyway. Unless we can be specific, can we move on?

PN548

MR HALE: Okay. At the meeting on the 8th were the press asked to leave?
---Only if there is objections from any member.

PN549

Were there objections?---Not that I can recall.

PN550

THE COMMISSIONER: Probably not with the Green Left.

PN551

MR HALE: That’s was where I was going. Now, in relation to the return to work forthwith, when you left the Commission after those assurances had been given can you tell us what you did?---Yes. I, myself and the other delegates we walked from here back to the AMWU office in Elizabeth Street were our cars were parked, or car was parked. We then immediately went to the car park, got in our cars and drove back to the site at Broadmeadows which we then asked the members who were there on site to reconvene in the canteen so we can conduct a meeting.

PN552

And you reported back what had happened in the Commission?---That I did.

PN553

And you recommended that people immediately return to work on the basis of the agreement that was reached?---I did.

PN554

I have no further questions for the witness.

PN555

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. The only part - sorry, Ms Allison?

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS ALLISON [11.56AM]

PN556

MS ALLISON: Sorry, Commissioner. I just had a few questions. Again to clarify Mr Douglas gave you the list with all the dates and said, you know, what’s trade union training, can you point it out?---Mm.

**** JEFFREY LALLY RXN MS ALLISON
PN557

When have you seen that document before?---Only about a matter of minutes ago.

PN558

Okay. So he asked you to identify particular dates to, you know, six to 12 months ago. Now, why couldn’t you identify every single date there?---One because we - I don’t always photocopy all the documents that are sent to me by the union to say when there’s training and all that. Maybe it’s a little bit naive on my own part, but I generally hand them over then to Geoff Perkins and I would imagine he would then file them away. So I can’t always recall exactly what the dates were. And from what I could see on that particular bit of paper that the person who’s authorising that as being, I think it says union leave, a leave or something like that on it, is my direct supervisor Manny Cilia and that’s his interpretation of where under the programming that they use for our pay that’s probably just one of the areas that he actually found that can pay us while we’re not on site.

PN559

Okay. So if you were given more time with that document would you be able to describe for the Commission the dates?---I’m sure I could.

PN560

Yes, okay. Thank you. Now, you mention that in the meeting the example of Dana was given at the trade union meeting. Commissioner, you’re probably aware of the Dana situation. It was reported in the press the company had come out with minus five per cent pay increases.

PN561

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN562

MS ALLISON: Now, why is the example of Dana important to members at Visy?---This is just my interpretation of the views of the people out at Visy at Broadmeadows, is they also don’t want to be in that position where they’re told that they’re going to start off at minus so many per cent with their wages, that their conditions are going to be cut back to, you know, things that they’ve never seen before. So it does. The relevance of it was that they are a bit fearful of the same type of thing happening.

PN563

Now, Mr Douglas tried to draw a distinction between political rallies and trade union training and he was trying to get at, what he was saying was would you define what is political versus training. Would you tell the Commission anything that you were taught on that day or was discussed on that day that wasn’t relevant in your role as a union delegate?

PN564

MR DOUGLAS: Well, Commissioner, I’m not sure if that’s going to be terribly elucidating at the moment. Mr Lally said that everything he thinks is relevant in his role as a union shop steward. If they’re going to draw a particular issue fine, but if you’re just going to say what do you think’s relevant it raises the very question I raised, is how are we to ever know when it’s training or it’s not when you only get there and say it is?

**** JEFFREY LALLY RXN MS ALLISON
PN565

THE COMMISSIONER: Depending on the answer it may be of interest. A good question to her.

PN566

THE WITNESS: On that particular day I don’t recall if anything really being not relevant to my position. There was actually a very, a funny comment that I made to one of the fellow stewards that were there that day, and Mr Douglas made reference to Julian Rowe himself a little bit earlier in the day, that he can go on and on and speak for quite a long time and it was one of those, that day was one of those days where I actually tried to take in as much as I possibly could with him because he didn’t seem to go over and over the one particular issue all the time. Actually it was he kept myself focused on what he was talking about.

PN567

THE COMMISSIONER: Or didn’t take any notes I think was your earlier evidence?---No, I didn’t take any notes. I didn’t think - to be honest I didn’t think I’d need any because I had a lot of the stuff there in front of me with that document you have in front of you.

PN568

MS ALLISON: You mentioned that there was discussion about union strength and union numbers. Again, why is this important for Visy union members?---We believe that there can be strength in numbers. You know, if you only have half a dozen members on a particular site and you’re actually trying to bargain something in your up and coming enterprise bargaining agreement, how are we to ever convince the company that it’s good for all the people on the site when there’s only six members? Maybe that’s just a number I’m picking out that would be fighting for it or looking for that particular - - -

PN569

MS ALLISON: So would you describe it that union numbers of related to bargaining?---It can be, yes.

PN570

THE COMMISSIONER: Good lead.

PN571

MS ALLISON: Sorry, Commissioner. I'll take that on board.

PN572

THE COMMISSIONER: Should have you playing full forward for the Swans.

PN573

MS ALLISON: No more questions, Commissioner. Thank you.

PN574

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I ask you, Mr Lally. The question’s been asked, but I think it’s critical to what we’re on about. Are there any aspects at all related to the 8 March seminar, forum, rally, whatever it was that you say are not relevant to the people at Visy?---Is there anything that was spoken about on that day that’s not relevant?

**** JEFFREY LALLY RXN MS ALLISON
PN575

Yes, particularly ..... see, the reason I ask you is that you took no notes. Now, I’m not entirely sure what that suggests. I’m probably going to be addressed about that. But if there was aspects of what was being presented that day one of the assumptions I would make, or be inclined to make, is to say I’d better make a note of that because that could have relevance to whatever that’s going on at our place. That didn’t crop up in your experience that day?---What I was going to rely on and do rely on a bit when it comes to addressing my members on the site is one my organiser, Tony Mavromatis. You know, him keeping myself and our people up to date with the issues because he deals with it every single day. He fully understands it a little bit better than what I do. The notes that you have I was going to use those as my aide to addressing - - -

PN576

Can I ask you about them. When were you told you were going to get copies of the slides?---We weren’t told. They were there on the seats. On each of the seats within - - -

PN577

Okay, so they were there from the start?---Yes. So when we walked in they were there waiting for you.

PN578

Okay. And then you were taken through the slide show?---Yes. So we were able to follow it.

PN579

So you knew you were going to have those?---Yes. We knew we were, we were able to follow each of the slides through with that.

PN580

And then at the end of the, I take it from your evidence earlier, at the end of the day you were given a copy of the manual to take with you?---Yes.

PN581

Have you held any meetings with the members since then to go through any of this?---Not yet.

PN582

Not yet?---Not yet.

PN583

Been too busy in here?---You can say that, yes. It was also, I suppose, I didn’t want to upset any of the parties through having any other meetings at this point in time until we actually knew what the outcome was here.

PN584

Okay, that’s fine. One of the things that the union outlines to which Mr Hale’s made reference, and you weren’t present at the time, was a reference that he made to trade union training that’s contained in the agreement. Are you familiar with the clause in the agreement that deals with it, clause 9?---Yes, I’m - yes, fairly.

**** JEFFREY LALLY RXN MS ALLISON
PN585

Okay. It indicates there that there was prior written notice from the unions and an accredited delegate can be given, with the approval of management, five days each year without loss of pay and that the training will be approved by trade union trading Australia or the union?---Yes.

PN586

And consistent and supported with the legitimate role of union delegates. Now, in terms of you being around a little while I see that you’ve been a delegate for five years, I think, and you’ve been employed by Visy for 13 years. You may recall the Trade Union Training Authority. Do you remember that at all?---Not really.

PN587

Not really?---Not really.

PN588

God, I’m showing my history here?---I'll be honest, before I actually became delegate I would attend union meetings without sort of really listening to a hell of a lot.

PN589

All right. But if you’re not familiar with what TUTA was about then there’s no point in me chasing you round down that path. I’ve got no other questions. Thank you, you’re excused?---Okay, thank you. Do I leave these?

PN590

Yes. You can sit in the back of the court if you need to.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.07PM]

PN591

THE COMMISSIONER: Just before we go on I’m getting a bit conscious of the time here today. I’ve got a matter at 2 o'clock that’s going to take approximately an hour. I’m happy for us to keep going at this stage until perhaps 1 o'clock, but we’ll need to have some lunch and then I’ve got the 2 o'clock matter. We can continue on at 3 o'clock. I’m anxious to try and get this matter resolved. If we can’t then effectively we’re looking at another day to come back and I just wanted to flag that at this stage and I have currently Thursday available all day. So you might just keep that in your back pockets just in case we need some further time.

PN592

But if I can at all deal with this today I’d be anxious to. We don’t want to have to have people away from work or new people involved in this for any extent of time. But anyway, I just mention it now before we go on. Mr Hale, you’ve got some other witnesses?

PN593

MR HALE: Yes, Commissioner. The next witness I would call is Nick Dimitrovski.

<NICK DIMITROVSKI, SWORN [12.09PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HALE

PN594

MR HALE: Did you have a witness statement prepared in relation to this matter?---Yes.

PN595

Have you got a copy of that with you?---Yes.

PN596

Okay. Is everything that you’ve said in there true and correct?---Correct.

PN597

Now, when you went into the union office to give your witness statement can you tell the Commission approximately what time you left?---From home?

PN598

No, from the union office to go to work?---It was approximately about, I think, 4.30, 5, something like that. A bit later. I can’t remember. I think I got to work around 6 or something like that. There was a lot of traffic on the road getting there so it took a bit of time.

PN599

So you left the union office after making your statement and went straight to work?---That’s correct, yes.

PN600

I have no further questions.

EXHIBIT #H2 STATEMENT OF NICK DIMITROVSKI

PN601

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Douglas has probably got some questions for you.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DOUGLAS [12.11PM]

PN602

MR DOUGLAS: Mr Dimitrovski, you only went once to the union office to do your witness statement, didn’t you?---That’s correct, once.

PN603

That was on 21 March?---Yes.

PN604

Okay. At that time you saw the statement of Mr Lally. Is that right?---That’s correct.

PN605

So you saw this statement on 21 March if I can just show you. There’s some markings on it. Please ignore it, that’s my writing. You saw that statement?
---Yes. In brief, yes.

PN606

Is it exactly the statement you saw?---Yes. I mean, I can’t remember exactly on that day because - - -

**** NICK DIMITROVSKI XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN607

THE COMMISSIONER: But that looks like the statement?---It looks like it, yes.

PN608

MR DOUGLAS: Because today you swear that:

PN609

I’ve read the statement of Jeff Lally and I attended the AMWU training forum and agree with the statement of events that took place.

PN610

So you were satisfied on 21 March that you’d seen that statement and it was true?
---Yes.

PN611

Yes?---Correct.

PN612

So Mr Lally gave evidence today that he attended on the 29th and made amendments to this statement, significant amendments to this statement. That wouldn’t be true? I’m just waiting for the answer.

PN613

THE COMMISSIONER: You’re putting a question?

PN614

MR DOUGLAS: Yes, I am.

PN615

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN616

MR DOUGLAS: Yes, that’s the question. On the 21st you saw this statement and you’ve made a statement saying it’s true. That’s right? So if Mr Lally said that he hadn’t prepared this statement on the 21st, that it wasn’t ready on that time, it had to be knocked down and reshaped on the 29th, that wouldn’t be true?
---Well, I’m just going by the statement that I was in the AMWU thing, what was discussed. You know, what actually happened to me and what happened to Jeff.

PN617

That’s okay?---We were just talking about what - - -

PN618

MR DOUGLAS: But you’re satisfied - - -

PN619

THE COMMISSIONER: But you saw a statement that was purported to have been made by Mr Lally - - - ?---That was typed up.

PN620

And in fact that statement there appears to be the statement you saw. Is that what you’re saying?---Appears to be, yes.

**** NICK DIMITROVSKI XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN621

Yes. It was two pages and it was about that length?---I can’t remember. It was on the computer, I can’t remember.

PN622

Well, this is what Mr Douglas is trying to clarify?---Yes.

PN623

MR DOUGLAS: Do you want to re-read it again? Just satisfy yourself?---Yes, I think it’s the correct one.

PN624

That’s the correct one? So if anyone was to suggest that if this statement wasn’t prepared on 21 March it would be untrue?---Obviously.

PN625

Now, you went along to the forum on 8 March and what did you understand you were going to on the 8th?---What did I understand?

PN626

Yes. What did you understand you were going to?---Training. Delegates.

PN627

Delegates training?---Yes.

PN628

And who told you that?---Sorry?

PN629

Who told you that?---Who told me that?

PN630

Yes?---It was on the union thing.

PN631

On the union flyer?---Yes.

PN632

Okay?---And I was also told by my, because I’m only a new, I’ve only been what, probably about two or three months, I can’t remember. I just I work afternoon shift to afternoon - - -

PN633

THE COMMISSIONER: As a delegate you mean?---Yes.

PN634

Yes?---So I’m only new to all this.

PN635

MR DOUGLAS: No, that’s okay. I’m not criticising, I’m just asking. So from looking at the flyer and from what you were told by Mr Lally?---Everyone that was in the union meet at the company, yes.

PN636

They told you that it was training?---Yes.

**** NICK DIMITROVSKI XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN637

Now, you went along to the training on the 8th and were you delivered a series of slides on the chair? Paper slides of what was going to be shown on the screen?
---Sorry?

PN638

Were you shown - sorry, it’s my question. When you arrived at the training and you went to sit down was there some paper on the chair which had a series of slides on it?---I can’t remember.

PN639

Well, perhaps if the witness can be shown.

PN640

THE COMMISSIONER: I can show you this.

PN641

MR DOUGLAS: I can’t see?---There was a lot of - - -

PN642

THE COMMISSIONER: Was that available when you came in sitting on the chairs?---Yes it might have been, yes. Yes, I think it was.

PN643

Are you able to say definitely or not?---I think yes it was.

PN644

Okay.

PN645

MR DOUGLAS: Thank you. Now, am I right in saying that there was significant discussion about big issues such as the campaign against the industrial relations legislation? Is that right?---I can’t remember everything that was said.

PN646

Just try and remember what you can?---Yes.

PN647

Was there a significant discussion about the campaign?---I think so. I can’t remember though. Like I said it’s my first time. I don’t know.

PN648

That’s okay. Was there discussions about developing community campaigns against the legislation?---Community campaigns?

PN649

Yes. Campaigns out in the community. An advertising campaign?---I think there might have been. I’m not too sure. I can’t recall if that was said or not. I can’t remember.

PN650

Was there discussions about the Liberal Party and how their unions were going to address the Liberal Party about this new legislation?---I can’t remember.

**** NICK DIMITROVSKI XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN651

Do you remember much about the training at all?---Yes.

PN652

Yes? Tell me what you remember about the training?---Well, they just talked about how new laws were coming in and how as union delegates we have to sort of understand these laws and stuff like that, you know.

PN653

So during this training, it went for about six hours, yes?---Pretty much, yes.

PN654

Did you take any notes?---Sorry?

PN655

Did you take any notes?---No I didn’t because it’s my first time.

PN656

Okay?---But there - - -

PN657

So what do you recall your responsibilities as a union delegate after going to that training? What did you learn?---What did I learn?

PN658

Yes?---Basically from the way it all sounded from what was coming out, like all the information and just like how you talks or anyone talks, it sounded to me like I’ve got no rights under this new industrial relations law of John Howard’s.

PN659

THE COMMISSIONER: We know all about the new rights. Don’t you worry about that.

PN660

MR DOUGLAS: And it’s something you’ve got to fight for, isn’t it?---It wasn’t just, it wasn’t like just one person saying it, there was like a lot of people saying it.

PN661

Person after person?---Yes. You could even hear the whispers at the back. It was a scary moment, yes. Everyone.

PN662

So the sense that you got out of it is that people got pretty hyped up as a result of the speakers and were quite fearful of it?---Not hyped up. I wouldn’t say hyped up, just concerned.

PN663

And did you pick up any specific skills on how you can help your members as a result of attending?---No. There’s so much information in regards to like, you know, like what’s going to happen with the new industrial relations laws. I mean, I was like trying to pay attention but I couldn’t. That was my first time. There were a lot of issues there that I personally don’t understand so I couldn’t really give you an answer what, you know.

**** NICK DIMITROVSKI XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN664

There was discussions about the upcoming 28 June campaign, national day of action?---Yes. I think there might have been, I can’t recall exactly that.

PN665

About how to plan for it as a delegate?---I don’t know, I can’t recall that. I really haven’t even gone past those notes or anything. Like you know the training, because everything was like - and then when I got back to work, I found out I wasn’t going to get paid or something, this and that, I’ve just been depressed, you know.

PN666

Yes, did you get a training manual at the end of it?---No, I didn’t.

PN667

Did anyone else?---There were, but I think, I don’t know, there were certain amounts that went out, but I don’t know if they didn’t have any left, but I think one of our delegates took one, I can’t remember.

PN668

All right. Did you understand they were prepared specifically for that training or were they just ones that had been prepared in advance?---I can’t remember.

PN669

Yes, I’ve no further questions.

PN670

THE COMMISSIONER: Anything further Mr Hale?

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HALE [12.21PM]

PN671

MR HALE: Just a couple of things.

PN672

When you prepared your witness statement, could you just explain how you did that?---How I did that?

PN673

Yes?---Well basically everything that has happened thus far, like to get to this point, I suppose that’s why I agreed with Jeff, because everything that he was talking about and making the statement that’s exactly what happened.

PN674

So although that actual document, may not have been the exact words - - -

PN675

MR DOUGLAS: That’s not what he said with respect. He looked at it and satisfied himself it was the document, and there’s no point of clarification, or ambiguity about that?---I don’t know I can’t remember what was given to me at the delegates thing. I can’t remember everything, there’s so much like information, I can’t remember everything that was put in front of me.

**** NICK DIMITROVSKI RXN MR HALE
PN676

THE COMMISSIONER: But well it’s important when you are giving evidence?
---Yes, I understand that - - -

PN677

Just let me finish. That if you are unsure, or you don’t know, you should say so?
---All right, I’m unsure, I don’t know.

PN678

Well the evidence that you gave earlier, when Mr Douglas handed you the two page statement?---Yes.

PN679

I took it that your evidence was that to the extent that you can say, that was the statement that you saw when you came into the office before you prepared your statement, is that right?---That’s correct, what you are saying, yes.

PN680

MR HALE: How would you know that?

PN681

MR DOUGLAS: With respect the question has been answered.

PN682

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. To the best of his knowledge and to the best of his recollection, that’s the statement that he saw, you will have to go with that Mr Hale, that’s the evidence. Now what spin you two might put on it, is another story.

PN683

MR HALE: Well it’s not the spin.

PN684

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s his evidence.

PN685

MR HALE: The concern I’ve got is that I know that wasn’t - - -

PN686

MR DOUGLAS: This is evidence from the bar table.

PN687

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, it is.

PN688

MR HALE: I’m trying to give him the opportunity to - - -

PN689

THE COMMISSIONER: We don’t need to deal with any clarification in relation to this witness’ evidence.

PN690

MR HALE: That’s what I was trying to give him the opportunity to do. Well I have no further questions.

**** NICK DIMITROVSKI RXN MR HALE
PN691

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Allison anything further?

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS ALLISON [12.24PM]

PN692

MS ALLISON: Just quickly. You said to Mr Douglas there was a lot of information on that delegates training day. Out of that day what overwhelmingly was it that you learnt? What was the overwhelming issue that you learnt?---Well to tell you the truth was, we are facing a lot of issues in this new industrial relations law. And I don’t know, it scared the hell out of me listening to all the new changes and you know, and yes I did take a few things from there, like that thing you showed me there and there’s other things. But it was a long day, and I didn’t really go home and read it all, there was a lot there and I was even discussing with my wife, you know, like, what am I doing here, you know.

PN693

Were you aware of all that before?---No I wasn’t.

PN694

Why is that relevant to Visy members?---Well it’s relevant because we obviously need to know what’s going on like what’s going to affect my workers, affect us all. If I’m not informed I don’t know. Like I said before, I’m new delegate, I don’t even know what’s going on.

PN695

Thank you no more questions.

PN696

THE COMMISSIONER: You put the very questions I was going to put Ms Allison, thank you you’re excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.26PM]

PN697

MR HALE: I would like to call Sydney David Ling.

<SYDNEY DAVID LING, AFFIRMED [12.26PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HALE

PN698

MR HALE: Did you have a witness statement prepared in relation to this matter prior to coming here?---Yes.

PN699

Have you got a copy of that witness statement with you?---Yes.

PN700

Is there anything that you want to change in that witness statement?---No.

PN701

Is everything in that witness statement true and correct?---Yes, to the best of my recollection anyway.

PN702

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry?---To the best of my recollection.

PN703

MR HALE: In paragraph 2 of your witness statement, you said you’ve read the statement of Jeff Lally, and you agree with his statement of events. Now have you read the most recent statement of Jeff Lally?---I believe so, is it, unless he’s changed it this morning.

PN704

MR DOUGLAS: Well perhaps you could say what date did he read the witness statement.

PN705

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s the easiest way of doing it isn’t it? I’ve read the statement of Jeff Lally is what’s contained in the statement. It is a question of when.

PN706

MR HALE: I think he read it twice. Maybe if I can just run him through how these witness statements were done, and then he, that may assist.

PN707

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, I don’t mind this happening, buy I will object to this leading.

PN708

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Aren’t we able to find out when the statement was read? Because that will assist in terms of the other issues that have been put earlier without this witness being present.

PN709

MR HALE: Yes, except - - -

PN710

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, perhaps we might have this discussion without the witness.

**** SYDNEY DAVID LING XN MR HALE
PN711

THE COMMISSIONER: That might be the easiest. Would you mind just popping outside.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.29PM]

PN712

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Lally attended the office on two occasions, 21st and 29th and the witness was there on the 29th, is that right?

PN713

MR HALE: Yes, that’s right.

PN714

THE COMMISSIONER: Does that help us?

PN715

MR HALE: That does help us in that he wouldn’t have read Mr Lally’s first statement.

PN716

THE COMMISSIONER: Well we need to know what statement he read and when he read it?

PN717

MR HALE: That would have been the only statement that he would have read, I thought he was, that he’d attended on both occasions.

PN718

THE COMMISSIONER: No, he didn’t that’s why I thought the simplest way was to say when were you there and what did you read.

PN719

MR HALE: Yes, no I thought he’d been there both times.

PN720

THE COMMISSIONER: You comfortable with that Mr Douglas.

PN721

MR DOUGLAS: Yes, I’m fine with that.

<SYDNEY DAVID LING, ON FORMER AFFIRMATION [12.31PM]

PN722

THE COMMISSIONER: That was no fault of yours Mr Ling, it was just us getting the act together.

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HALE, CONTINUING

PN723

MR HALE: Can you tell us what day you read that witness statement?---It would be 30 March, when I made my statement, that would be.

PN724

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you sure about that, we don’t have a date on the statement?---Well you know, I went in and gave my statement, I’m pretty sure I gave my statement on the 30th, so that would have been the day I read, whichever day I made my statement.

**** SYDNEY DAVID LING XN MR HALE
PN725

MR HALE: Now I think you say you’ve been a steward for approximately nine years?---Yes.

PN726

So what’s been the established custom and practice in relation to trade union training?---We’ve notified the company – I think there’s a bit of a variety there because sometimes they get notice directly from the union and sometimes we’ve taken notice and given it to them ourselves. So there’s a bit of variety there, I don’t this there’s an actually established practice.

PN727

Was this the first time, that you haven’t been paid for attending a meeting such as this?---I wouldn’t say it was the first time, no. It would be the first time in several years, going back before about 2000 there were a training that I attended which I was paid by the union rather than by the company.

PN728

Okay, and that was prior to the making of the clause in the agreement in its current form?---Yes.

PN729

So I think you give some evidence in relation to when those clauses went in?
---Yes, I didn’t have the clauses in front of me when I gave that evidence, but that’s the best of my recollection.

PN730

In your evidence you said, clauses in relation to paid union training came in, in the 1999 agreement, is that when you’d say from that date you got paid trade union training?---I would say, that would be about the time, yes. If it wasn’t that agreement it was the next one.

PN731

Were there earlier occasions between 1999 and now where you attended a forum like the one you attended on 8 March and you got paid for it?---Yes.

PN732

How many times would that have occurred?---I couldn’t tell you to be honest. I’d only go to say a number of times, certainly the last one before this one I can vouch for because it was, it’s clear in my recollection that last year’s one we got paid for. Prior to that I would say there’ve been maybe a couple of others but I can’t recall them in detail.

PN733

At the forum on the 8th did you take any notes?---At the forum, the, no.

PN734

Why didn’t you take notes?---We were handed out copies of the power point presentation, I took them as being adequate notes.

**** SYDNEY DAVID LING XN MR HALE
PN735

THE COMMISSIONER: Just to be clear about all that so we don’t have to clarify the moment, is this the material?---Yes.

PN736

Have a look inside it just to be sure?---Okay.

PN737

As I understand it, it is a series of copies of overheads that were used during the meeting?---Yes, that’s correct, yes. Apart from my copy being double sided it’s the same.

PN738

MR HALE: Okay. In paragraph 4 of your witness evidence, you say, we understood that we wouldn’t be paid for political action, for example, the rally on 15 November 2005. Why did you distinguish this particular meeting to the political action on 15 November 2005?---Well mostly because the company approached us on that case and asked us if we would be willing to be send a delegate to that rally if it was paid. We made an agreement on the number and I made the distinction because that was clearly a political rally, which would routinely expect if people attended that, they wouldn’t get paid. Whereas I made the distinction on the basis that this delegates forum that we attended was usually paid and I wanted to make the distinction between how the company was prepared to pay us on 15 November, when they normally wouldn’t and in this case they would normally pay us and they decided not to. I thought that that was a relevant argument.

PN739

As far as the content of the two different rallies, forums whatever, was there any distinction between the content of the two that would lead you to believe that one was different to the other?---Yes, the delegates, the forum we went to in March was giving us an indication of what the legislation would contain as far as they knew it and how the union intended to try to deal with and instruct their delegates pertaining to that legislation. Whereas the rally was specifically targeting the government and saying that we don’t want this legislation at all, and was basically to demonstrate to the government that their actions were unacceptable, so.

PN740

So at the March 8 meeting, you were told about the legislation, were you also told about the effect that legislation might have?---We were given opinions of the speakers, yes.

PN741

Did they tell you that you would have to make some changes in the way in which you operate as a delegate?---Yes, they suggested that that would be most likely.

**** SYDNEY DAVID LING XN MR HALE
PN742

I’ve no further questions. I don’t know whether I tended that.

PN743

THE COMMISSIONER: No you didn’t.

EXHIBIT #H3 STATEMENT OF SYDNEY DAVID LING
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS ALLISON [12.39PM]

PN744

MS ALLISON: With giving notice at trade union training, when do you normally give notice?---Usually when it is as soon as practical after we receive notice ourselves, unless the company is notified directly by the union.

PN745

So what’s the range on that.?---Look it’s varied fairly widely, from a week up to maybe four or five weeks.

PN746

Okay, thank you no further questions.

PN747

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Douglas?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DOUGLAS [12.40PM]

PN748

MR DOUGLAS: Mr Ling, I understand from the evidence that you’ve given to Mr Hale, there is something which is normal, doesn’t amount to custom and practice does it, as to when you give notice?---I’m not sure I understand the distinction that you are trying to explain.

PN749

Mr Hale asked you what was the normal custom and practice in giving notice of union training?---Yes.

PN750

You recall that?---Yes.

PN751

You said well look there isn’t, it chops and changes, it’s not always the same, sometimes the company gets it directly and your later evidence was that it could be between one to four weeks, or longer depending on when you get it. If there is a custom and practice as soon as you get it, you give it to the company, is that right?---Yes.

PN752

You’ve spoken about the content of the forum, and you said it made you aware of the changes of the legislation, yes?---Yes.

**** SYDNEY DAVID LING XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN753

In a very general sense?---In a general sense, yes.

PN754

You need a lot more training to be able to usefully take it back to the employees and apply it?---Yes, I would say that.

PN755

But there was a very thorough explanation as to the campaign that the union was running and explaining why it was important, is that a fair description?---I’d say that that explanation was in fairly general terms as well.

PN756

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m sorry I can’t quite hear you?---I’m sorry. In general terms they explained the campaign that the union was running as well, yes.

PN757

MR DOUGLAS: They explained what the ACTU and union responsibility was to the Liberal Party to try and prevent this legislation to roll it back?---I, I can’t actually recall what they said they were doing with the Liberal Party, to be honest.

PN758

Can you remember discussions about community campaigns, getting out in the community of selling the message of how dangerous it is for employees?---Yes, I believe that was mentioned.

PN759

Do you recall discussions about the difficulty they are having with the Labour Party trying to get them on board?---Yes, there was some talk about that, yes.

PN760

If I was to summarise your evidence it was, this gave you an appreciation of some of the risks that were out there, but you need a lot of training to be able to go and apply it to the workforce.?---Yes.

PN761

Is that fair?---Yes, certainly far more in depth training, yes.

PN762

Part of this forum was people voicing their concerns and asking questions and finding out what the union’s position was, yes?---Well as part of the forum they were basically asking the delegates how the union could assist them, and what the delegates opinions were and how the union could continue forward.

PN763

So what I’m going to do, is I’m going to read out the form to you, which I think is D3. Could the witness be shown D3 because it would be helpful. Now Mr Ling if you could just bear with me, in the box that’s there, it says, the AMW invites you to have your say about the future of the union?---Yes.

**** SYDNEY DAVID LING XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN764

As you read that, that’s what you understood occurred, wasn’t it? You were going along and they were trying to find out from you what you needed, what sort of training, what sort of support, what information you needed, and they were trying to see how they could strengthen the workplace by talking to you. So it was an information collection thing as well as informing you generally on the type of risks that were there?---Yes.

PN765

And that’s the accurate description of what occurred?---I would agree with that.

PN766

I need to be careful, I am not trying to trap you, are you absolutely satisfied with that description?---I think that’s reasonably fair, yes.

PN767

You saw Mr Lally’s witness statement on the day that you went to the union’s offices, and you thought it was the 30th, but if I said to you it was the 29th, you wouldn’t fight with me over that?---No.

PN768

You saw a statement about one and a half pages?---Yes.

PN769

You are satisfied – it is probably best if I show you that statement. This is a statement H1, ignore my scribbles?---Yes.

PN770

Just read through that carefully so you are satisfied that’s the one?---It looks to be the statement yes.

PN771

You came into the union office on 29 March, what time do you think you got there?---I think we got there about quarter past nine, somewhere around that time.

PN772

So the traffic wasn’t unbelievably bad that day?---No.

PN773

So it didn’t take you an hour and a half to get in?---Well I wasn’t driving so - - -

PN774

But you’d know if it took an hour and a half?---I wouldn’t have thought so, but I wasn’t watching the clock.

PN775

When you got there did you all sit in a room with somebody to take the witness statements?---Immediately we got there?

PN776

Yes, so what occurred when you got there?---We met with Tony Mavromatis and we proceeded to join him and walk to Dallas Brookes.

**** SYDNEY DAVID LING XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN777

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m sorry I can’t hear. That’s not a microphone, it’s only for the recording purposes, you need to speak up?---Okay, we proceeded to Dallas Brookes Hall for a, I think it was a Trades Hall meeting with Tony.

PN778

MR DOUGLAS: So if Mr Lally said that he didn’t go to the national delegates meeting on 29 March, he would be telling a lie would he?---Yes.

PN779

How long were you at that meeting, at Dallas Brookes Hall?---I’d say a bit under an hour.

PN780

What occurred after that?---We met Mr Hale at the delegates forum and we walked back to the office with him to do our statements.

PN781

So you met Mr Hale at the delegates forum?---Yes.

PN782

When you got back were you shown the witness statement of Mr Lally?---Yes.

PN783

The witness statement that you just saw?---Yes.

PN784

On 29 March after going to Dallas Brookes you were then presented with
Mr Lally’s witness statement in the form you see now, and that’s the one you’ve signed your statement in accordance with?---Yes.

PN785

What did you do after that?---Well I hadn’t given my statement, so I read the other two statements that Mr Fletcher and Mr Dimitrovski had written discussed those with Mr Hale and then proceeded to dictate mine.

PN786

What time did you leave?---I’d say we left around 1 o’clock.

PN787

Not 5.30?---5.30

PN788

Yes?---On the 29th?

PN789

Yes?---No.

PN790

So where did you got after 1.30?---Well it was lunch time we went and had some lunch.

PN791

After lunch where did you go?---We went back to Mr Lally’s house where our cars were.

**** SYDNEY DAVID LING XXN MR DOUGLAS
PN792

Now your shift was to conclude at 3.35 pm?---Yes.

PN793

Did you go back to work?---No, I didn’t.

PN794

Why didn’t you go back to work?---Well it was around 2.30-ish when we got back to Mr Lally’s house and I thought by the time I got there it would be nearly, it would probably after 3 o’clock and for half an hour I didn’t think it was worth. By the time I got my overalls on, I’d just have to take it off again.

PN795

Thanks for your candour I understand. I don’t think I have any further questions, Commissioner.

PN796

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hale?

PN797

MR HALE: I don’t have anything arising, Commissioner.

PN798

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Allison?

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS ALLISON [12.52PM]

PN799

MS ALLISON: Mr Douglas asked you about what you’d learnt at the delegates training session and you said that there was a lot of general information, a lot of information and would need further training to apply it. Would you describe to the Commission overwhelmingly what you learnt that day?---I learnt that – what did I learn? I heard that the legislation was repealing the awards. That it was stripping back to very minimal conditions what we could ask for in an enterprise agreement. That there were a number of provisions that were directly related to us because they were in our current enterprise agreement that were going to be illegal under the new laws and some of which had rather hefty punitive fines attached to them, basically preventing us from even asking for some of our provisions to be continued. I think that’s probably the most relevant piece of information I got out of it.

PN800

That’s good, you also mentioned there was some discussion about the ACTU and the union’s response to the legislation?---Yes.

**** SYDNEY DAVID LING RXN MS ALLISON
PN801

Why is that important for Visy members?---Well I believe that Visy members need to understand how large a change the legislation makes for us, particularly as we are about to enter an enterprise bargaining agreement, a new negotiation for one. And that our members need to know that there are certain things that we simply cannot negotiate on in this new enterprise agreement, which we have enjoyed in our past enterprise agreements. I know that our members would be expecting that provisions in our current agreement would continue, and we would have to explain and educate them that much of that would not be now allowable. So we need to be able to go to our members and say look, what you are asking for is great, but we simply cannot put that in an enterprise agreement this time round, without risking some pretty serious consequences.

PN802

Thank you, no more questions.

PN803

THE COMMISSIONER: We should get you to conduct some forums, if you have that clear an understanding of what this new Act is all about, it’s interesting to say the least. I’m being flippant, but at any rate. A couple of questions?
---Thank you Commissioner.

PN804

I notice in your statement you indicate that you take the minutes of shop committee meetings and distribute them effectively?---Yes.

PN805

Both to your members and perhaps to management if you are taking them?---Yes, it is usually by email to the managers, yes.

PN806

Were you involved in the negotiations for the most recent enterprise agreement?
---Yes I was.

PN807

In terms of what was understood coming out of those negotiations, what did you understand the agreement was in relation to attendance at the Commission and attendance at union mass meetings? What was your understanding about those discussions?---Well I understood that attendance at the Commission and delegates meetings would be paid. General mass meetings of all members, it was my understanding that that would not be paid.

PN808

When you talk about delegates meetings, how do you describe those?---Well basically any meeting which required delegates to attend, but not the general mass.

**** SYDNEY DAVID LING RXN MS ALLISON
PN809

Both on and off site?---Yes.

PN810

Both?---Yes.

PN811

Okay, all right thank you?---The on site meetings we had provision for allowing the delegates to meet with the membership at paid meetings.

PN812

Yes, to report back and the like for discussions?---Yes.

PN813

You talked earlier in the piece about differences in terms of notification of training?---Yes.

PN814

You indicated sometimes the union directly contacts the company?---Yes.

PN815

Can you give an example of what sort of training would be involved there?
---Mostly OH&S, but delegates, the basic delegates training, and what we call level 2 training was usually notified directly. Generally speaking if it was directly notified, they’d be ones which were asking the company to pay fees for the training. So it would be basically an invoice.

PN816

So in terms of training that you or other of the delegates would be looking to inform the company about, what sort of training is involved there?---It might have enterprise bargaining training.

PN817

Can you give examples?---Enterprise bargaining training, training on IR law, I’m trying to think.

PN818

These would be courses that would be run externally, outside the premises of Visy?---Outside Visy, yes.

PN819

Always on union premises or at other premises, as well I mean?---Let me think, predominantly at union premises yes.

PN820

Okay, thank you that’s clarified a few things for me, if there’s nothing arising, you’re excused and I thank you for the evidence that you’ve given, and I agree with Mr Douglas, you’ve been candid and forthright and I appreciate. Thank you, you are excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.59PM]

PN821

THE COMMISSIONER: Is this a convenient time to take a lunch break, and what we might do because I’ve got this other commitment, if we resume at 3 pm.

PN822

MR HALE: Yes.

PN823

THE COMMISSIONER: We adjourn on that basis.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.59PM]
<RESUMED [3.03PM]

PN824

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there any further evidence you wish to educe Mr Hale?

PN825

MR HALE: No Commissioner.

PN826

THE COMMISSIONER: What’s the story with Ms Allison. Was she intending to lead any evidence, do you know in relation to proceedings?

PN827

MR HALE: Not that I’m aware of, she didn’t put in any witness statements.

PN828

THE COMMISSIONER: No she didn’t.

PN829

MR HALE: The last time I spoke to her about it, she said that she would be relying on our witnesses.

PN830

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN831

MR HALE: I don’t know where she is, when we all left at lunch time, we were going to come back, but sometimes you get trapped in your office.

PN832

THE COMMISSIONER: Of course, I know about all of that. Look we might proceed and take your evidence Mr Douglas, in the event that there is something that NUW wishes to lead, of course, we will give you the opportunity to deal with that as you need to, but I’ll call on you.

PN833

MR DOUGLAS: I will call the first witness Mr Allan Adelman.

<ALLAN ADELMAN, SWORN [3.04PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DOUGLAS

PN834

MR DOUGLAS: Mr Adelman do you have your witness statement with you?---I have it.

PN835

Were you given instructions to prepare the statement?---Yes.

PN836

Did you give instructions to prepare it?---Yes.

PN837

You are confident it is true and correct in every particular?---I am, yes.

PN838

I tender that.

EXHIBIT #D4 STATEMENT OF ALLAN ADELMAN

PN839

MR DOUGLAS: I have no further questions.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HALE [3.05PM]

PN840

MR HALE: You are the engineering manager, and you’ve been there almost 12 months?---Just 12 months.

PN841

Just gone 12 months, as part of your job as the engineering manager you represent management on the site committee, is that right?---Yes.

PN842

You have done that at every site committee meeting since you started?---Yes.

PN843

Okay, now when do you normally get the – first of all do you get minutes of those site committee meetings?---Minutes are written, yes.

PN844

They are distributed to management?---Yes.

PN845

As well as put up on the union notice boards?---I believe there is one union notice board, I haven’t actually seen them, but I do get them.

PN846

Was there anything unusual about when these minutes from the meeting on 1 March 2006? I think in your evidence you say that you didn’t see them until:

PN847

The first time I saw the minutes was on the morning of Wednesday
5 April 2006, they were shown to me by Mr Ray Miller. Mr Miller told me the minutes had been provided to him by the Broadmeadows shop committee via email at 11.27 am on Wednesday 15 March.

**** ALLAN ADELMAN XXN MR HALE
PN848

You say that in your witness statement, were they the minutes that were attached to Mr Ling’s statement?---Yes, they were yes.

PN849

So that they were the minutes of 1 March, and you say in your statement that they were distributed on 15 March, although you didn’t get a copy?---That’s right. I didn’t get them I saw them in Mr Miller’s office on 15th, I didn’t see them before.

PN850

So you’d seen them on the 15th?---I saw them in Mr Miller’s office on the 15th.

PN851

Okay so was there anything unusual about the distribution of those minutes? Is that the normal process?---I have in the past had an email, I didn’t see an email this time.

PN852

But as far as the time delay that would be normal?---I can’t comment to be honest, because I get numbers of emails every day and I don’t open every email as I get it. When I saw the minutes it could have been, I saw them on the 15th.

PN853

How often does the site committee meet?

PN854

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, if it assists, we are not suggesting anything nefarious about the minutes, it’s just a statement in fact. We are not asking to draw any inference if that helps Mr Hale.

PN855

MR HALE: Okay, now at that meeting when you were told by Mr Lally that the members of the site committee would be going in to attend the meeting in the city next week, did you say anything about notice?---About notice?

PN856

Yes, so you didn’t say well that’s pretty short notice?---No, absolutely not.

PN857

So did you, would that be standard practice for this, they were going to be away, that they would tell you at the site committee meeting or tell you before they went?---That, I’m not normally involved in that part of the business where they go off on a meeting or whatever, where they tell me, they tell Mr Perkins. So it’s not normal for them to tell me about that.

PN858

Do you organize the engineering labour?---A part of it, yes.

PN859

So wouldn’t that information help you to do that?---Mr Lally doesn’t work directly for me under the system that we work. He answers to a supervisor, even though he has an engineering function, he doesn’t answer directly to me.

**** ALLAN ADELMAN XXN MR HALE
PN860

So none of the people in the subcommittee would answer directly to you?
---Mr Ling answers to a maintenance supervisor who answers to me ultimately.

PN861

So them being away without you knowing about it, wouldn’t have any effect on you as a manager?---I get told by Mr Perkins, tells me as a matter of courtesy that these people are going away. They don’t tell me directly.

PN862

Okay so that would be the normal channel. Have you ever been in a situation in that 12 months where the shop stewards have been off on paid leave, that you were aware of.?---I believe so, yes.

PN863

Do you know what the circumstances of that were?---Definitively no, I can make assumptions about it. Because they don’t answer to me, they don’t tell me it’s not my responsibility. My role isn’t part of that.

PN864

So you couldn’t know for sure?---I’m never certain, no.

PN865

We’ll leave it then. I have no further questions for the witness.

PN866

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Allison have you got any questions?

PN867

MS ALLISON: No questions, Commissioner.

PN868

MR DOUGLAS: I don’t seek to re-examine.

PN869

THE COMMISSIONER: No, and I’ve got no questions, thank you, you are excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.12PM]

PN870

THE COMMISSIONER: Before we go on Ms Allison, we’ve moved into the company’s side of the argument now, but we did so in your absence. Was there any evidence that you wanted to lead, or were you relying on the evidence of Mr Hale’s witnesses?

PN871

MS ALLISON: Commissioner, we didn’t think it was appropriate that the NUW lead it’s own evidence, it was dealing about particular facts and a particular incident.

PN872

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure, that’s fine I accept that. Yes Mr Douglas?

PN873

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, prior to bringing in Mr Perkins, over the meal break I reviewed the matters that we put to Mr Lally about the five days, and I don’t think I can maintain that assertion. I just think the quality of the evidence is there, and I withdraw it as an assertion.

PN874

THE COMMISSIONER: Fine noted.

PN875

MR DOUGLAS: Call Mr Perkins thank you.

<GEOFFREY ROBERT PERKINS, SWORN [3.13PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DOUGLAS

PN876

MR DOUGLAS: Mr Perkins do you have your witness statement with you?
---Yes.

PN877

Just check to make sure that the witness statement that you have is correct. If there are any changes you want to make can you just advise what they are?---The only one that I think, I’ve got Mr Nick Dimitrovski starting at 4 pm, it should have been 3.45.

PN878

The version that I’ve got it is 3.45?---Okay, well I’ve got the old one.

PN879

I’ll give you another one. Mr Perkins, the witness statement that you now have in your hand, subject to the writing that I put on the top, just ignore that, is true and correct in every particular?---Yes.

PN880

I tender that.

PN881

THE COMMISSIONER: I take it 3.45 is the correct time?

PN882

MR DOUGLAS: Correct yes.

EXHIBIT #D5 STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY ROBERT PERKINS

PN883

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, what I might do just as a matter of convenience I think we’ve called them D1, 2 and 3, they are really marked for identification at the moment, D1, 2 and 3, you are happy that they are taken into evidence?

PN884

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN885

MR DOUGLAS: They are in evidence?

PN886

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN887

MR DOUGLAS: Mr Perkins, I want to show you, I’m sorry I only got a copy of this morning, there’s no magic to it, it’s the 2001 EBA. We were talking about the terms of the EBA before. I’ll just show you this document. Is this the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement that predated the one this is current?---Yes.

PN888

I tender that.

**** GEOFFREY ROBERT PERKINS XN MR DOUGLAS

EXHIBIT #D6 ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2001

PN889

MR DOUGLAS: Mr Perkins you recall that the last time you were here, was
16 March?---Yes.

PN890

At the conclusion of the 127 application was made and you recall undertakings being given?---Yes.

PN891

You recall the conversation with Mr Lally, immediately following those undertakings?---Yes.

PN892

Tell the court what that conversation was?---It’s just after our meeting here had finished I walked over to Jeff and I said, well it’s like we can all go back to work, can we ring them and let them know that we will start work. I think this was around 5.30 or 6 o’clock when we finished. Jeff just said no, I have to go back to work and we’ll meet with the people in the canteen.

PN893

No further questions.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HALE [3.17PM]

PN894

MR HALE: If I can pick up on that last part first. You said that he explained to you that he had to go back and meet the people in the canteen, did you ask him why?---No, I didn’t.

PN895

Did you understand he can’t be dictatorial in these things?

PN896

MR DOUGLAS: With respect that’s a question, that’s putting - it’s shooting and answering initially.

PN897

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, can you put it another way Mr Hale?

PN898

MR HALE: First of all if I can go back to this other question. How long have you been the production manager at Visypak in your current position?---Current position, that would be five years.

PN899

During that five years, have you ever understood a delegate to be able to say to you I will get on the phone and get people back to work without consulting those people?---No, but I haven’t seen a case like we had on the 16th. I understood that everything was back to normal as per after the meeting that we had here on the 16th and the people were on strike to get an answer from the 16th and I thought we had the answer.

**** GEOFFREY ROBERT PERKINS XXN MR HALE
PN900

So any of the other 127’s, they resulted in orders did they?---Other 127’s?

PN901

Yes?---Yes, are you talking about the one two years ago?

PN902

There was one before Commissioner Hingley, wasn’t there, more recently than two years?---It would be at least 18 months, if that’s the one you are talking about.

PN903

I’m not having an argument about how long ago it was, but weren’t there in that initial hearings, wasn’t there the union had said we will go back and we will recommend to the people that this will happen, to avoid the 127 being made?---I can’t remember exactly.

PN904

But you were involved in that?---I was involved, yes.

PN905

So you can’t remember whether the shop steward had to go and have a meeting with the members after those assurances were given to the Commission?

PN906

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, I have some hesitancy with this because the recommendations were breached, and that’s why we got the 127 order. The union actually didn’t do what they recommended to do. It is an odd question, I don’t understand.

PN907

THE COMMISSIONER: I don’t know the circumstances.

PN908

MR HALE: What I do know that it’s a fairly spurious argument on the company’s part, but somehow the actions of the stewards on that day should be taken into account to determine whether there’s any training that took place at the meeting on the 8th. I will address the Commission on that later. I’m just taking up the point, they are trying to assert that Mr Lally and the stewards that were here on the 16th, were somehow in the wrong by going back and having a meeting with the members who were to be affected to explain the circumstances and to put it to a vote to accept that that was the agreement that had been arrived at in the Commission.

PN909

THE COMMISSIONER: Well that’s a matter for submissions, isn’t it?

PN910

MR HALE: Except that on the evidence Mr Perkins, has said that he’s never seen anything like the 16th before. I’m taking him to the case before, which was exactly like the 16th. So what I’m trying to get out of him, is what is so different with these circumstances that should mean that people don’t go back and report and have a meeting and if that’s taken into account and that was done as expeditiously as possible.

**** GEOFFREY ROBERT PERKINS XXN MR HALE
PN911

THE COMMISSIONER: Well I don’t know how much further we can take this at the end of the day, as I say, I’ll hear submissions about this in relation to what weight I give it all. I certainly know what the circumstances were in relation to the matter that I was involved with. I’m not familiar with other matters with which I had no involvement. So to the extent that it helps me, I’m not sure.

PN912

MR HALE: Yes.

PN913

THE COMMISSIONER: I know what I meant.

PN914

MR HALE: Yes. So what do you say is the established custom and practice in applying for and being granted trade union training leave?---Usually we are notified. There is an A4 sheet that comes out that will describe what the training is, how long it will go for. Usually I will discuss that with my manager, and the HR and 9 times out of 10 it is granted.

PN915

Has there ever been a problem in relation to the amount of time given for notes?
---For notes?

PN916

Yes?---Usually there is two to three weeks where the A4 sheet would come out and we would see what it is. If one came in say a few days before, or a week before, yes we would bring that up that it is not enough time.

PN917

Did you bring that up on this occasion?---No.

PN918

Why was that?---When I first looked at it, I said I will check firstly with my manager and then HR, and see which other plants were going and what exactly this was because it wasn’t the usual sort of training form that we do get.

PN919

But you didn’t say there would be a problem with notice as well?---I can’t remember saying that, no.

PN920

Well you didn’t say it did you? You didn’t say it in your witness evidence?---No, no I can’t remember saying it.

PN921

So that the amount, the period of notice wasn’t a problem to you?---No, actually.

PN922

The main thing that was a problem to you was, that you didn’t see it as training?
---Yes.

**** GEOFFREY ROBERT PERKINS XXN MR HALE
PN923

Did you ask for any further explanation or you just made a decision as I don’t see it as training you’re not getting paid,?---No, as I said I would pass it on to my manager. It would go to our HR department, they would have a look at it and it would be discussed.

PN924

But wasn’t that before you advised them?---Yes, it was.

PN925

So it was Tuesday 7 March where you said you didn’t see it as training?---Yes, that’s right.

PN926

So what was your initial reaction when you got the document, I think in your evidence, on 2 March?---I look, straight away I realised that it wasn’t the normal sort of training that the guys go to. I didn’t make any comment to I think it was Jeff, possibly Ian was there as well. I didn’t make any comment at that time, because I wanted to have it checked out by our people as well.

PN927

So that if it had been in relation to a shop stewards bargaining course at the union office and there were only 20 people there, you wouldn’t have had a problem with the notice?---No, it would have been more in line to what we are used to yes.

PN928

Okay and the notice as it was a flyer like that, would that be sufficient for you to be notice in writing, if everything else in relation to the training was above board?---In most cases yes, usually I find out if the other plants are going as well, the other Visypak plants, usually I like to know if the sister and brother plants, there are people going from that plant as well.

PN929

Leaving all that aside, just purely on whether that notice satisfies the requirement for written notice, you would normally accept that?---Yes.

PN930

MR DOUGLAS: Can I just ask in relation to time, or is that in relation to the content of the notice? I’m not quite sure what the question.

PN931

THE COMMISSIONER: Would you clarify it Mr Hale?

PN932

MR HALE: Is that the case in relation to the amount of time given for the notice as well as the content of the notice, the format of the notice. If you were handed a notice that said, in that same form, the same number of days beforehand and instead of it saying it was down at Story Hall, it said there’s a bargaining delegates conference on at 440 Elizabeth Street, would that have been sufficient notice for you?---It was a bit short. In time ways it was a bit short, but it was more the content that I understood didn’t seem right to me.

**** GEOFFREY ROBERT PERKINS XXN MR HALE
PN933

So you didn’t believe it was training, but if it was training, if it was clear that it was training, if it said, training course to discuss the new Act, how it affects you. If it was the same set out, same layout, but different words in it, and instead of being at Story Hall it was at the union office, would you have had a problem with it?---No, it was the wording, the wording and the photo that got my attention.

PN934

I’ve no further questions, Commissioner.

PN935

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Allison?

PN936

MS ALLISON: I’ve no questions Commissioner.

PN937

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Douglas?

PN938

MR DOUGLAS: I’ve no questions.

PN939

THE COMMISSIONER: Nor do I. Thank you, you are excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.29PM]

PN940

THE COMMISSIONER: Does that complete the evidence from your side Mr Douglas?

PN941

MR DOUGLAS: It does, Commissioner.

PN942

THE COMMISSIONER: Right we are ready to take final submissions then, Mr Hale.

PN943

MR HALE: Commissioner, what we say is that there are a lot of red herrings that have come from the other side of the table. I guess we need to refocus on what it is that we are doing here today. If I can take the Commission to paragraph 75 of the transcript on the 127 application and in paragraph 75 you say:

PN944

For their part, the union parties to this matter the AMWU and the National Union of Workers will agree to the Commission arbitrating the question that has been before the Commission today in these proceedings, which relates specifically to the payment or the non-payment of a number of delegates who attended a Melbourne delegates forum conducted by the AMWU on 8 March of this year.

PN945

That’s fairly clear what the question was. The question wasn’t whether the delegates were too slow getting back to address the meeting, or whether they should have telephoned, or whether they had too much time coming in to prepare witness statements, or any other myriad of sins that have been put to them. The question is whether they should have been paid for attending that forum.

PN946

So that then in determining whether they should have been paid or not, the question was whether it was training or not. In Mr Perkins evidence, he said, and he just repeated a short time ago, he said, that he thought they got paid for meetings for training and he said I didn’t see it as training. That is in paragraph 5 of his witness statement. That was the dispute between the parties in relation to it. Whether it was training or whether it wasn’t training.

PN947

The evidence that has been educed before the Commission today is that it was training. All of the three witnesses who attended the training said that they got there, there was the overheads were on the seat and by and large the union speakers followed those overheads throughout the course of the day. Those overheads were substantially in relation to training. They were in relation to educating those delegates as to what the proposed changes in the Act were. What they meant to those delegates and to their members and the ramifications that that could have on those members in their working lives.

PN948

Now, of course there’s going to be things in the wording that aren’t going to be praising the current government and the introduction of the legislation. They are entitled to an opinion and that opinion I think everyone’s been fairly up front, but that that opinion is that we are not in favour of the proposed changes to the legislation. That doesn’t mean that the major content of the forum wasn’t about trying to educate people, how to defend themselves under a new regime. Some of Mr Douglas’ fishing expeditions of trying to drag us in the direction of, and based on the green left weekly newspaper report, were trying to drag us of to the focus of it, was about the marginal seats campaign. That was just pure fantasy.

PN949

The political side of the agenda, and there is a political side of the agenda, is largely being driven through the ACTU. That’s also fairly on the public record. The union has satisfied the requirements of the clause 9 of the agreement and that says:

PN950

With prior written notice from the unions an accredited delegate will be given approval by management to attend five days trade union training per annum without loss of pay.

PN951

We say that we’ve satisfied the prior written notice in that, even on Mr Perkins evidence, the prior written notice, if it had been, but it didn’t have the picture of the rally, and if it didn’t have those words in it, that that would have been an acceptable period of notice and if it had been at the union office, and things had been much more standardised, then he would have been comfortable with it. So that it wasn’t that we hadn’t given the requisite written notice that would be accepted by the company. It was that the paper work was such that they didn’t believe the union would be using it for things had been much more standardised, then he would have been comfortable with it.

PN952

So that it wasn’t that we hadn’t given the requisite written notice that would be accepted by the company. It was that the paper work was such that they didn’t believe the union would be using it for training. The training had to be approved by the union. The training was certainly by the union. It was approved and organized by the union. The company was well aware of that in that the leaflet advertising the training date was authorised by Dave Oliver, the state secretary and it had the union’s logo on it.

PN953

The further requirement is that it be consistent with and supportive of the legitimate role of union delegates. We say that the evidence before you, both the oral evidence and those overheads, are evidence that it is supportive of the legitimate role of union delegates. The witnesses before you in the witness box were able to tell you what they were taught. They were there, they were learning about the effects of the Act and what effects that can have on their bargaining.

PN954

THE COMMISSIONER: Some a bit more clearly than others.

PN955

MR HALE: Some a bit more clearly than others, true. I guess in any forum there’s some people come away with a different understanding of what happened to others, but I think that all of them, had a better understanding of what was going on when they left the forum than what they did when they were going in. Even to the extent where they may have been shocked and horrified at what situation they were in, they at least had a better understanding of what that situation was.

PN956

We say that in relation to the trade union training clause, all of those requirements in the clause were satisfied. In relation to those attacks on the delegates spending time away from work, we say that no only are they wrong, they are also irrelevant. So they are not relevant for the question that we focused on when we agreed to come in here and have this matter dealt with by arbitration. But they are also wrong in that the assertions that were trying to be made, were dealing with two different days. So that where it was trying to look like Mr Lally had misled the Commission in relation to what time they left the meeting. The time where he said they left at 5 o’clock or 5.30 was in fact, consistent with what had been put on the evidence with Nick Dimitrovski.

PN957

So that in the evidence given by Nick Dimitrovski, he left our office, and he was there at the first meeting. At the first meeting there were three people attended. There was Jeff Lally, Nick Dimitrovski and Ian Fletjar and that was the meeting that finished on the evidence, around 4.30, 5 o’clock. Nick Dimitrovski’s evidence says that he left that meeting and he went straight to work, and he was starting work at about quarter to six, or something along those lines.

PN958

That is completely consistent with what Jeff Lally said in relation to the time in which that meeting finished. What he said in relation to the second meeting was that we finished about 1.30, quarter to 2 something like that, and that they then went and had lunch. That is consistent with following lunch and Nick Dimitrovski was not at that second meeting. So there was no question about him not returning to work at the correct time or anything, he didn’t attend that meeting.

PN959

The others were finishing lunch break in town at 2.30, I don’t know what time their normal lunch break is, and then on the evidence of David Ling, they then returned to Jeff Lally’s house to get their cars, and by the time they would have got back to work, their day would have been finished anyway. So to try and make a bigger deal out of it than what it was, we see it as being an attempt to somehow discredit our witnesses and try and make out that they are scallywags who have been rorting the system. Whereas the question before us, was a question that was focused on whether or not it was training on that day.

PN960

THE COMMISSIONER: I don’t disagree with that, but it did appear to me that there was some contradictory evidence as to what happened on that day and where people were. You’re probably right that doesn’t bring in my view, any bearing on the substantive question, but it is of concern that two witnesses from the one side had different stories as to what happened. At any rate, I don’t take it further than that.

PN961

MR HALE: Okay. What we would say in relation to our alternative position, should you find that it isn’t a training, that in fact it was a meeting, we say that clause 10B does cover the type of meeting envisaged. In that there’s no argument that they are shop stewards. They were attending a meeting with their union. That meeting involved parties to this agreement or at least involved the issues involving the parties to this agreement.

PN962

THE COMMISSIONER: Certainly one of the parties.

PN963

MR HALE: Certainly one of the parties, but it also involves issues between the two parties. It wouldn’t be that it had to always be a meeting involving the actual parties.

PN964

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s what it says. Attending meetings with the union, or hearings of the Commission that involve the parties to the agreement.

PN965

MR HALE: Yes.

PN966

THE COMMISSIONER: So a meeting involving the parties to the agreement.

PN967

MR HALE: That’s not saying that they have to be participating in the meeting. It has to involve them, so it has to be - - -

PN968

THE COMMISSIONER: You are stretching a bit of a long bow there aren’t you?

PN969

MR HALE: No.

PN970

THE COMMISSIONER: If you go into a discussion about Visypak in terms
of – I don’t know, let me pick something out of the blue – what their international affiliations might be, and you call the delegates into that meeting, you say that falls within the union representation, clause 10 of the award - - -

PN971

MR HALE: No, I guess what I’m saying is that if there’s a meeting that involves my wages. I’m not a party, I’m not participating in that meeting, but if it involves my wages then I’m a party to that meeting.

PN972

THE COMMISSIONER: I hear your argument.

PN973

MR HALE: So what we say is that on the evidence before you, and I deliberately haven’t pressed the evidence that we gave you under summons, in that we didn’t intend to put forward that evidence and we certainly preferred that the employer not be given access to that evidence, so that we are not trying to put them in a position, where they are disadvantaged in any way by the fact that they required by us to give you that evidence. I certainly wouldn’t want to see it pressed that by us not pursuing that, that then could somehow have an adverse affect on our argument.

PN974

THE COMMISSIONER: I follow that.

PN975

MR HALE: That’s my submissions in relation to the matter Commissioner, and we would ask that the delegates be paid for the full day for attending that course.

PN976

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Ms Allison.

PN977

MS ALLISON: Thanks Commissioner. The NUW supports the submissions of the AMWU in relation to clause 9 and clause 10B of the agreement. We seek firstly that the Commission recognise the delegates training day, the AMWU delegates training day, as trade union training and secondly that if that is recognised as trade union training, that the delegates should be paid for attending that day.

PN978

We would also seek that any decision made in this matter is limited to the specific facts and circumstances in this incident. Commissioner, just by way of a brief introductory statement I think it’s important to emphasise how important trade union training is to members at Visypak, particularly in the current climate with thousands of pages of changing laws and regulations. It is crucial that delegates get the appropriate training and support their often demanding and varied role.

PN979

Visy members and the unions have always been very keen to ensure that the trade union training clause in the enterprise agreement is strong and is broad and flexible. That we do have a good clause in the agreement there is no doubt about that. It is a good clause from our perspective because it is a mandatory clause. That is, it is mandatory that union delegates are given paid leave to attend trade union training if certain pre-requisites have been met.

PN980

I list those pre-requisites at paragraph 3 of the NUW written submissions and Mr Hale has also touched upon them. The five pre-requisites are, that leave is to be for trade union training, written notice is to be provided to the company, the employee is an accredited delegate, the training is approved by the trade union training Australia, or the union, and that the training is consistent with the supportive and legitimate role of a union delegate. Not all of those are in contention. There is no issue about the employees being accredited delegates, or that the training has been approved. I want to touch briefly on what in fact is trade union training and in addressing that I also address the issue of whether the training is consistent with and supportive of the legitimate role of a union delegate.

PN981

The scope of changing and training is something which we submit is very broad, and should be interpreted by the Commission as something as very broad. Indeed, I think unions would submit that trade union training is a little bit like the corporations power in the way that Mr Howard uses the corporations power in the constitution, anything that is related to industrial trade union training can touch. However, that is not a claim that we are making today or arguing for today, we don’t need to because the evidence has shown that the training that occurred at the metals delegates forum clearly fits within the understood scope of trade union training.

PN982

Evidence given by all the union witnesses showed that the central purpose of the day was to provide information and training on the new workplace, new industrial relations laws. You had Mr Lally and Mr Ling relay in some great detail what they had actually learnt that day about the effects on bargaining. About what they can and cannot raise in their upcoming enterprise agreement negotiations. There was clearly, it was clear from the witnesses that they were all somewhat overwhelmed by the extent of the legislation that we would emphasise to the Commission, that that should not be that them being overwhelmed by the amount of the information should not be taken, that they didn’t get a lot of information from that day. It should be taken on face value, that it literally is overwhelming how many changes there are from the law.

PN983

I emphasise again what my friend said that all the witnesses made the point that on that day they learnt a lot about the new laws that they hadn’t previously known. Knowledge and understanding of the new legislation is a very important function of delegates. Many employees are rightly concerned about the new legislation and how it will affect them and it is very important delegates are equipped with accurate information. As we also mentioned the enterprise agreement is up for re-negotiation in June 2006, and the employees at Visy will soon be partaking for bargaining for a new union collective agreement. It is therefore, imperative that the delegates are aware of the new bargaining requirements. Particularly, because claiming prohibitive matters, which previously were unprohibitive matters that they were free to claim. Claiming prohibitive or taking industrial action in support of prohibitive matters will now lead to hefty fines.

PN984

Commissioner, I think you’ll agree that you can see from the submissions of the witnesses, that they get this. That after the delegates training day they get the importance of carefully bargaining under the new laws. We also note that Mr Perkins himself recognised that training in relation to the new workplace laws would constitute trade union training. We would submit that the delegates training forum fits well and truly within the scope of trade union training. There is also clearly is compatible with the role of a union delegate.

PN985

In relation to written notice, evidence was given by the union witnesses that it was not unusual for notice to be given a week before. They mentioned that sometimes more notice would be given, sometimes less. But certainly it wasn’t out of the blue, for notice to be given a week before. This was not rebutted by the company’s evidence, and indeed Mr Perkins, concedes that time was not an issue in relation to the notice. Mr Perkins’ evidence was that his main issue was that he believed the forum wasn’t trade union training.

PN986

Now if the matter is simply about the clarity of the notice, the clarity of the written notice given to the company, then we submit that is not something that the delegates should be penalised for. If on the other hand, this is the company saying that if we don’t believe something is not trade union training, that it’s not trade union training, we say that, in itself, is invalid. It is not up to the company to determine what trade union training is, in fact, if it was that would lead to all sorts of problems because there are plenty of companies out there who want delegates to train to become better bargaining agents in EBA negotiations. So whether or not the company likes the particular training, is not an issue here. That doesn’t determine whether something is trade union training or not.

PN987

Commissioner, finally I just want to touch upon the respondent’s written submissions. The company’s argument appears to be that clause 9 of trade union training under the EBA, is limited by the scope of the disputes resolution training in the award. We say that is an artificial argument. The two clauses, the award clause and the agreement clause, or I should say the award clause for dispute resolution training and the EBA clause for trade union training, deal with substantially different subject matter. The clause in the award is limited to dispute resolution training, has to be limited to that, otherwise it wouldn’t be allowed in the award. It is national industry based provision. The EBA provides for a negotiated pre-requisite for taking and training and again I emphasise that is an important matter for the members at Visy and the unions, that they had negotiated a good trade union training clause in the enterprise agreement.

PN988

Contrary to the respondent’s written submissions, the EBA is not silent on the notice for trade union training, it specifies that notice must be given prior to the training and must be given in writing. It is expressly different to the award in this matter because it provides for a far more flexible approach towards training. In any event, we say, that the evidence provided by the company shows that this argument is disingenuous because the company never before has looked at the award to provide limitations on trade union training provision ion the enterprise agreement. So we say, that the argument that somehow the trade union training clause should be limited by the disputes resolution clause, should be rejected.

PN989

Again, we would support the AMWU’s submissions in relation to clause 10B and seek that the delegates forum be recognised as trade union training and that the delegates accordingly be paid for their time there. Thank you.

PN990

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Douglas.

PN991

MR DOUGLAS: May it please the Commissioner. I think it is fair to say that there is one piece of evidence we don’t quibble about today and it is the characterization of that evidence which is critical and that is Mr Ling’s evidence. You heard what I said at the end of it, I’m quite satisfied that what Mr Ling told us was absolutely true and I don’t cavil with it.

PN992

That said, I think there is a characterization that is important and I think Mr Ling’s evidence, and I liken to use the word clear, is reasonably straight forward in describing it as fairly general training, it was an assistance to him but it wasn’t the sort of thing that he could take back and use. So it edified him, but he needed a lot more training to be able to use it. Now the fact that you learn something by going along to a session, doesn’t make it training, anything more than reading a newspaper, which goes through work choices or the work choices booklet, that doesn’t make that training.

PN993

THE COMMISSIONER: I wouldn’t rely on that, poor example, but I know what you mean.

PN994

MR DOUGLAS: You know what I mean, I know the union wouldn’t say the word work choices book is training. I wouldn’t say the work choices book is training after going through 1500 pages including explanatory memorandum. I didn’t find the book at all lateral. What I am trying to say is that we often find things edifying by going along and listening to where the union feels they are at or where a political party feels they are at, or when you go and hear a footy club and you hear where our future is going to be. You hear about all the players, you know who is going to kick the goal, you know who the team player is, but can you actually translate it to the ground? No.

PN995

That’s what happened here, this was a little bit of training, a little bit of political, a lot of hyping people up and getting them to understand the risks the union saw, and when you listen carefully to what Mr Ling says, that was the highest he took it. Commissioner, I gave him several chances when I put that proposition to him. I accept that I may be sharpening it when I don’t mean to. But I think he was reasonably clear. He learnt something but he wasn’t trained to go and apply it in the day to day activities of delegates, that’s the test of trade union training that’s been applied. It wasn’t something that he could immediately use. But it did warn him that there are things he has to go and do and that’s why the company historically has backed trade union training.

PN996

What is interesting Commissioner, and I am actually indebted to Ms Allison for this and I’ve provided copies. This Macquarie dictionary that Ms Allison referred to and one of the things that is interesting, is what forum means. I rather clumsily tried to scribe it, it is on the back page Commissioner, it is about a third down in the left hand column it says forum, at point 3 it says:

PN997

An assembly for the discussions of questions of public interest.

PN998

Now when you look at what is actually said in that flyer, it invited feedback from the members and the delegates that who were present, as to these issues and how best they could assist. Now the union couldn’t ask those questions without giving it the back information and fears that exist to find how they can best serve them.

PN999

THE COMMISSIONER: The leaflet holds itself out to advertise a seminar doesn’t it, not a forum?

PN1000

MR DOUGLAS: Well under that definition of forum I’ve given you that’s exactly what it is, absolutely unequivocally what it is. I know there are other definitions there but there is nothing tricky about it. In the end it is something in the public interest that people are discussing and for this case, the union need to know, because this is shortly before the release of the regulations. They need to know, look, it is about to happen, how can we help you. They bought a lot of very high powered people to come down and show them where the fears are and discuss them. But I would suggest that’s not training.

PN1001

Now Ms Allison was talking about what training was and training of course is to train and that definition wasn’t given, and that’s over a couple of pages and there’s a whole series of things like motorised trains, which don’t help us, and around about 27, to undergo disciplinary instruction and drill, is basically what we are talking about in training. When you are talking about tutor training, which I have a certificate in, in my trade union days. It was a room, we had objectives, you were trained in it, you were tested in it, you worked with it, you tried the problems out. That’s what training is normally to understand, you acquire a skill through that process. The difference between acquiring an awareness and a skill is a very different thing. When you heard Mr Dimitrovski speak, one thing you can say, he certainly gained awareness. If you hear what Mr Ling said, he was clearly edified by it, it assisted him, but did he develop a skill or a discipline he could go out and apply, no.

PN1002

I haven’t had the benefit of seeing the overheads, Commissioner, as you know. One of the things that I thought was interesting is nobody took any particular notes, whether they were overwhelmed or not. In a normal training exercise, and I’ve run enough training and participated in training enough to know that when I’m being trained I have as a discipline myself, to understand dot points in a slide and fill them in and say this means for my people, a, b, c and d, and not one of the people who attended did that. That’s because they were getting an overview, they weren’t getting trained. They were getting an overview.

PN1003

I’ll come back to the notice because the construction process, but I think the most important thing that came out is the problem with a notice is no one can complain that Visy isn’t flexible in allowing people for training. The fact that it was the custom and practice to be as generous as possible, doesn’t mean the notification content doesn’t have to be explicit about what training is and when that happens it just flows through without any difficulty at all.

PN1004

Mr Perkins didn’t see it as training he saw it as a forum, as it describes itself as what he saw in it, and that wasn’t as training. I suggest to you today, I’m not suggesting that the evidence is clear, because it is a bit murky, but my suggestion is, that it didn’t amount to what we would describe as training. Now I won’t touch long on the differences in evidence, but what I will say absolutely clearly, Mr Lally said he didn’t go to the 29 March rally and that’s just not true, he did.

PN1005

Mr Lally said he made major changes to his statements of 21 March, and my friend objected to that but it’s absolutely clear he made very little change at all. Both witnesses came out against him, and I urge you strongly to find what Mr Lally said on the whole is not reliable and not to be distrusted. He is not a witness of the truth. The reason I raised in my submissions and the reason I raised the issues surrounding it, as I said in my submissions, is going to the credit of the witnesses. I stand by Mr Ling. If we lose because of Mr Ling, I trust what he said. I think everyone who heard him today could hear, that the sound of truth coming.

PN1006

If I can just go to my submissions, we say in there the reason trade union training is inserted into EBA’s when 89A got cut back trade union training was grabbed out of the waters, and there is Justice Munroe’s decision about what all that meant and importantly what he said and I’ve got the judgment here, what he said is:

PN1007

The dispute resolution training is a subset of trade union training

PN1008

And of course he’s right, because in this case all of a sudden the union have an extra five days up their sleeve to dispute resolution training if it weren’t the case. Quite clearly again in another case, which is Redman’s, which I’ll hand up, these are fairly general authorities and there’s no great magic in them. Redman’s was a case where it was a local government instrumentality there were two people ranked 6 and 7 and the classification system certainly would 4.08, the actual raises in pay occurred in the EBA and there is a jurisdictional argument about where they should go. The court looked at it and said no, and they used the words, wholly in conjunction, identical words to what we use. What they said was you must read it together. It is only when the words are inconsistent you snip them out, but they must be read together, they have an equal weight fitting in together.

PN1009

What I’m suggesting to you is the provisions that exist in dispute resolution training sit enmeshed into dispute resolution training, so when you go to those, yes there is a more onerous provision because of weight of breadth, it must be in writing. Because Justice Munroe noted, in dispute resolution training it doesn’t have to be in writing. In fact, there was a lot of argument about that and he said no I don’t think that’s the right way to do it, people should be talking to each, that’s dispute resolution process. So it was elevated to writing, but what does that notice do, it must give the curriculum, it must at least describe in detail what the training is going to do.

PN1010

Now when we handed up, I think it was D2, that showed you what a normal memo would be. That’s the type of thing Mr Perkins was used to seeing, it’s not what he saw. Today all of this could have been resolved if one of those training people came along and said, look this is the training I did. This is how we did it, this is the intention, these are the objectives, this is what I did. If Dave Oliver came along and said that, I’d be in a much more difficult position. What I’m suggesting to you is that there is case law on that issue, which is the favour to call a critical witness, the trainer should draw an adverse inference that what he had to say would not be helpful. It is the law of evidence but it’s been accepted by the Full Bench in the case of Xiu Zhen Huang PR954993 and talking about the rules in Browne and Dunn and then on the rule in Jones and Dunkel, which Commissioner you are well aware.

PN1011

Now I put it in my submissions to make it clear, that if you call this person, Dave Oliver or somebody else comes along and says, these are the objectives. This is the training look. It was unhelpfully worded, but this what we are trying to achieve and these are the outcomes we’ve got and we are quite satisfied with them, I would be in a much more difficult position today. I think the only thing you can say is, the reason he is not there is his evidence would not be helpful.

PN1012

Commissioner, I’m not sure if I can take you a great deal further, the only remark I made in paragraph 8 was about the delegates behaviour, irrespective of how my friend wishes to characterize it, what we suggest to you is that these are abuses that suggest there was a cavalier attitude certainly in Mr Lally’s point of view, and he was the major communicator for the rest, as to whether it was training or not. My view is, and it’s not my view that counts with respect I understand, but the evidence that sits before you is not enough to suggest it’s training, but quite properly Mr Dimitrovski and Mr Ling believe it was, partly because of what they said and partly because of what Mr Ling created the expectation in mind.

PN1013

Trade union training can’t be reading a newspaper, it can’t be watching a television show that other people can watch. It can’t be reading the website. There has to be some objectives in training of the type of training that we are all used to, a curricular, objectives and outcomes. There was no evidence of that today. I’m not saying it wasn’t helpful to them, I’m not saying it didn’t edify, and I’m not saying this is an easy question. What I am saying is that it doesn’t get there and the fact that the other two delegates went along encouraged by Mr Lally, I say Mr Lally’s evidence, so poisoned the wells I think there is not enough evidence of training and his evidence should be disregarded. May it please the Commission.

PN1014

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you do you have anything in conclusion?

PN1015

MR HALE: A couple of things. This suggestion that trade union training needs to be translated into acquiring a skill. I think we can get too carried away in the dictionary definitions and at the expense of the established practices in relation to trade union training. Certainly under the tutor system, you would go and you would attend a class and there are still some training sessions along those lines. But there is also training that involves increasing the awareness and it doesn’t necessarily have to be, and then you will do this. You will notice trying to do this without putting too much of a disadvantage on it, but there’s in the bargaining model, there are boxes that are ticks for delegates.

PN1016

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, seen those.

PN1017

MR HALE: So if the requirement, if you were to accept the requirement is the acquisition of skill, then there are some acquisitions of skill involved in that. But I’m trying to avoid getting into that evidence and it seems to me that the more we go into this, it more it seems that Visy was more concerned about finding out what went on than about whether it was training or not. Even down to calling the educators as witnesses. Calling the educators as witnesses puts us in the exact same position as presenting the evidence in relation to what went on in there. There’s stuff there that we don’t want to tell the company.

PN1018

Now if somebody gets put in the witness box and is imposed on, well did this happen, it’s a bit late then. So we can object and you may well accept our objection, we had no guarantees that was going to happen. We just didn’t want to be in the situation where people were being exposed to being asked questions where frankly it’s not the company’s business, what strategies the union intends to adopt in relation to the current attacks on the working people in Australia.

PN1019

The fact that the poster invited feedback from the members I don’t think I’ve ever been to a training seminar, or even a university tutorial that didn’t encourage feedback and there are very few lecturers that don’t have a question and answer period at the end of their lecture. It is part of training, it is part of, okay, this is what I’ve told you, is there anything there that you didn’t understand, or is there anything there that you’ve got a different comment. That’s very much a part of learning I would think. So the invitation of feedback rather than being something that was indicative of not being training, I would say quite the opposite it’s fairly indicative that it is encouraging people to learn.

PN1020

Now, that nobody took notes I think is just another furphy. They had the dot points in front of them at the start. It’s more that I think when you are giving a lecture and that, part of giving out the overheads, is to encourage people to listen to what you are saying, rather than be more concerned with taking notes rather than having what they are saying sink in. So all of the – at least two of the witnesses at least said they hadn’t needed to take notes because of the overheads. Given that they wanted to know enough to be able to go back and at some stage have a meeting with the other employees and explain what they’d learnt to the other employees, then they felt that the overheads gave them enough of the information for them to be able to relate it back.

PN1021

In relation to the attack on Mr Lally. Mr Lally said that he didn’t go to the Dallas Brookes Hall. They did come to the Dallas Brookes Hall, they didn’t attend the meeting. I attended the meeting, I left when Tony Mavromatis and the delegates came to get me. So I don’t know what time they got into the union office but I’d said to Mavromatis I’m going down there I won’t go in and sit in the main body of the auditorium, I’ll hang around outside the door, and then we can go and take the witness statements when the blokes come in. So to try and make some big deal out of the fact that Jeff Lally had said that he didn’t attend at the Dallas Brookes Hall, he went there for long enough to get me, but as far as going into the hall.

PN1022

MR DOUGLAS: Commissioner, I really object to this because this is just evidence straight from the bar table, and it’s not the evidence that was given. They were there for an hour that is the evidence that was given and it’s quite improper for Mr Hale to mislead this Commission.

PN1023

THE COMMISSIONER: We’ve had the evidence in relation to it, this, I accept you’ve tried to clarify what you believe was some of the evidence, but the evidence I’ll review and it will stand.

PN1024

MR HALE: Yes, okay. I’ve no further submissions.

PN1025

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN1026

MS ALLISON: Commissioner, I’ll be very brief. I primarily want to object to Mr Douglas’ what I say are ridiculous submissions that seem to imply that the delegates should have gone back from the delegates training forum as industrial lawyers. That after that training day they should have known everything there is to know about the law and to have been able to go back and apply it. I want to give an example.

PN1027

I am an industrial lawyer, and I’ve had probably four or five days training on the new industrial relations law and if you turn to me and said are you confident in going and applying this, my answer would be no I am not confident. I will have to go back and look at the power point presentation slides I’ve got. I will have to double check with people. I will have to talk it over before I do a secret ballot application. There is no – this law is massive and there is no way that a six hour training session somehow turns people into experts that they can feel confident going back and applying things in accordance with the law. It is a ridiculous assertion I would submit.

PN1028

Mr Douglas particularly relied on Mr Ling’s evidence where Mr Ling said we got a whole lot of information that was general. But Commissioner you will recall that I asked Mr Ling, can you tell me what you learnt and he was very specific and went on to say that in bargaining we must not raise prohibitive matters, penalties and you will see that the transcript have a number of other dot points, which in fact led you to make the remark that he would be good to hold forums on this. So it is one thing to say that it’s only general knowledge, but when we hear what that knowledge is we see that the training session has actually been very successful and what it has done, has highlighted to the delegates what they have got to look out for and that’s what training is about.

PN1029

The only other thing I’d say is that Mr Douglas has a very old fashioned view of what training is. Training means sitting in a classroom, taking notes, that’s not what training is about any more and in fact it is not unusual at all for speakers to say don’t take notes, you’ve got the notes with you, I’d much prefer if you are listening to what I’m saying than trying to scribble everything down. It is about getting the general points, so you are aware of the overall bigger picture.

PN1030

THE COMMISSIONER: I intend to reserve my decision, but I won’t sit on it. I just want to go back to the transcript to be sure in fact if there are some elements there that to which I need to make reference in the decision that I’ve got it actually right. But I’ll get this decision out as soon as I’ve got hold of the transcript.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [4.23PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

JEFFREY LALLY, SWORN PN193
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HALE PN193
EXHIBIT #H1 STATEMENT OF JEFFREY LALLY PN206
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS ALLISON PN210
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DOUGLAS PN214
EXHIBIT #D1 LETTER DATED 7 MARCH PN222
EXHIBIT #D2 DOCUMENT SHOWING UNION LEAVE PAID PN244
EXHIBIT #D3 DOCUMENT PN365
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HALE PN510
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS ALLISON PN555
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN590
NICK DIMITROVSKI, SWORN PN593
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HALE PN593
EXHIBIT #H2 STATEMENT OF NICK DIMITROVSKI PN600
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DOUGLAS PN601
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HALE PN670
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS ALLISON PN691
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN696
SYDNEY DAVID LING, AFFIRMED PN697
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HALE PN697
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN711
SYDNEY DAVID LING, ON FORMER AFFIRMATION PN721
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HALE, CONTINUING PN722
EXHIBIT #H3 STATEMENT OF SYDNEY DAVID LING PN743
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS ALLISON PN743
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DOUGLAS PN747
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS ALLISON PN798
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN820
ALLAN ADELMAN, SWORN PN833
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DOUGLAS PN833
EXHIBIT #D4 STATEMENT OF ALLAN ADELMAN PN838
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HALE PN839
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN869
GEOFFREY ROBERT PERKINS, SWORN PN875
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DOUGLAS PN875
EXHIBIT #D5 STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY ROBERT PERKINS PN882
EXHIBIT #D6 ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2001 PN888
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HALE PN893
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN939