C2007/2689, Transcript of Proceedings [2007] AIRCTrans 310 (26 June 2007)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 17025-1

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON

C2007/2689

s.170LW -prereform Act - Appl’n for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)
National Tertiary Education Industry Union
and
Kangan Batman Institute of TAFE
(C2007/2689)

MELBOURNE

10.00AM, THURSDAY, 14 JUNE 2007

Hearing continuing

PN1

MS L GALE: I appear on behalf of the NTEU and with me is MS J BURKE.

PN2

MR N RUSKIN: I seek leave to appear on behalf of Kangan Batman TAFE.

PN3

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Any objection to leave being granted, Ms Gale?

PN4

MS GALE: No, your Honour.

PN5

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Leave is granted, Mr Ruskin. Ms Gale.

PN6

MS GALE: Thank you, your Honour. If I can come to some housekeeping matters first.

PN7

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. The NTEU has provided three witness statements in our original materials and an additional witness statement from Mr Ozturk in reply or as a supplementary statement. If the three witnesses we proposed to bring, unfortunately Ms Denton has been required to travel interstate for work and is unavailable today. We have discussed this with Mr Ruskin and what we propose to do is to tender the witness statement. I understand Mr Ruskin intends to reserve his rights in relation to that, but may not need to require Ms Denton for cross-examination, so that's the path we intend to follow in relation to that. If it does emerge that Ms Denton is required for cross-examination, we will seek leave to have an additional day listed to enable that to occur.

PN8

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I see, so she is not going to be available tomorrow either?

PN9

MS GALE: No, unfortunately.

PN10

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So that any further requirement would be only for cross-examination?

PN11

MS GALE: As I understand it, yes.

PN12

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Although it might be necessary to make some submissions as a result of the totality of the evidence.

PN13

MS GALE: Indeed. I would expect that if on reflection Ms Denton is required for cross-examination, that the final submissions should come after that has occurred.

PN14

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I see. I am content with that course. Obviously, it would be desirable if the matter can conclude in the two days that have been set down, but if that's not possible and the parties are agreed on an alternative course, then that would be acceptable to me.

PN15

MS GALE: Thank you, your Honour. On that basis, the first thing that I propose to do is to tender the witness statement of Joanna Denton.

EXHIBIT #G1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOANNA DENTON DATED 25/05/2007

PN16

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And I perhaps should mark your outline of submissions, too, if you propose to tender those.

EXHIBIT #G2 OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS

PN17

MS GALE: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, the outline of submissions does set out the basis of the NTEUs argument in this case and it deals with a dispute over the proper application of the Kangan Batman Institute of TAFE PACCT Staff Certified Agreement and I should perhaps explain that PACCT in the TAFE sector refers to professional, administrative, computing, clerical and technical staff and encompasses the categories of computing and ICT related staff that are involved in the restructure at the heart of this dispute.

PN18

It is specifically clause 22 of that agreement which we say has not been properly applied and the basis for that argument is set out in the outline of submissions. The NTEU has three witnesses. Two of them have expertise in the area of position classification standards, the classification and assessment of position descriptions and they are Colin Johansen and Joanna Denton. Colin Johansen is also a witness who has been an NTEU rep at Kangan Batman TAFE and in that capacity has had direct involvement in the consultations with the employer and in the process of a points factor evaluation of the position descriptions and has been directly involved as a staff representative on the interview panels which were set up under the process adopted by the Institute.

PN19

The third witness, Mr Ozturk, is an employee of Kangan. He is a person whose position has been altered to his detriment through the restructure process and it is specifically in relation to the manner in which Mr Ozturk has been treated that we raise the dispute that is before you today. Mr Ozturk also is an NTEU representative in the workplace and also has evidence to give about the nature of the consultative process and the extent to which the process adopted by the Institute represented or was in accordance with the process required by the collective agreement. The union proposes first to call Mr Johansen and deal with his evidence.

PN20

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, please proceed.

<COLIN JOHANSEN, AFFIRMED [10.09AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE

PN21

MS GALE: Mr Johansen, did you prepare a witness statement for these proceedings?---Yes, I did.

PN22

Do you have a copy of that statement with you?---Yes, I have.

PN23

Do you have any corrections or amendments to make to that statement?---Not specifically, no.

PN24

Do you adopt that statement as your evidence in these proceedings?---Yes, I do.

PN25

Thank you. No further questions.

PN26

THE VICE PRESIDENT: You tender that witness?

PN27

MS GALE: I am sorry, your Honour. Yes.

EXHIBIT #G3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF COLIN JOHANSEN WITH ATTACHMENT DATED 25/05/2007

PN28

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Ruskin.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RUSKIN [10.10AM]

PN29

MR RUSKIN: Thank you, your Honour.

PN30

Mr Johansen, you've been involved for quite some time in the classification of positions, the points factor evaluation of positions?---Yes, for over 10 years I've been doing it for the Institute and the NTEU.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN31

Points factor evaluation is you value the worth of the job, looking at the tasks that are performed, whether the job is valued at 400 or 500 points and then where that fits in to a classification, is that right?---To a certain extent yes and to a certain extent no. It's not the worth of the job, it's how the job specifically relates to the criteria set out in the points factor evaluation system. It's a very outdated document. The only document is the typewritten document. There's no electronic copy of it, so every document is a photocopy of the original typewritten document. As such, it's a very outdated document, but it's what we have and that's what we have to live by, so we have to relate it directly to the criteria within that and not take the value of that job on today's market into account, because you've got to stick strictly to the criteria set out in the PFES manual. I have one here if you want.

PN32

No, that's fine, thanks, but primarily using what you call that outdated document, you're attempting to on that old criteria determine the value of the job, is that right?---Yes, there is a score attached to each of these six levels that we evaluate and those scores and then added up and that gives you a total score, then that's related back to the actual position level.

PN33

It's primarily what you do in points factor evaluation, isn't it?---Yes, it's totally, because we can't being our own personal bearings on that job or the person that's needed for that job. All we can go is by the PD that's provided to us against the manual.

PN34

You're aware that the manager of purchasing and the manager of the library is classified in the same classification band?---No, I'm not. The managers are usually classified using a different system and I certainly didn't classify their positions.

PN35

But the manager of purchasing, for instance, could have the same score under another system as the manager of a library, could they not?---Yes, they could.

PN36

They're different jobs, are they?---They're definitely different jobs, but the points factor, it's not job specific. There's no job specific classifications in there. It's very generic.

PN37

The manager of child care could also be the same?---Could be, but it's not - they're done under the manager's scheme.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN38

An engineer and a scientist or let me give you another example, an engineer and an analyst could potentially have the same points?---Yes, they could.

PN39

If I can go to paragraph 11 of your statement, do you have your statement?---Just a second, I will dig it out.

PN40

It's the one of the 25th?---Yes.

PN41

In paragraph 10 of your statement you say that:

PN42

Most of the proposed upper positions were at CSO6 level.

PN43

Do you see that at the start?---That's correct.

PN44

And they came into a certain points factor evaluation range and you say in paragraph 11 that:

PN45

The Institute rejected the outcome since it couldn't pay for so many CSO6 positions and didn't want to have three sub-manager positions under a single manager.

PN46

Do you see that?---Yes. That's correct.

PN47

There's nothing wrong in that, is there?---No.

PN48

There was an agreement - when you and the Institute looked at the positions which were ultimately amended I think you said, tasks were taken away?---Most of them were amended, yes.

PN49

Ultimately, with the amended job descriptions, the amended position descriptions, you reached an agreement, did you not, as to the points factor evaluation of each of those positions based on the position description that was given to you?---Yes. The PFES system is very subjective. There's no hard and fast that that will be an outcome. It's under discussion between myself as an NTEU rep and the HR officers who are in the PFES panel as to where we reach agreement, that that score settles.

PN50

And you reached agreement, however subjectively you do it, but you accept
that - - -?---Yes.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN51

Do you have Mr Mackay's statement, Geoffrey Mackay?---Yes, I've read that, yes.

PN52

Do you have a copy with you?---Yes, I have.

PN53

We can hand you a spare copy?---No, I've got a copy.

PN54

We might have it back at the end, if it's okay?---Sorry, my hands just aren't all that accurate.

PN55

No, that's fine. There was an agreement reached, wasn't there, the NTEU management consultative meeting on 8 February, there was an agreement reached as to which jobs would be exempt from the redeployment process, is that right?
---No, that's not correct.

PN56

That's not correct?---The agreement reached was that we would have a joint presentation to staff as to what the situation was. What was left out of that joint statement was the fact that the union did not agree to the process that was being followed.

PN57

It didn't agree with parts of the process, but it did agree, didn't it, that - it had a disagreement about the employment benefits that it continued to apply to staff. There was a disagreement about that, I think, wasn't there?---No, that hadn't come up at that point. It was just basically the process that the Institute wanted to follow which was in our feelings outside the EBA.

PN58

That was over the fact that management didn't want to determine who fit where, but to go through a selection process?---They wanted to do a whole spill of positions which we saw as not a redeployment, but - - -

PN59

Sorry, it was not a redeployment?---We say it as not considered a redeployment process, whereas you try and fit the people to the appropriate positions. Instead, it was a total spill of all jobs and they wanted everyone to apply for every job that they thought they could apply for which we saw as, (a) very inequitable and, (b) because of the incredible complexity of the PDs that had been supplied - normally, I can't say across TAFE, but in Kangan, the PDs are preferred to be six to 10 key selection criteria and one to three optional preferences, but in some of these there were 36 key selection criteria and we had a major problem with that because it meant that anybody who had to apply for that under the Victorian government process of application, which I had learned how to do many, many years ago, before I started working here, that you had to apply specifically to each key selection criteria. Now, if you've got 36 key selection criteria to specifically apply to, that is a major job and if you're applying for five jobs within the department that you've been working for for the last so many years, that's a horrendous job to actually tackle and it makes it - it's also a case of the jobs, they should have been expressions of interest and interview. Under the EBA, it's the right of - to restructure, the manager has a right to interview the prospective redeployee, but not create a formal interview panel which is what the process was.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN60

So I take it you thought that the redeployment process should have been different to the way the management had proposed to do it?---Very much so.

PN61

But you agree that you were in the start of the redeployment process. It's just that management hadn't effected it properly?---We were given the new structure 15 minutes before it was presented to the staff. We had had no preparations prior to that and no indication of how severe it was, so it wasn't what I would classify as a consultation. It was a case of this is what we're going to do, now we're going to go and present it to the staff and like it or lump it.

PN62

When you say this is what you got 15 minutes before, which date are referring to?---This is the December date which was two days before the actual term finished.

PN63

Can I take you to 8 February, however?---Yes.

PN64

Do you remember there was a consultative meeting on 8 February?---Yes, I do.

PN65

That wasn't the first one, was there? There had been a few before that?---There had been one before that and that was not really a formal consultative committee for the reason that I clarified. Because I was the only union member present, I couldn't consider that that would be a formal consultative committee because it wasn't - my opinion as one member would not be a fair representation.

PN66

There was no other consultation, is that what you say?---No.

PN67

Did you have consultations about the position descriptions?---Only under the process of the PFES panel which was outside the consultative committee. Basically, I had to divorce my roles from one another in that - kind of like wearing separate caps, so that when I was in the PFES panel, I was going purely by the written documentation that was provided to me and had to separate that from my own personal impressions of that position, the incumbents in that position or whatever. I had to go purely on what is in the written documentation as to how that scores.

PN68

The meeting on 29 January was a meeting of the consultative committee, wasn't it?---29 January may have been. Who was present, please?

PN69

Mr Turnbull, Mr Mackay, yourself and Mr Ozturk?---Yes, that was the first one.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN70

On 8 February there was another consultative committee?---Yes.

PN71

Do you recall that?---Yes.

PN72

You say about that meeting that the issue in dispute was about the process of redeployment?---Yes, as it had been in the first one.

PN73

Yes, but you agree that people were in the - it was agreed that people were in the redeployment process, but the NTEU didn't agree about the way the process was to operate?---Well, people were not at that stage in the redeployment process, because nobody enters the redeployment process until they've actually officially in writing been notified that they are, (a) redundancy and, (b) placed into the redeployment pool.

PN74

But you agreed that it was appropriate for staff, except for Mr Hogan to be notified that the redeployment process was to being after 8 February?---No, the redeployment process was to be started. There was no specific date given as to when it was - - -

PN75

But you agreed it should be started?---We wanted to get it over and done with and sorted out and people in their positions and functioning.

PN76

Following the redeployment process at clause 22?---Yes, and also following the instructions that we were taking from our members who just wanted it over and done with. They wanted it sorted out. They were in limbo and quite a few were in shock from being notified that their positions no longer existed four days prior to Christmas. It's not a really pleasant way to go on holidays.

PN77

No, but if I can just take you back to 8 February. At that point you agreed that - the union and management agreed that the redeployment process should begin. You disagreed about how you go about putting people into positions, is that right?---Yes.

PN78

The dispute that you had, that you say you've had, if I could take you to the minutes of 8 February, if I could take you to the minutes of 8 February which is attachment 1 of Mr Mackay's statement?---Yes.

PN79

Have you got those minutes there?---Yes, I've got the minutes in front of me.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN80

The dispute as reflected in those minutes was about - as noted in paragraph 5, the dispute reflected there was that the NTEU requested that staff retain all existing arrangements as per the EBA. That was the dispute you had at the time, wasn't it?---I wouldn't classify it was a dispute.

PN81

I apologise, yes?---It was a disagreement.

PN82

It was a disagreement. That was the disagreement?---Yes.

PN83

That's recorded there and management - - -?---We record it there as our - - -

PN84

As your issue?---As one of our important issues. There was no real response from management making it a dispute or disagreement at that time.

PN85

There's no other disagreement reflected in those minutes, is there?---No, apart from the six which was that the manager agreed that income maintenance would apply.

PN86

That was in response to paragraph 5?---That's right.

PN87

Mr Hogan, if you see in 4(c), Mr Hogan was exempt from the redeployment process?---Yes.

PN88

Because I think the minutes say his job had not changed significantly, is that right?---He had only been appointed I think three or four months prior to that position, so his job had not significantly changed at all and he had only been a recent appointment to that position so we got agreement from management that his position would not have to be spilled and the intention was to go through as many jobs as possible to try and arrange the same type of situation for them as well.

PN89

I think one other person was exempted from the redeployment process, Mr Natschuv?---Yes. That was under my guidance as to how he approached the manager. I felt that it was more appropriate that he approach the manager without my representation there, but we had gone through his PD and his applications and his minutes to actually take to the manager to present his case that his job had not significantly changed either and that his PD was then taken back up from CSO5, but had been dragged down from CSO6, back up to CSO6 again and he was appointed.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN90

Yes. In fact, as you say, Mr Natschuv was classified, his job was classified as CSO5 about this time, about 8 February and he approached management on your suggestion and management re-looked at the job and I think they added some duties to it, did they not, and that added to the - - -?---They brought the duties back that had been stripped out of that position.

PN91

Indeed, indeed?---To strip it down to a 5, to take it back to the 6.

PN92

They agreed to put it back to a 6?---Yes.

PN93

And he was placed into it?---And he was placed into it directly without having to apply.

PN94

He was exempt from the redeployment process?---Yes. I also tried to do that with a couple of other jobs, but they were unsuccessful.

PN95

No-one else was exempt from the redeployment process?---No.

PN96

Can I take you to paragraph 20 of your statement, please? Did I say paragraph 18?---No, you said 20.

PN97

I am sorry, I meant 18. Have you got that?---Yes.

PN98

In it you say:

PN99

The consultative committee had agreed that the process of redeployment would be followed in accordance with the enterprise agreement but that didn't happen.

PN100

?---Yes, that's correct.

PN101

Is that right? That's what you say?---That's correct.

PN102

You say in the next sentence that what should have happened is that you should have matched existing employees to the new positions within the structure?---Yes.

PN103

Whereas management didn't do that. They required staff to follow a spill and fill process, is that right?---That is correct, yes.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN104

What you would have preferred is that you match - once the staff are in the redeployment process, except those that had been exempted, those staff should have been simply matched against the new positions and placed into those positions without having to compete for them as far as possible, is that right?
---Well, that's the way that the Institute had previously done redeployment structures and that was the process that was outlined, but not specified in the EBA and we expected that process to be followed again.

PN105

The EBA doesn't actually say that, does it?---No, it doesn't specify it, no. That's what I said, but I was just going on the process of in the previous many years where there had been redundancies and redeployments, basically a very non-antagonistic process had been followed to try and place people as much as possible into suitable jobs.

PN106

Into a suitable new job?---Yes.

PN107

Mr Ozturk didn't apply for the position of project manager infrastructure, did he?
---No. He applied for the jobs that he felt were at, (a) his salary level and, (b) his experience was more suited for.

PN108

But he didn't ask to be matched to the project manager infrastructure job?---Well, we had been told by that time that there would be no matching.

PN109

But if management had allowed matching to occur, it would have been appropriate for him to be straight matched into that position?---It could have been. It would have been a little bit of discussion required, but that's quite likely a position because it's a very similar position in many ways to what he had been doing.

PN110

If he was going to be matched, if you say they've followed the right process as you see it and matched people and they didn't, wouldn't it have been just as appropriate for him to have applied for the project infrastructure position? It's the same thing. The matching matches you with the position. If they're not going to follow matching, you should apply for the right job, shouldn't you?---But the thing is the problem here was Gani had previously been manager of the whole department and had been working at high levels, in high positions in that department. His pay was artificially created as a CSO5 because at the time when he was superseded by a new manager, the EBA did not allow salary sacrifice for anything such as a vehicle, so they artificially - that PD did not go through the PFES panel. It was artificially down-graded it to a CSO5 to allow the extra money to be put salary sacrifice towards the company vehicle. Subsequently, in the current EBA, salary sacrifice is allowed and if that had been in place at the time, he would have been just classified as a CSO6 and allowed to salary sacrifice for that vehicle, but that wasn't possible at that time and so that's what created the premise that on paper he was a CSO5, but in reality he was being paid as a CSO6.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN111

You points factor evaluated all the positions I think you said earlier in your evidence?---Not all the positions.

PN112

But you points factor evaluated the project manager infrastructure position?
---Yes, I did.

PN113

And you evaluated that as a CSO5?---Originally as a CSO6, but subsequently, after some pressure was applied to the committee and some changes made to most of the PDs, it was brought down to a 5.

PN114

I think you said some duties were removed from it, but you agreed that it was a CSO5, didn't you?---The committee agreed. I always felt that it was a CSO6, but I have to go by - the points factor evaluation committee has to work as a whole, not as individuals. I felt it was a 6, but the panel had to agree to what level it actually ends up to.

PN115

You're a member of that committee, are you?---That's right.

PN116

With Margaret Balsillie and Usher Subrail.

PN117

You didn't record a dissent to the classification of the CSO5?---There wasn't much point because we had to give a cohesive - a single voice comes out of that committee, not multiple.

PN118

Earlier in your evidence you said you agreed that you had reached agreement about the points factor evaluation of those positions?---Yes.

PN119

And I guess you can't - you're now expressing some reservations about what you did, but you did agree?---I did agree, but it's - - -

PN120

If it's a 5 position, if it's a CSO5 position, Mr Ozturk at this time was in the senior project co-ordinator position, wasn't he?---That's correct.

PN121

And that's a CSO5 position?---That was - - -

PN122

Classified as a CSO5 position?---That was never classified to my memory because it was one that was created to suit Gani and his requirement of it being a CSO5 so that he could keep his car.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN123

Are you aware that he made an application under clause 16 of the EBA for the senior project co-ordinator position to be upgraded to a CSO6?---No, I'm not.

PN124

If the project manager infrastructure position was one that was suitable for him to be matched to, you say one of them and he applies for other positions, he should have applied for that one, shouldn't he?---Well, it was a - sorry, could you - - -

PN125

Do you want me to repeat the question?---Yes, please.

PN126

You said earlier in your evidence that if there had been the matching process in the redeployment process, not the one that management followed, that the project manager infrastructure position was one that he could have applied - he could have been matched with?---Yes.

PN127

But the matching process wasn't followed, there was another process. Even though there was another process, you would have thought if it was an appropriate job to be matched with, he should have applied for it?---But it was, (a) lower responsibilities than what he was used to and, (b) it was a lower level position than what his job was perceived to be because his was a CSO5 plus a car on top of that which made him being paid as an equal level salary package to a CSO6, so he considered himself to be a CSO6, being artificially classified as a CSO5.

PN128

A car doesn't change your duties, does it, or is it a status thing?---It's a status thing, but it's also a case of at the time when the car was created for Gani, his positions that he had been working on were manager and the down-grade was going to be to a CSO6. Because he was unable to salary sacrifice for that car and wanted to car both for his own personal reasons and as an Institute vehicle so that there would be enough Institute vehicles to go around, he accepted that he would be classified as a CSO5 and the car would be an added bonus equalling his previous salary as a CSO6.

PN129

When he was acting as a CSO6, which I think was from the period about March 2005 to about September 2006, does that ring a bell?---It was about 18 months to my recollection, yes.

PN130

He finished that acting job about September last year?---Yes.

PN131

When he was acting in that position, it was a CSO6 position, wasn't it?---That's correct.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN132

He didn't have a car, did he?---No, because that balanced out his salary. By not having the car, it brought him back to his original salary.

PN133

I have to say I don't think that's right. That is to say his salary was around 71,474 and he got a car, but when he was in the acting infrastructure services co-ordinator position, he just got that salary, he didn't get the car, isn't that right?---Yes, that's right, but he made it as a proviso to him entering that position that upon resumption of his previous role, he would get the car back.

PN134

Yes?---And that was a written agreement.

PN135

Yes, and it was complied with, wasn't it?---Yes, it was.

PN136

You say that he might not have applied for the project manager infrastructure position because it was a CSO5. He applied for the project manager applications position which was also a CSO5, didn't he?---Only once it had been made clear to him in a written response to his applications for the CSO6 position that he was not going to be accepted did he then subsequently apply for the project manager and I've seen a copy of that letter which rejected his application without having any meeting, it was a pure rejection and it was the most pathetic rejection that I've seen. It had no real reasoning behind it.

PN137

Mr Johansen, the application he made for the project manager application position which is a CSO5 and the application for the business analyst and project services co-ordinator position which was a CSO6, they were made at the same time, on 16 February, weren't they?---I can't be certain on those because I was not receiving the applications.

PN138

What I am saying is I believe you're incorrect, aren't you, in saying that he only applied for the project manager application position once he wasn't going to get the business analyst position? That is not correct?---That was my - - -

PN139

That was your understanding?---- - - understanding, but I could be incorrect.

PN140

So you don't think it's odd that he just doesn't apply for the project manager infrastructure position? You don't think that's at all?---No. I wouldn't have applied for it either on those bases. I was actually in the restructure and I didn't apply for any of the positions because none would suit me.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN141

You didn't think the project manager infrastructure position would suit Mr Ozturk?---It could have, but it was a CSO5 and he was being paid at a CSO6 salary level and should have been matched at an equivalent salary level.

PN142

Because the value of his job was CSO6?---That's correct, and the roles that he was doing were CSO6 level roles, responsibilities and skills.

PN143

You're referring to him in his role as a senior project co-ordinator?---And previous to that, manager.

PN144

Let's just take the senior project co-ordinator position. You're saying he was paid at CSO6, doing that job?---Yes.

PN145

And should have been matched to the CSO6 position?---Yes, and the previous incumbent to that position, Laura Akl, was being paid in a management level.

PN146

The previous occupant of what position are we talking about?---Of the senior service deliver co-ordinator. They've changed their names so many times.

PN147

Are we talking about the substantive job that Mr Ozturk returned to in September?
---No, the substantive job that Gani did for 18 months which I've also done for a short period of time.

PN148

Let's take the position of senior project co-ordinator. That's the position he occupied, he went back to in September?---Yes.

PN149

The position - he was paid a higher salary and he got a car, that position, you're saying that job was - that was such that it should have been a CSO6 position, is that right?---Well, that was the senior project co-ordinator. The normal project manager positions that were in the same area with CSO5s and the project manager infrastructure and applications positions, when they were scored in the PFES scoring system were very high in the CSO5 level so that when any added responsibilities were put onto those, they would automatically go back up to the CSO6.

PN150

Go back up?---That was the intention of the PFES panel.

PN151

We have agreed, haven't we, that the project manager infrastructure position was classified as a CSO5?---That's correct.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN152

You say that you would understand why Mr Ozturk wouldn't apply for that job, because the job that he was doing immediately before as the senior project co-ordinator, the substantive position, that was tantamount to a CSO6 job, is that right?---Yes, both in responsibilities and salary package.

PN153

Which bit of the responsibilities?---The fact that he took on a lot of the roles of researching projects and working out the processes to follow and doing a very detailed project management plan for the implementation of such.

PN154

Have you seen Mr Trevor Langarish's statement?---Yes, I have.

PN155

I might take you to that, if I may. We've got a copy if you would like to have a look at it. Now, there's some discussion in Mr Langarish's witness statement about the primary objects of the senior project co-ordinator position which is the substantive position we were just talking about?---Could you give me a paragraph number, please?

PN156

Sorry, paragraph 52?---Yes.

PN157

He says in this statement and he refers to attachment 10 and 9, attachment 9 of Mr Langarish's witness is the job description of the senior project co-ordinator position, the substantive position?---Yes.

PN158

He also talks about the project manager infrastructure position which I think is attachment 8 of Mr Langarish's witness statement. He says in paragraph 52 of his statement that the primary object of the senior project co-ordinator position is not found in the project manager infrastructure position. He says that:

PN159

The project manager infrastructure position is not required to perform -

PN160

and he quotes -

PN161

business case development cost benefit analysis, requirements analysis and systems design.

PN162

They are words which are in the job description of the senior project co-ordinator position. You agree with that, don't you?---Yes, I do.

PN163

In paragraph 54 he says that the primary object to the senior project co-ordinator position is also not found in the project manager infrastructure position. He says:

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN164

The project manager infrastructure is not required to extract, synthesise and analyse customer requirements to be able to recommend an appropriate ICT solution.

PN165

You agree with that, don't you?---I do, yes.

PN166

Paragraph 31 of your statement, you say - if you've got paragraph 31 of your statement?---Yes.

PN167

You say that:

PN168

Business analyst responsibilities was removed from the first draft of the PD for the project manager infrastructure position.

PN169

So it wasn't in the final position description of the project manager infrastructure position. That's right, isn't it?---Yes.

PN170

You say that the business analyst will be doing much higher strategic level work than was undertaken by the senior project co-ordinator and there will still be further analysis and assessment by the project managers. You say that in your statement and you go on and say there's no way they can avoid delegating much of the detailed analysis of the project manager. You say that, don't you?---Yes, I do.

PN171

That's speculative, isn't it, because the manager or the supervisor of the position has the prerogative to say they are not going to be doing those tasks?---They have the prerogative, but they don't have the time with the number of tasks required of those higher level positions to keep a day to day tag on the miniscule process of implementation of a project. That's very much part and parcel of the project manager having to make changes and anything major escalated up to their superior, but in minor changes, then they'd be just following the process. All of those project manager roles, you can't do a project manager role unless you're doing a cost base analysis, because otherwise you would blow out the budget on every project that you managed.

PN172

But in the new structure, Mr Langarish has a statement which, of course, will be tested in which he says that the cost benefit analysis is not to be done by the project manager. That was in the old structure?---Yes.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN173

The project manager's task will be to implement it and not to do cost benefit analysis?---There's always got to be ongoing cost benefit analysis as quotes come in for various parts of a project to see whether they're viable or not.

PN174

But that's in the implementation stage, isn't it, of the project?---Yes.

PN175

It's not in the prior implementation stage?---Yes, but I can't see how the roles that Trevor Langarish has anticipated being in those higher level roles will have a chance of doing it, because I've seen how the previous people in similar roles have struggled to manage to do those positions with 60-hour weeks.

PN176

But there are clear delineations in the new job descriptions which are different from the old structure?---No, there are not clear delineations.

PN177

Well, there's no reference, is there, in the project manager infrastructure position to cost benefit analysis or business analyst, is there?---No, there isn't reference, but it's implied as part and parcel of being an IT project manager and that's part of the role.

PN178

But you're talking about how things were in the old structure, aren't you, not how they're going to be?---I'm not just talking in our structure, I'm talking across the whole IT structure for Australia. If you're doing a project managing position for IT, then part of your role is to keep it within budget, try and get it below budget and to keep reins on the costs of expenditure, on salaries, time and to make it as efficient as possible. That's the project manager's role.

PN179

But in terms of working out the cost in the first place, that is not going to be the job of the project manager, is that right?---They would be involved in - - -

PN180

They will be assisting, will they?---Assisting, yes, you might say accessing and accumulating that data to be analysed. As to how it's going to actually happen is all in the lap of the gods and generally I've seen with these high level situations where there's clear delineations of the higher level person will be doing this and the lower level person will be doing that type of task. In the reality, those jobs are devolved down to the lower person because the upper level person doesn't have the time and if you read the PDs of those upper level positions, you'll see that they are incredibly complex and incredibly detailed positions that you won't get through in a 60-hour week.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN181

So you're saying, Mr Johansen, that though these functions have been stripped from the project manager infrastructure role, you believe the structure won't work, that ultimately as designed, it will not pan out as it looks on paper?---The structure has some strengths, but like any structure, it needs to be tested by actually being implemented. I can't make any statement of that definement until I see it actually implemented, but it's just been my experience that that's not been what's happened.

PN182

In paragraph 32 you say that the new job title refers to infrastructure. I think you're talking about the project manager infrastructure?---Yes.

PN183

And you say there's a second project manager position tagged as applications and you say:

PN184

In reality, the two roles will have a mix of infrastructure and applications.

PN185

And you say:

PN186

These cannot be done in isolation.

PN187

And if I skip the next sentence, you say:

PN188

It is most likely the two managers will be allocating tasks on the basis of who is available on the time and not on an artificial demarcation.

PN189

That's your experience of how these things work?---Yes. Well, basically we have roles that have to be done and you can't put them off until that person is available.

PN190

But you accept that the structure that has been proposed and that Mr Langarish will give evidence about proposes a clear delineation, sufficiently clear?---If it was so specifically clear and one was mutually exclusive of the other, Gani applied for the project manager infrastructure position, but was granted the project manager applications or the other way around.

PN191

I actually think it's the other way around, Mr Johansen?---Well, it's very confusing, but he went through the interview process with Trevor, Judith and myself and afterwards, Trevor asked me, he said I could see that someone else would be better for the applications and would you object, even though Gani didn't apply for the infrastructure project manager position, if we appointed him to that.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN192

So you're saying that he said that - Mr Langarish said that the job that Mr Ozturk applied for, one of the jobs he's applied for, he wasn't the best candidate, but he might be better in infrastructure?---Well, basically the Victorian Public Service rules for interviews require that we have to go purely by how the person interviews in that panel and in the interview, one of the other people who applied came out with star qualities and really aced the job.

PN193

The jobs have different tasks under the job descriptions, don't they?---They have different tasks, but the tasks were so exclusively different, why would Trevor say just arbitrarily is it all right if I just give this one to Gerry and offer the infrastructure position to Gani and if they had been so radically different, I certainly wouldn't have said yes. They are very similar in role.

PN194

One has a focus on applications, doesn't it, and one has a focus on infrastructure? Do you agree with that?---Yes, but you can't divorce one from the other. If you're doing an infrastructure, it's going to have an applications role. If you're doing applications, it's going to have an infrastructure role, so the two of those managers would have to discuss between each other their own projects, anyway, to get feedback of the strengths and weaknesses of each other.

PN195

So do you say that the two project manager positions should really have the same title?---They could, but - - -

PN196

Because they're doing the same job, you would say?---They're doing the same job, but it may be useful to have a separate title so that one has more of a focus in one direction and one in the other direction. I don't have any problems with the fact that they have different titles and different focuses. It could be beneficial to the eventual structure. As I said, I can't say one way or another whether it would succeed or fail until it was applied.

PN197

If I can move to another topic?---May I point out, that discussion was between Trevor, Jude and myself which was the three in the interview panel, so Jude was a witness there as well.

PN198

Mr Ozturk has been offered a position as a project manager infrastructure where his salary is frozen?---Yes.

PN199

There have been other cases in the Institute of people being offered positions where their old salary was frozen until the salary of the new position catches up, hasn't there?---Yes, only recently. Previously, it was an Institute policy to not freeze the salaries.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN200

Wasn't it an Institute policy to provide for 12 months' salary maintenance only?
---No.

PN201

It wasn't?---No. Previously it was made ongoing in a number of cases that I know of, but in the EBA, it's only for 12 months.

PN202

Well, are you talking about the current EBA?---The current EBA.

PN203

The current EBA provides for - - -?---Sorry, the current EBA is for open and for catch-up.

PN204

Catch-up, yes, and that's - - -?---The previous EBA had 12 months.

PN205

Had 12 months in it, yes?---But that wasn't applied that I am aware of.

PN206

But the certified agreement provides for - it authorises the ability of management to freeze the salary, doesn't it?---It does, yes.

PN207

It's an agreement between the NTEU and Kangan?---That's right.

PN208

Appendix 5 of your statement, if I could just go to that. I should go to where it's referred to in your statement which I think is at page 9. Have you got that? You say that:

PN209

Appendix 5 is a table which aligns key elements from the two position descriptions for easier comparison.

PN210

?---Yes, that's correct.

PN211

That's a comparison between the senior project co-ordinator position and the project manager infrastructure position?---Yes.

PN212

You say that that table aligns the key elements from the two position descriptions in your statement?---Yes, as much as you can do separate documents.

PN213

It's the case, Mr Johansen, that that is only a comparison of the key selection criteria. It's not a comparison of the duties of the position, is it, that table?---No, it's not, but the key selection criteria are when you apply for a position are what you have to respond to.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN XXN MR RUSKIN
PN214

It doesn't cover the duties of the position?---You don't have to respond to the duties when you apply for that job specifically and the key selection criteria are also what the Kangan Batman TAFE or Institute of TAFE PFES committee have a very high rating as far as how we assess - - -

PN215

The value of the job, but the number of points for the job?---Yes. That's very much on the key selection criteria, because a lot of the other stuff is just preliminary waffle.

PN216

In your view?---Well, some managers write it with a lot of verbosity and write up the job and others don't put a lot in there and write down the job, but it's the key selection criteria that really come down to the brass tacks.

PN217

No further questions, your Honour.

PN218

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ms Gale.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE [11.10AM]

PN219

MS GALE: Thank you, your Honour.

PN220

Mr Johansen, you were asked a number of questions about the consultative committee meetings and I think you were referred to the minutes of the consultative committee which, although you were referred to them in another witness statement, I think you'll find them most easily at tab 1 of your own witness statement, that is the minutes of the meeting of 8 February?---Yes.

PN221

In discussing the consultative committee meetings and the attitude of the union to the redeployment process, you said that there was disagreement about how the redeployment process should happen. Could you expand on what the basis of that disagreement was?---Well, basically the management previously in redundancy and redeployment restructures had been quite friendly and willing to match people as much as possible into suitable jobs for their skills and salary levels. There had even been cases where people had been placed in positions that were of a higher skill requirement than they were, but if you read the EBA document, part of the process of redeployment is that where extra skills are required, that the EBA encourages the retraining of people to meet those skills so that people aren't disadvantaged. They're actually empowered by redeployment and hopefully a redeployment becomes a positive restructure in that situation. However, in this one, it was a very antagonistic situation where all positions were going to be spilled, people were not going to be matched and there was a throw-away statement that - or to my impression a throw-away statement that if people needed extra retraining, then that would be certainly provided, but in the actual implementation, no training was ever offered to anybody in any regard that I am aware of, so we were very disappointed in the way this was applied and the only previous time that this type of application of spill of jobs had been done was with the facilities department and even then it wasn't a complete spill of jobs.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN RXN MS GALE
PN222

You were asked about the matching for one or two positions, direct transfer without the positions being spilled?---Yes.

PN223

You said that you had tried to obtain that process for some other positions, but without success. How made the decision about who would or would not be exempt from the redeployment process?---With the James Hogan position, it was in the consultative committee. Subsequent to that, I was advised by Trevor that the only time that he would consider jobs being matched is if the people themselves could provide a case to him personally, that their current job and their new job would be comparable. I tried to push three different people to go through that process, but only John Natschuv actually followed through the whole process and as such was successful in achieving that aim. One of the other jobs, of the high level jobs, was actually apparently offered to Peter who was, like Gani, a CSO5 with a car and that was a CSO6 job that he was offered, but he had by that time decided that he was not going to continue, so in discussions with me he decided not to take that job on, but it was interesting that that job was offered to him, even though he was officially a CSO5 with a car, being paid as a CSO6, he was offered a CSO6 job and yet Gani's position was summarily dismissed as not being suitable for application because he was only a CSO5, so that type of pattern matching was very patchy and it seemed to be unfairly applied.

PN224

You were asked about Mr Langarish's statement and particularly in the area of paragraphs 52 and 54 of that statement where Mr Langarish points to words in the SPC position description, that is the position description for the substantive position held by Mr Ozturk before the restructure and I think you agreed that those words don't appear in the PMI position description. At paragraph 52 there was reference to performing business case development, cost benefit analysis, requirements analysis and systems design and at paragraph 54 to the role of extracting, synthesising and analysing customer requirements to be able to recommend an appropriate IT solution and I think you agreed with Mr Ruskin that those words do not appear in the PMI position description?---Correct.

PN225

Do the duties that they describe appear in the PMI position description?---That would be up to interpretation to a certain extent, I think. My interpretation would be that some of those duties would be involved in those roles, but without them specifically being stated, I couldn't say one way or another. However, I may state that the PFES manual also does not cover any of those type of roles, because it's so old.

**** COLIN JOHANSEN RXN MS GALE
PN226

Could you explain what you mean by not covering the roles?---The points factor evaluation system fails dismally in IT positions because we have so many new terminologies that are not in the points factor evaluation manual and as such do not tag it as raising the score.

PN227

No further questions, your Honour.

PN228

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ms Gale. Thank you for your evidence, Mr Johansen. You may be excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.19AM]

PN229

MS GALE: The next witness, your Honour, is Mr Gani Ozturk.

<GANI OZTURK, AFFIRMED [11.21AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE

PN230

MS GALE: Thank you, Mr Ozturk. Did you prepare a witness statement in preparation for these proceedings?---Yes.

PN231

Do you have a copy of that statement with you?---Yes.

PN232

The statement which is dated 25 May 2007?---Yes.

PN233

Do you have any corrections or amendments to that statement that you wish to make?---No.

PN234

Do you adopt that statement as your evidence in these proceedings?---Yes.

PN235

I would like to tender the witness statement of Mr Gani Ozturk dated the 25th.

EXHIBIT #G4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF GANI OZTURK DATED 25/05/2007

PN236

MS GALE: Your Honour, I have prepared a copy of that statement which actually has page numbering that runs through the attachments which I am happy to provide for your convenience.

PN237

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN238

MS GALE: Unfortunately, it was only after we had lodged the documents that we learned the magic of page numbers in pdf.

PN239

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN240

MS GALE: Mr Ozturk, did you prepare a supplementary witness statement in these proceedings?---Yes.

PN241

Do you have a copy of that with you?---Yes.

PN242

Are there any changes or amendments you would like to make to that supplementary statement?---Yes, there is a change, a minor change. I referred on page 5 of that document, item 22 and 23 reads appendix G. That should actually say attachment 14.

PN243

So that's the reference to the attachment in Mr Langarish's statement?---That's correct.

**** GANI OZTURK XN MS GALE
PN244

At paragraph 22 and 23 of your statement should refer to attachment 14?
---Fourteen, rather than appendix G.

PN245

Thank you. With that change, do you adopt the statement as your evidence in these proceedings?---Yes.

PN246

No further questions, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #G5 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF GANI OZTURK DATED 13/05/2007

PN247

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Ruskin.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RUSKIN [11.24AM]

PN248

MR RUSKIN: Thank you, your Honour.

PN249

Mr Ozturk, you live about five minutes from the Kangan campus?---Yes.

PN250

Are you the NTEU secretary of the Kangan campus or the president? Do you have an official role?---Yes, I'm elected NTEU secretary of Kangan Batman Institute of TAFE, NTEU branch.

PN251

The elected secretary?---Yes.

PN252

You've been in that role for some period of time?---Yes.

PN253

How long?---Since 1990/91.

PN254

1991?---Yes, as I recall.

PN255

You've been involved, I suppose, in that role in many disagreements or disputes with management at Kangan, have you?---I wouldn't say disagreements, disputes when we've been in management meetings and resolving issues that have arisen.

PN256

You would have raised issues that were a concern to your members and taken that up with management about workplace issues, is that correct?---Yes, when staff have approached us with regard to concerns.

PN257

Or you've perhaps initiated - the NTEU would have initiated issues of concern?
---Generally if it's affecting staff and staff approach us, we'll follow up with regard to their needs.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN258

Your role is to or the NTEUs role is to endeavour to protect the rights of NTEU members, is that right?---It's to apply the agreements that are in place and to follow them, whether they be EBAs or Institute policies or procedures.

PN259

And that involves protecting the rights of members or not?---If that's what is in the documentation and the agreements.

PN260

You would do that, wouldn't you? You would feel a responsibility to do that?---It would be part of our role, yes.

PN261

If a member came to you about a matter, you would feel obligated to take the matter up if there was some worth in it, wouldn't you?---I don't know what you mean by the word, sorry.

PN262

Well, if a member had a concern about an issue, you would feel bound to take - you or someone from the NTEU take the issue up with management?---At the request of the staff member.

PN263

You would do that?---At the request of the staff member.

PN264

You're familiar with the EBA, I suppose, because you have to ensure that it's adhered to, is that right?---I don't know if it's me ensuring it's adhered to. I'm not the only one that ensures - - -

PN265

No, but in your role, you said that you want to ensure that the members - that this agreement is adhered to. If a member says I've got an entitlement under this agreement and it hasn't been applied, you would have to check to see if it does apply and take it up with management if there was an issue, would that be right?
---Yes, in terms of following the EBA. I don't know whether I would use the word adhered to, sorry.

PN266

Are you familiar with this document?---That's the latest EBA?

PN267

Yes, sorry, I should have said, the certified agreement made between Kangan Batman TAFE and the NTEU of 2005?---Yes.

PN268

You are familiar with it?---Yes.

PN269

There is a dispute settling - a dispute avoidance and resolution procedures clause in it, do you recall that?---There is.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN270

Are you familiar with it?---I'm familiar with it, yes.

PN271

The NTEU have activated that clause, haven't they, in recent times, clause 18? They've notified disputes, are you aware of that?---Yes.

PN272

Have you read Mr Mackay's statement?---Yes.

PN273

And you've seen the attachments to that statement when you looked at it?---Yes.

PN274

Do you recall, otherwise I will take you to it, that in the documentation there is references, there's documents, copies of emails I think, I think they're emails from the NTEU to management about disputes, issues in which NTEU are in dispute, do you recall that?---Which one are you referring to?

PN275

I will take you to it if it would help you. If I can take you to attachment 7 of Mr Mackay's statement. Have you got that?---Yes.

PN276

That's an email from Janet Burke and it says that:

PN277

We request the establishment of a dispute committee.

PN278

?---Yes.

PN279

That's an example of notifying a - of requesting the establishment of a dispute committee under clause 18, is that right?---Yes, subsequent to many other things that went on before that.

PN280

Indeed, but it did activate a dispute, did it not?---It was notified.

PN281

Notified of a dispute?---That's right.

PN282

Attachment 15 of Mr Mackay's statement activates a dispute committee. I think that is correct. Yes, 15 is an email from Ms Burke?---Yes.

PN283

That says that I think that a dispute committee should be established. It has asked for the convening of a dispute committee, does it not, I think in about the fourth last paragraph:

PN284

I now request a dispute committee to be convened.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN285

Do you see that?---Are we looking at the same document?

PN286

I hope so. If you look at attachment 15 of Geoff Mackay's statement?---Email from Janet Burke, is that correct?

PN287

Yes, and the second page?---Yes.

PN288

Do you see the fourth last paragraph?---I am reading the last sentence just to make sure we're looking at the same document:

PN289

A nominee said a dispute committee -

PN290

Is that the sentence?

PN291

Yes, and if you go to the fourth last paragraph of that email?---The fourth last paragraph?

PN292

Yes, the one that says:

PN293

A meeting held yesterday -

PN294

Do you see that?---

PN295

Failed to resolve the above issue and I now request a dispute committee to convene.

PN296

Yes, that was another example of a dispute committee being convened, was it not?
---Requesting for it to be convened?

PN297

Yes, requesting for it to be convened, is that right?---Yes.

PN298

I think there's an example in attachment 17 of Mr Mackay's statement. It says:

PN299

The dispute committee will be established, will meet.

PN300

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN301

That's the NTEU activating a dispute committee, do you agree with that?---Yes.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN302

And attachment 20 of Mr Mackay's statement, you'll see at the last paragraph of that email, there's a request for a dispute committee to be arranged?---The last paragraph, page 2 of 3?

PN303

Yes, it says that:

PN304

Although the EBU requires the dispute committee to report within five days, the union agrees with you tomorrow to attempt to resolve it.

PN305

In other words it's saying - is that not saying that if we can't resolve it tomorrow, we want to set up a dispute committee? Do you read it that way?---Not necessarily.

PN306

How do you read it, Mr Ozturk?---It just says that although the EBA requires a dispute committee to report within five working days of the first meeting, the union agreed to meet with you again tomorrow, 23/1, following the NTEU management meeting in light of the proposals set out above to attempt again to reach settlement. However, we put you on notice that union views your failure to properly implement the EBA with the greatest seriousness and if the discussions tomorrow fail to resolve this, we will proceed to notify the matter to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

PN307

So isn't that saying that if the dispute isn't resolved, they'll activate - they'll take the dispute to the Commission? Does it say that?---It says they will notify.

PN308

They will notify the Commission that there's a dispute between NTEU and - do you read it that way?---It says if it doesn't resolve the dispute, we'll proceed to notify the matter.

PN309

To the Commission over a dispute?---I don't know whether it's over a dispute.

PN310

You don't think it's over a dispute, Mr Ozturk?---Well, the wording says this notification.

PN311

You're not sure? It says:

PN312

If the discussions tomorrow fail to resolve the dispute, we will proceed to notify the matter to the Commission.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN313

You're not sure the matter is referring to the dispute?---If there's a lot of items
in - - -

PN314

It might not be about notifying about a dispute?---The dispute procedure if you look at it indicates there's a procedure to follow. We expect the Institute to follow that procedure. If the Institute is not following that procedure within the dispute procedure, the NTEU or the union is permitted to raise the matter with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and that's why that's in there.

PN315

And that's an example, isn't it, of the union saying that we have or we will activate clause 18 of the EBA?---Clause 18?

PN316

The dispute avoidance and resolution procedures. You don't think there's any reference to - - -?---If the reference isn't made there, then how would you take that as being an example?

PN317

You don't think - you're the secretary of the NTEU, aren't you?---Yes.

PN318

You're not sure that that last paragraph is referring at all to the procedures in clause 18 of the EBA?---The specific wording isn't there.

PN319

Do you think the inference is that it's about a dispute that might touch upon clause 18?---It would based on what's there.

PN320

Take attachment 22 of Mr Mackay's statement?---Yes.

PN321

You will recall that email of 13 April?---From Janet Burke to Geoff Mackay, is that what we're saying?

PN322

Yes. Are you familiar with it?---Yes.

PN323

That last paragraph is saying the representatives on the dispute committee request that the Institute withdraw a redundancy letter and that Mr Ozturk occupy his re-titled position, it says that, doesn't it?---Yes.

PN324

It's the case, isn't it, Mr Ozturk, that in all that correspondence which we've gone through about notifying disputes and references to disputes, there is no reference in any of the materials up until 13 April about you continuing to occupy your re-titled position until 13 April? Isn't that right?---No.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN325

It's not?---No.

PN326

Because you've raised it earlier?---Yes.

PN327

In the written materials?---Yes.

PN328

Is it in your statement, any reference to that, of raising it before 13 April?---In terms of the position, yes.

PN329

Let me just be specific, Mr Ozturk, because I think it might be appropriate, that it says in that last paragraph:

PN330

The NTEU representatives on the dispute committee request that the Institute withdraw the redundancy letter and that Mr Ozturk continue to occupy his re-titled position with all his previous terms and conditions of employment.

PN331

Now, the point about withdraw the redundancy letter and Mr Ozturk continue to occupy his re-titled position, do you see that part of it?---Yes.

PN332

That is not a matter that was raised in any correspondence before 13 April and you don't agree with me on that?---What do you mean by it wasn't raised before?

PN333

There's no correspondence, is there, where the NTEU requests that the Institute withdraw the redundancy letter and that Mr Ozturk continue to occupy his re-titled position? There's nothing in the correspondence that you've presented which shows that that's something that was raised before 13 April, is there?---Not that I can recall in terms of the dispute items that were listed. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't be done at any time.

PN334

No, but it wasn't raised before then?---Not that I can recall right now.

PN335

Mr Ozturk, your claim I think of what this dispute is about, this application is about as I understand it is that you go on 13 April and you look at the material, you've seen in the submissions of the NTEU in this matter, have you?---The submissions of the NTEU? What are you referring to?

PN336

This case before the Commission, you provided a witness statement?---Yes.

PN337

The NTEU has produced an outline of submissions?---I've seen - I've presented witness statements.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN338

Have you seen the union's outline of submissions?---I don't know what you're talking about.

PN339

Perhaps I will hand them up to you, Mr Ozturk, just to see that - have you seen those before?---No, I haven't seen these before.

PN340

You understand that - this is a question. Do you understand that the matter before the Commission today is that you should have been - sorry, I withdraw that. The matter before the Commission today is that your old position of senior project co-ordinator is the same as or similar to the position that you've been offered of project manager infrastructure. Do you understand that?---Is it a similar position?

PN341

Same or similar, you understand that?---Yes.

PN342

You said you should have just stayed in it, is that right? That's your old position effectively with a new title and not much change, is that right?---Yes.

PN343

When do you think you should have been put into that position? It's your position, so when should you have been put into it, or when should it have been - when do you say - management has redeployed you and has offered you this project management infrastructure role, is that right? It offered that to you on 19 March in a letter?---Yes, after going through interviews for other positions.

PN344

Yes, that’s right and they offered it to you. Now, you say that's your old position, don't you?---Yes.

PN345

So when do you think management should have declared that that was your old position and left you in it? When should that have occurred? About what time?
---At the time they were considering the restructure.

PN346

So in January? December?---Before that.

PN347

Before December?---Yes.

PN348

November?---Whenever the time the manager decided that they were going to restructure the department, they - - -

PN349

They hadn't agreed on the new positions yet, had they?---Well, the manager decided to restructure the department, change the position descriptions, therefore that is something that's impacting on me and my position in the department, so there should have been consultation with either the NTEU or the individual indicating that there's going to be an impact to your role and the impact to your role are these changes that are going to happen, what are your thoughts, how can we move forward with this? There was no consultation.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN350

None of that?---No.

PN351

So you think that the declaration that that's your old job and that you would stay in it should have been made before December?---Not the declaration. You asked me whether we should be advised of it and I'm saying that when there was consideration to restructure the department, there should have been consultation.

PN352

Yes, I understand that, but I'm asking you when do you think it should have been confirmed that it was your old position and you would remain in it?---Not in terms of me confirming it.

PN353

No, no, management, I am asking management, when should management have said, Mr Ozturk, that's your old job and you will remain in it?---You would need to ask management that.

PN354

Do you have an idea of - well, you say management has not followed the right process in relation to you, so it's really for you to say when you think they should have done that. Should they have done it in December?---Well, it would have been done before the - tabled on 21 December 2006.

PN355

At least by then, they should have said that's your old job, do you agree with that?---From their perspective, they should have looked at the positions and said these positions do not need to be changed, they can be matched and we don't need to restructure, redeploy, et cetera, for those positions.

PN356

In relation to you?---Not just me.

PN357

No, no, but let's just talk about it, but in relation to you about 21 December?---It would have been the same for all of them.

PN358

I don't care about anyone else, Mr Ozturk, this is about you. I just want to ask you about you. When do you think that management should have - at least by 21 December have said to the NTEU or you about you that we don't need to redeploy, restructure, this is Mr Ozturk's old position and he will continue to occupy it? Do you agree with that?---Yes, it should have been done before that document was tabled.

PN359

Before 21 December?---Yes.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN360

If I can take you to attachment 7 of Mr Mackay's statement. I might have given you the wrong attachment number. It isn't. It's just that I had the wrong witness statement. Do you see that email from Janet Burke?---Yes.

PN361

Do you see it says:

PN362

Kangan has not afforded our member, Gani Ozturk, affected by the restructure of IS&S services, his proper entitlements pursuant to clause 22 of said agreement.

PN363

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN364

By not offering to match him into the similar position of business analyst professional services co-ordinator.

PN365

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN366

You agree that that's saying that you should have been placed into that position and not have to apply for it, is that what that's saying?---Matched as in - - -

PN367

Put into it?---That's what matched means, looking at the position description, looking at the role of the person and if their qualifications, experience, skills are appropriate to that role and it is within similar salary level, they would be put into that position, as you put, matched into the position.

PN368

And offering to match, does that mean offering the position or offering to make the assessment or what does offering to match mean, do you think?---Offering to match is matching it to the position.

PN369

Does it mean offering the job, is that what match means?---In terms of matching, I don't believe there is offering involved, similar to - - -

PN370

Putting someone into the position?---Similar to the James Hogan position where the position was matched and he was placed into the job, similar to John Natschuv, network engineer, they were matched into the job.

PN371

Yes, they were matched?---There was no interview, no - - -

PN372

That email is saying that's what should have happened to you, isn't it?---Based on the EBA clause 22 being applied, that's what should have happened.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN373

Which clause is it you're referring to?---Clause 22 says when you're redeploying a person, if I have a copy of it, I can - - -

PN374

I can give you a copy?---References are to looking at the similar salary, experience, knowledge.

PN375

Could I hand it up to you and you could just point us to the relevant - - -?---Yes.

PN376

Your Honour, you have a copy?

PN377

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, I do?---I am looking at page 15 of 23.

PN378

MR RUSKIN: Yes?---Suitable alternative positions is the definition there.

PN379

Yes?---Position equivalent to the position declared in excess of requirements in terms of salary and time fraction and where possible, no less classification unless a variation is acceptable to the employee. When looking at that, my salary level was at CSO6 which was the business analyst salary level, hence that would have been and could have been matched to that role and that's why that response was given at the time, similar to the other two positions mentioned previously, James Hogan and John Natschuv.

PN380

So what should have happened is that you should have been matched with that, this email is saying you should have been matched to that business analyst position and thereby be the occupant of it, is that right?---That's correct.

PN381

Like with Mr Hogan, because I think with Mr Hogan, the position he occupied before the restructure was the same position, a similar position as the position he now occupies in the new structure, is that right?---That's what was put forward.

PN382

You agreed to that when you were a member of the consultative committee?
---Yes, we agreed to it, to say that it could be matched.

PN383

Did you say matched?---Well, the matching is the whole idea behind it.

PN384

In fact, if you look at the minutes of 8 February which is attachment 2, I think - attachment 1 of Mr Mackay's statement, do you see what it says about Mr Hogan, that he should retain this position:

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN385

In view of the fact his position has not changed significantly, he was successful in the position.

PN386

Is that matching?---What's the difference? I can't see that there's a difference between retaining and - - -

PN387

I am just asking do you see that as matching?---I see that as matching. Someone would have had to have looked at both position descriptions to say, yes, they're going to retain that. Who made the decision with regard to the retention of that role, whether the manager has said I want that person to stay, I don't know.

PN388

But you saw that the position, the business analyst position should have been matched to what you were doing?---Yes, as in you're comparing it to senior project co-ordinator?

PN389

Yes?---Yes.

PN390

You think it's unfair, do you, that a person who has your salary level of 71,474 I think it is - do you remember your own salary, about that?---That's the current salary.

PN391

You think it's unfair that someone with that salary and has access to the car that you had up until about 31 May - - -?---31 May?

PN392

I thought that was the date the car was returned, was it not?---Yes.

PN393

You think it's unfair that someone on your salary and someone who has the access to the subsidised car or however you want to describe it should lose that? Do you think that's unfair that someone should lose that? You had a contract, did you not, with Kangan?---An individual agreement.

PN394

Yes, an individual agreement, that's a contract, you had a contract which entitled you to salary, salary increases with EBA increases?---Yes.

PN395

And you had access to this car that was of some benefit, that's right?---That was part of the salary arrangement.

PN396

Earlier this year, let's say before any of this restructure occurred, when you were in the position of senior project co-ordinator, you had a salary of 71,474, is that correct?---The senior project co-ordinator position.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN397

You had that salary, about that and that salary would increase with EBA increases?---Yes.

PN398

You also got a car, didn't you?---It was part of that salary.

PN399

Well, you got a cash salary before tax of 71,474, didn't you?---No, it wasn't just that.

PN400

It wasn't? What was it?---The car is there as well as a benefit.

PN401

If you didn't have the car, the car was taken off you, your salary would still be 71,474, wouldn't it?---It is, but that's part of the reason we're here, because I'm at a disadvantage right now, not having that car.

PN402

You think it's unfair, don't you, that you don't have a car? The car has been removed?---What I think in terms of fairness I don't believe is the issue. It's what we agreed in terms of that individual agreement is in black and white, what was agreed.

PN403

You have to answer my question. It's relevant and my question is do you think it's unfair? I put to you you think it's unfair that the car is not going to stay with you and your salary is not going to be increased with EBA increases. You think that's unfair?---From my perspective, it's a breach of that agreement. That's the way I can answer that.

PN404

You have thought that for a very long time, haven't you?---A long time as in?

PN405

Well, you raised the issue on 29 January, at the minutes of the meeting of 29 January 2007, if you look at attachment 3 of your second statement?---I don't know that references were made with regard to vehicle or anything like that. I'm just trying to look at it.

PN406

I will take you to it. If you look at attachment 3, do you see that?---Yes.

PN407

That issue was raised, wasn't it, on 29 January?---By whom?

PN408

Well, it says in 4(f):

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN409

The management representative will consider the proposal put by the NTEU representative. Staff who are currently in receipt of an over award payment and/or special arrangements regarding the availability to salary package a car should continue to have the special payments and arrangements will apply should they be appointed to a position at a lower total salary under the new structure.

PN410

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN411

So that was raised by the NTEU representatives?---Not the car. What we raised was along the lines of any existing terms and conditions was the word used originally. That was then changed in the minutes - no, it was changed to over award payments and/or special arrangements. In terms of car, the wording in there, that's not something we put in. We didn't say car.

PN412

You never raised the car, then?---We didn't say specifically car.

PN413

Why would it be in there?---That's the way the minute was taken, I guess, at the time.

PN414

And the minutes weren't agreed or they were agreed?---When we looked at it, I think I responded with some changes to it and I didn't specifically say to remove the car, but I knew that what we were looking at was in terms of a joint statement to be proposed and anything discussed in terms of the minutes weren't going to be sent out as past practice.

PN415

But are you saying that that's incorrect, that the NTEU didn't want people to continue to salary package a car?---No, that's not what we said. What we discussed was because we as NTEU do not know what other individual agreements are out there with staff, all of them. We cannot limit ourselves to saying this particular entitlement can't be, so the way we termed it was to say their existing or special arrangements would continue, so in my case it was a car.

PN416

It was a car?---In others, I don't know what other arrangements individuals may have.

PN417

But the request that was raised by the NTEU would embrace you in your personal circumstances retaining your car, wouldn't it?---Yes. I guess clarification needs to be brought there and this will probably come up later is that - so not to hold up the consultative agreement in the restructure and implementation, NTEU representatives and management agreed that if the issue with regard to over award arrangements, it was to be handled separately to the consultative committee process.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN418

I understand. Thank you?---Because we didn't want to slow that process up, so if there's any disputes that were going to be arose or disagreements, we would negotiate those with human resources to take that up at the same time, but it didn't mean that it was entirely outside the consultative committee process.

PN419

In that statement of the 29th, or your understanding of the statement, it was saying that - - -?---Which statement?

PN420

4(f), the minutes of 4(f) that we've just gone to, attached to the 29 January minutes?---Yes.

PN421

The paragraph we just went to?---Yes.

PN422

The view of the NTEU representatives was that a person who is appointed to a position in a lower total salary level, someone who's redeployed to a lower salary position, they should retain their over award benefits, is that what you were asking?---A person who was appointed to a lower salary?

PN423

A redeployee. I could ask the question again if it wasn't clear. Would you like me to repeat it?---Yes.

PN424

Have you found the paragraph?---No.

PN425

It's attachment 3 of your second statement?---Yes. Which one are we looking at?

PN426

4(f)?---Yes.

PN427

You were saying in that that a person who's been redeployed and he's appointed to a position at a lower total salary level should retain any over award payment or special arrangement or benefit, is that right?---That's not what I read there. It just says - - -

PN428

You didn't think it was correct?---

PN429

The management representatives would consider the proposal by NTEU representatives.

PN430

That's what I am reading:

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN431

Staff who are currently in receipt of over award arrangements or special arrangements regarding the availability of the salary package of a car should continue to have these special payments and arrangements apply should they be appointed to a position at a lower total salary level under the new structure.

PN432

What did the NTEU request at that meeting? Did they raise the issue of over award benefits?---Yes, in terms of existing arrangements.

PN433

Yes, and what was the request by the NTEU?---That's what it is in there.

PN434

You agree that was the request?---That is what's noted, the gist of what is there.

PN435

No, no, I am asking - we've had some discussion about whether that's accurate, the reference to a car and I am just asking you what was it that was requested by the NTEU on 29 January? Does that reflect - - -?---Yes.

PN436

That reflects what was requested?---Yes.

PN437

For a redeployee, such as a person at a lower total salary level?---The wording put in there was total salary level. What we said was that no-one would be disadvantaged with the restructures that were happening.

PN438

So you didn't ask for them to continue? The words here are -

PN439

should continue to have these special payments and arrangements.

PN440

Do you agree with that? That's what you sought?---Yes.

PN441

That includes special arrangements?---Yes.

PN442

You agree that the EBA doesn't provide that?---The EBA doesn't provide what?

PN443

Clause 22 of the EBA sets out what happens if someone is offered a suitable alternative position. You recall that?---Yes.

PN444

It doesn't provide, does it, that a person who is offered a suitable alternative position is entitled to retain their over award salary and have it maintained or other special arrangements? It only talks about freezing salary, doesn't it?---In the EBA it refers to it, but the past practice has always been - - -

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN445

Indeed, I am just asking about the EBA. The EBA doesn't provide for that, does it?---The EBA doesn't refer to it in terms of - it says it's an option with regard to redeployment, redeploying people. Instead of redeploying:

PN446

Where it's determined that some positions are no longer required -

PN447

Which paragraph?---22.

PN448

Point?---22.1, the references are to redeployment:

PN449

The parties agree that where it is determined some positions are no longer required, in order for the Institute to achieve its goals, redeployment is an option which should be considered.

PN450

That doesn't negate the fact that you are limited to having special arrangements, so if the option is not considered to be redeployment, then it doesn't stop you from having these arrangements.

PN451

But the document that we were talking to that you kept looking at, 4(f), we were talking about someone who was - do you see it says:

PN452

Should they be appointed to a position at a lower total salary level under the new structure -

PN453

that would be a redeployee, wouldn't it?---Not necessarily.

PN454

It could include a redeployee?---It could include it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that - - -

PN455

Someone who was a redeployee - - -?---They're not necessarily all redeployees.

PN456

Someone who was a redeployee - - -?---As we've seen - - -

PN457

This is my question. Someone who was a redeployee, let's say someone was a CSO6 and they were offered a CSO5 position, because the CSO6 - we're not talking about you - has genuinely been abolished, they're offered a CSO5 position and they have - in the CSO6 position, they had a special arrangement or they had receipt of an over award payment, you were requesting on 29 January, the NTEU was, that that special arrangement and the over award payment should be maintained for those people?---Yes.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN458

And I am saying to you that position is not provided for in the EBA for redeployees, is it? It's only limited to freezing of salaries. Do you agree with that?---It's only one of the options. I've read 22.1 and I'll read it again. It indicates there should be - - -

PN459

No, no, Mr Ozturk - - -?---You don't need to be a redeployee.

PN460

I understand that completely, Mr Ozturk, but I just said to you we were talking about a redeployee?---Yes.

PN461

Okay, so let's talk again about a person who's a redeployee. The CSO6 job genuinely abolished, is offered a CSO5 position, that person is a redeployee, do you agree? Let's say genuinely abolished, the position is genuinely abolished?
---If it is a genuine redundancy and the person is walking out the door, as in they're not going to be redeployed.

PN462

No, no, this is not as complicated. We have a person who is occupying a CSO6 position. I think there's a person called Michael - you have someone as a CSO6 occupying a position and that position we agree is genuinely abolished, that can happen, can't it?---It can happen.

PN463

A position is genuinely abolished and the person is a redeployee and he's offered a redeployment, so far, so good?---Yes.

PN464

That person comes under clause 22?---Yes.

PN465

And they're offered a job?---Yes.

PN466

And the job they're offered is a CSO5?---Yes.

PN467

If they accept that job, you were saying for such a person in 4(f) of the attachment 3, that the special arrangements and over award payments should continue for that person if in the 6 job they had those things. Do you agree that's what you were seeking?---Yes, and as I clarified before, they may have individual agreements that I'm not aware of. They may have above award arrangements that I'm not aware of.

PN468

And they should be maintained?---They should be maintained, but it is always up for negotiation both with the staff member and the NTEU when there is a redeployment or matching to a position so that they don't end up losing salary and terms and conditions.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN469

I understand that, Mr Ozturk, but my question to you is that the EBA, for the example I've given, doesn't provide for that. Maybe it should, but it doesn't provide for the special arrangement to continue, does it?---The way I read it is that it doesn't exclude it.

PN470

It doesn't exclude it, okay, it doesn't provide it, though. It's not an entitlement under the EBA?---Under redeployment?

PN471

Yes, the redeployee?---For the redeployee based on that scenario, the EBA says it's frozen, but our practice has been it doesn't get frozen.

PN472

I understand the practice. Again, the EBA just says frozen salary, doesn't it?
---It says salary. I guess we need to clarify what salary is.

PN473

Yes, okay. Does it provide for special arrangements to continue? I understand you say it doesn't exclude, doesn't provide it, does it?---If it doesn't specifically say it in there - - -

PN474

Does it say it in there?---It doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the organisation.

PN475

No, absolutely not, but again, Mr Ozturk, we're talking about what this instrument says?---Yes.

PN476

Not what practice is. It doesn't provide it in the EBA that if you have a special arrangement and you're the example I've given that that arrangement will continue, it doesn't say you're entitled for it to continue?---In here?

PN477

In here?---In the wording, it may not.

PN478

So we've been a bit distracted, but it's your wish, it's been your wish that you should - whatever happens, you should retain - no, let me go back to attachment 7 of Mr Langarish's witness statement. Do you have that with you?---Attachment 7 you said?

PN479

Yes?---Mm.

PN480

Do you see the letter, there were two - attachment 7 is two letters, two applications, two expressions of interest?---Two expressions of interest.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN481

The second one is on 16 February, the second one is expression of interest for redeployment to the position of project manager applications, do you see that?
---Yes.

PN482

You say in there:

PN483

As requested, due to the notification of position redundancy on 13 February 2007 in accordance with clause 22 of the PACCT certified agreement, I am submitting my interest to be redeployed to the vacant position of project manager applications whilst retaining my current salary arrangements.

PN484

Do you see that sentence?---Yes.

PN485

You were saying in there, weren't you, that I am making the application, but I do it on the condition that my arrangements continue, my salary arrangements continue. That is a reference to your salary being maintained through EBA increases, is it, the arrangement that's in your contract and a reference to keeping the car? Is that what you were talking about?---Yes.

PN486

In paragraph 5 and 6 of the minutes of 8 February which is attachment 1 of Mr Mackay's statement, do you see that?---Attachment 1?

PN487

To Mr Mackay's, the minutes of 8 February?---Yes.

PN488

The fifth paragraph says:

PN489

The NTEU representatives request that all staff who are redeployed or directly appointed to positions identified will retain all existing arrangements as per the PACCT EBA.

PN490

Is that a reference to the same matter that we were talking about under the 29 March minutes about special arrangements and salary being maintained through EBA increases?---Retain existing arrangements as per the PACCT EBA, I would say that would be correct.

PN491

Yes, and the response to management there which says, the management response says:

PN492

Income maintenance will apply to the total salary package as per 22.18 of the PACCT EBA. However, the availability to continue to package a car will not be made available.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN493

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN494

That was their response?---Yes.

PN495

About these issues?---That was their response. There was never agreement reached.

PN496

No, and presumably it was a response because it had been requested?---Requested based on what was - - -

PN497

The NTEU must have raised the issue?---Yes.

PN498

In paragraph 35 of Mr Langarish's witness statement which I don't know that you have warmly embraced, I think you said something about it in your second witness statement - - -?---Yes.

PN499

In that statement it says that - the second last paragraph says:

PN500

At this point, Ms Burke and Mr Ozturk said in effect that Mr Ozturk would accept the PMI role if Kangan were prepared to supplement the role with additional duties that would justify Mr Ozturk remaining on his existing salary.

PN501

Now, you say you don't recall such a proposal being made by you and Ms Burke, I think in your final paragraph of your second witness statement, but do you agree that the discussion on that date did concern the fact that if you did take this role, that you would want to maintain your special arrangements?---If I did take the role of business analyst?

PN502

No, this is about PMI, isn't it?---Which one is that?

PN503

Sorry, the PMI role?---The reference there is business analyst - - -

PN504

After explaining, the discussion turned to the possibility of Mr Ozturk accepting the PMI role.

PN505

Do you see that?---Not in terms of justifying the existing salary. If there was any discussion regarding that, it was more along the lines of career path.

PN506

But do you say that there was any discussion about maintaining your special arrangements?---In terms of the business analyst role.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN507

No, no, the other one, PMI?---Project manager infrastructure.

PN508

You don't recall that being raised by you or Ms Burke?---Not that I can recall, not related to that role.

PN509

In terms of maintaining benefits?---Yes.

PN510

If I go to attachment 15 of Mr Mackay's statement, do you see in that email from Ms Burke, do you see that the letter is about staff receiving redundancy letters and there's been a failure to apply clause 22 of the EBA?---Which items are you referring to?

PN511

Let's go through slowly. The first paragraph, Ms Burke writes about staff having received redundancy letters?---You said item 16?

PN512

Sorry, it's item 15, attachment 15?---Sorry, I was looking at 16. 6 March 2007, yes.

PN513

Ms Burke says:

PN514

I write on behalf of IMS employees who received redundancy letters -

PN515

You've got that?---Yes.

PN516

We note that one CSO6 was offered a suitable position in the new structure. However, others affected were not accorded the same process or opportunity.

PN517

?---Yes.

PN518

It says:

PN519

Further, the Institute has advertised externally two positions, CSO6, that could have been filled by redeployment, one of which is the subject of an earlier dispute and has not been resolved.

PN520

That would be referring to your position?---That could be. Well, I am one of three or four other people who are in the 6 position.

PN521

You are one of the people who could have filled the CSO6 position by redeployment into it?---By using clause 22, yes.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN522

Which bit of clause 22?---In terms of if you look at clause 22 where it says - I am referring to clause 22.1.

PN523

Yes, okay, so how would they put you in that position, Mr Ozturk, in 22.1?
---They would do the matching again.

PN524

So in putting you into that CSO6 position, how would they have done that? Because it was a suitable alternative position?---Yes.

PN525

Attachment 20 of Mr Mackay's statement, you'll see there's a long email from Ms Burke?---Attachment?

PN526

20?---Yes.

PN527

Do you see near the bottom of the first page it says:

PN528

Appropriate redeployment for CSO6 and CSO5 staff.

PN529

Do you see that title there?---Yes.

PN530

It says:

PN531

The following changes are required to overcome the result of injustices.

PN532

Do you see that, down the bottom of the page?---Yes.

PN533

You get a mention in 3?---Yes.

PN534

It says:

PN535

Gani should be redeployed to the BAPS CSO6 position.

PN536

That's the business analyst and project services, that's the CSO6 business analyst position, is it? That's what's being referred to?---Yes.

PN537

And it says you should be redeployed to that position, particularly as no other applicant applied for this position. Do you see that?---Yes.

PN538

Do you agree with that statement at that time?---Yes, at the time, based on clause 22.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN539

Yes, because you're a redeployee?---No.

PN540

You're not a redeployee?---No, matching.

PN541

Suitable alternative position is not a redeployment, is that right?---It's not necessarily a redeployment, because you've got two people who did not go through redeployment, but did get matching to positions, so it's not necessarily to say that you're going through redeployment.

PN542

Mr Ozturk, you just agreed with that sentence. You said Mr Ozturk should be redeployed to the 6 position. You should have been, shouldn't you?---To the business analyst position.

PN543

Yes, you should have been redeployed into it. You've said yes?---Based on clause 22 which states that it should be similar to those who are put into those positions, are of similar salary, et cetera. Do you want me to read all of it out?

PN544

No, no, but you agree with that sentence. You've just said you agree with that first sentence that I read out, don't you?---Yes, based on - - -

PN545

Well, based on - - -?---- - - clause 22.

PN546

Do you agree with the sentence? That is what should have happened to you?
---In terms of the matching.

PN547

Yes?---Yes.

PN548

You should have been redeployed to that position?---Should have been matched to the position.

PN549

I see. Well, Mr Ozturk, you agreed earlier with that sentence, that you should be redeployed and now you say, no, it's not redeployment, it's matching?---Well, the same has happened to the two other positions.

PN550

No, I am not asking about that. I am just asking to understand. I asked you you agree with that sentence, that you should be redeployed to that position and you said yes?---Yes.

PN551

So you agree with that. You should be redeployed to it?---Based on clause 22.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN552

Clause 22 being the bit about a suitable alternative position?---Yes.

PN553

If I could take you to the 8 February meeting which is attachment 1 of Mr Mackay's statement. You've agreed with these, these are correct minutes of the meeting of 8 February, aren't they?---The fact that item 5 and 6 we didn't - to the response from management. I in fact asked for a separate - - -

PN554

My question, Mr Ozturk, I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood it. I asked you is this an accurate record of the minutes of the meeting?---Yes, in terms of the record of it.

PN555

Yes?---But not in terms of the - - -

PN556

That's all I'm asking, the record?---In terms of agreement to - - -

PN557

No, Mr Ozturk, you have to answer my question. My question is, do you agree that they are the accurate minutes of the meeting?---The minutes of the meeting, yes.

PN558

And in 4(a) of those minutes it says "It was further," do you see that:

PN559

It was further agreed -

PN560

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN561

- that it would be a staged approach so that once the high level positions are filled we will then proceed to have a further submission on how to proceed with 5, 4 and 3 positions.

PN562

?---Correct.

PN563

B:

PN564

The process of redeployment to be followed is clause 22.

PN565

Do you agree with that?---Yes.

PN566

And:

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN567

The position of program officer coordinator be exempt from the redeployment process.

PN568

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN569

And you agreed that that position was exempt. And there was a position later agreed to be exempt wasn't there, the position held by the position of telecom analyst position?---It wasn't to say he was exempt from the process.

PN570

Well, he was faced - it was held that it was the same position, similar position, wasn't it?---It was matched.

PN571

Do you say that Mr Hogan was matched?---I believe his position was matched.

PN572

You think it was matched. It says that Mr Hogan should retain his position. His position hasn't - that's saying his position hasn't changed. There's no redeployment is there for Mr Hogan because his old job is in the new structure, isn't that right?---Well, if his old job's in the new structure why did the position description change?

PN573

Well, it did change but it didn't change significantly did it? It says it has not changed significantly and that he should retain his position. Doesn't retain mean he stays in it? He's not going into a new position is he, Mr Hogan?---If the position description's different.

PN574

You think it's a new position description, the position description's different?
---From what I can - my understanding of past practice in the institute is that when a new position description's created then it gets PPSd and advertised.

PN575

And so do you say that - when you agreed with these minutes and it says it was further agreed that the position program office coordinator be exempt from the redeployment process and that Mr Hogan should retain this position, now, retain, the word retain means stay in it doesn't it?---Yes.

PN576

Keep. So doesn't that mean it was accepted that his job hasn't changed, yes?
---Well, the program office coordinator position is a new position.

PN577

It's a new position?---Well, according to the structure that was tabled by Trevor Langarish, program office coordinator. The previous title of that position I believe was IT coordinator from memory ..... so that's what I'm saying.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN578

So do you - not what management thinks, because this document is what's been agreed - do you agree that - you agree - you might not know the answer but I'll ask you. Do you agree that Mr Hogan should have retained the old - his position?
---Should have retained his old position?

PN579

Yes?---As in his original position?

PN580

Yes. Wasn't he just keeping the original position, or do you think he was actually put into a new position in the new structure? What do you think, Mr Ozturk?
---From reading that and what's happened is that if he retained his original position then the position description wouldn't have changed I guess. But he's been placed in a new position.

PN581

It's a new position?---Well, he's been matched to the position that's in the
current - - -

PN582

So do you think Mr Hogan's old position was surplus to - was no longer required?---Well, that's what it was originally indicated to us when the documents were tabled.

PN583

Well, what do you think you've agreed to in 4(c) about Mr Hogan?---Just that he retains the position that's matched to the new position that was in the structure.

PN584

And what do you think happened to his old position? If you say he's got a new position, what happened to his old position?---I don't know. That's my point, that they - we got presented with a new structure, the old structure was in there, and we were told that, as I say, it's minuted so that he's going to retain that position, so he doesn't go through the redeployment process.

PN585

He doesn't go through the redeployment process?---Because he's matched into the position.

PN586

Yes. But do you think that his position, the old position in the structure is no longer required, I'll ask that question, do you think - - -?---That's not for me to say.

PN587

Not for you to say?---No.

PN588

What do you think you were doing there when he was retaining a position? Do you think he was - you're not sure whether he was keeping his old position or being offered a new position, not sure if you agreed?---All I know is that he was being redeployed to - - -

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN589

He was being redeployed?---Well, that's a redeployment isn't it in a sense? Even though it says he's exempt from the redeployment process it still comes back to this, clause 22, that it's an option to be considered. So in that case he was actually placed into that position by matching his position description. Now, that's - - -

PN590

So do you think he was redeployed into it?---In terms of how that matching happened?

PN591

Yes?---I don't know because I wasn't involved with it.

PN592

The minutes agree that he wouldn't be part of the redeployment process doesn't it?---It said he would be exempt from it.

PN593

Yes. Doesn't that mean he's not a part of it?---It doesn't mean that he wasn't still redeployed does it?

PN594

Well, I just have to - - -?---I'm just going by what's on there.

PN595

Yes. Well, you attended that meeting didn't you? I mean, you did, obviously you attended the meeting. You've agreed to the minutes?---Yes.

PN596

And I'm just asking if you understand when it says exempt from the redeployment process did you think he could still have been redeployed into that position, or you're not sure?---I can't answer that question. That's for him and his management.

PN597

Well, what do you think exempt - you must have understood - when you agreed to these minutes you must have understood what you were agreeing to?---We agreed that the minutes were accurate. We didn't ......

PN598

No, it doesn't. It says (4a) it is further agreed. That means the NTEU and management agreed about something in 4 didn't they?---Yes.

PN599

And they agreed, and you were one of them, that the position of program officer be exempt from the redeployment process. What did you think you were agreeing to?---The fact that that person wasn't going to end up re-applying for their position. That was the way we looked at it. They were going to be matched.

PN600

They were going to be matched?---They were going to be matched.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN601

He wasn't going to be matched or he was matched?---He was matched. That was the whole point behind it, but that's my understanding of it.

PN602

So you don't understand that when you say that he'd be exempt from the redeployment process, you're not sure that - you don't think that means he wasn't going to be part of the redeployment process?---The fact that a restructure document was tabled for the department would automatically mean everybody's impacted by that, so as far as I could see the wording exempt from the redeployment process doesn't mean that person is not able to consult, negotiate or get assistance from either HR or NTEU or manager in terms of that position or the changes that are happening.

PN603

You don't think - - -?---So to - - -

PN604

Sorry?---Because what I'm looking at is, by saying exempt from the redeployment process means I go back to the original statement of, are you there to protect the rights of members or staff? Then the fact that it says redeployment from the process doesn't necessarily mean that they can't get assistance should they need it. That's the way I'm reading that.

PN605

No. But doesn't it mean that clause 22 doesn't operate? Isn't clause 22 about redeployment?---Yes.

PN606

And so doesn't it mean that if you're exempt from the redeployment process you're not part of clause 22?---Well, that's what I'm saying. The fact that they're exempt from the redeployment process doesn't mean they're exempt from clause 22.

PN607

It doesn't?---No. Well, it wouldn't because, as I said, still got to protect their rights. If the person was affected negatively then they may raise issues, and we need to follow those up.

PN608

If Mr Hogan's job hadn't changed at all would he have had a choice about staying in the old position which was moved into the new position?---Can you repeat the question?

PN609

Okay. If Mr Hogan's position had not changed at all and that the position in the old structure was the position in the new structure, would Mr Hogan have had a choice about staying in that role?---Well, he would have - I guess in the restructure document that was tabled then I would have expected that there was no - it wouldn't be there at all, that there was no change to his position.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN610

But his position would be in the new structure, because the table sets out the positions in the new structure?---Yes, but it would be there as is.

PN611

Yes?---No name changes.

PN612

No. So that means he would have just been - that he would have stayed in it, he wouldn't have had any - he wouldn't have been able to be matched to positions would he?---He wouldn't have been able to match the positions?

PN613

No, because he's kept his old job hasn't he?---Or he wouldn't need to be matched to the positions.

PN614

Wouldn't need to be. He wouldn't be in the redeployment process?---If it was identical.

PN615

Yes. And if it wasn't identical he would be in the redeployment process?---No, not necessarily because there's - - -

PN616

What would he have been in?---As I said, as with the network engineer they didn't go through a redeployment process, but they negotiated an agreement, I don't know what the arrangements are, and were matched into the network engineer position so - and that's one where originally they weren't exempt from the redeployment process.

PN617

No. But they changed the job didn't they?---They changed the job.

PN618

Yes. Didn't they add duty - we've heard evidence earlier today. Did they not - you might not know the answer to this - did they not change the duties of that telecom analyst position and make it a CSO6?---I recall some communications that - - -

PN619

Yes. And the occupant of a CSO6 position which was said to be very similar was put into it, is that right?---Originally it was a CSO5.

PN620

Correct, yes. And that was exempt from the redeployment process wasn't it?---It doesn't specifically say. We never agreed to - - -

PN621

No, I agreed it doesn't?---We never agreed to that.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN622

It was exempt later wasn't it?---Later on we got notification from HR indicating that that person had accepted a position and that that position was resolved, that there was nothing for us to deal with. That's the way management reported to us.

PN623

Do you know if - well, what was the occupant of that position?---John Natschuv.

PN624

John?---Natschuv.

PN625

John Natschuv. Do you know if Mr Natschuv's old position in the new structure was similar to the position in the new structure?---I didn't do comparisons so I don't like to say.

PN626

So you don't know?---I won't be able to say. But I'm trying to recall back. It's been a while. At the high level it's a network engineer role, yes, that's the way I could say it.

PN627

Yes. Do you agree with me that if a position is exempted from the redeployment process, positions which are not exempted stay in the redeployment process?---I guess the John Natschuv case is proof that it doesn't.

PN628

Yes, unless later agreed?---Well, as I said, management may come to an arrangement with individual staff and the staff member's happy about it, that proceed.

PN629

Well, let's say at 8 February - let's forget about Mr - do you agree that 8 February it was agreed that because Mr Hogan's position was exempt from the redeployment process no other position was exempt from the redeployment process, do you agree with that?---Not necessarily, because it says that the program office coordinator was exempt from the process, but didn't automatically mean everybody else was in the redeployment process.

PN630

It didn't?---Yes.

PN631

Does it say anything in those minutes that other people or other positions might also be exempt from the redeployment process? Does it suggest that other people might also be exempt from the redeployment process in those minutes?---It doesn't refer to it that I can recall.

PN632

Paragraph 5 and 6 identifies an issue about - I think we discussed this - about retaining all existing arrangements?---Yes.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN633

This goes back to this issue we talked about earlier about special arrangements and over award benefits, that's what paragraph 5 is referring to?---That's one of - the two items you've mentioned are some of them. There may be other arrangements that we're not aware of.

PN634

But personal arrangements about what - - -?---No, not personal.

PN635

What would they be?---These would be work related arrangements.

PN636

But other benefits of employment wouldn't they be?---There may be individual agreements regarding salary, there may be individual agreements for, as you say, benefits.

PN637

Yes. But that is referring isn't it to the salary, to the benefits, to the special arrangements, those things that an individual were entitled to under the contract, isn't that what that's referring to?---It's not limiting it to that, that's what I said. I and the NTEU representative who were there would not know what each staff member has come up with in terms of agreements. They may - - -

PN638

When you say agreement you mean their personal - - -?---No. Into work arrangements, existing arrangements. A person may have a position description, one line that says you work at Kangan Batman TAFE and get paid X amount of dollars, another person may have 50 pages that describes you do all this work and you get so much dollars. Now, so you and me maybe we don't consider that to be a fair arrangement, but to the individual it may be fair and they're happy. And we couldn't say in here that we wanted to limit any agreements that are made to the disadvantage of anyone else who is a PACCT staff member.

PN639

But it is a reference to the agreements that might have been made in relation to individuals about their work?---Existing arrangements and in this context. So we're talking about the IS&S department, we're talking about that restructure.

PN640

Yes?---If it was another restructure it may be, again, a different approach.

PN641

Yes. But the fact that management responds - management's response is saying whatever you may have we're just going to apply clause 22.1(8), isn't that what they're saying?---That's their response to it.

PN642

Yes, that's their response?---We didn't agree to it.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN643

You certainly didn't agree to it?---No. And they asked for it to be sent separate to the minutes of the consultative committee meeting, but they didn't want to do that.

PN644

The minutes don't reflect any other disagreement, any issue of disagreement, do they?---Not in terms of - - -

PN645

Any other matter?---No, not that I can see.

PN646

Well, have a closer look and tell me if that's so?---No, I can't see anything else. The only wording was the official meeting of the consultative committee and that's it.

PN647

Yes, sure. But the minutes, we're just talking about the minutes for a moment. There's no other issue that's raised that is a disagreement in the minutes is there?
---Not that I can see right now.

PN648

Well, no, that's not a - I'm going to give you as much time as possible for you to answer that question, Mr Ozturk. You can read the minutes if it would assist you, but I don't think you - and then see if that might assist you?---No, that's fine.

PN649

Okay. You applied for the business analyst position didn't you, on 16 February, and the project manager application's position on 16 February, is that right?---I responded to an expression of interest.

PN650

Yes, you made an expression of interest for those two positions did you not?---I responded to an expression of interest.

PN651

Okay. You didn't make an - well, Mr Ozturk, we can take you to a document.

PN652

THE VICE PRESIDENT: When you say responded to the expressions of interest, was it a request for expressions of interest and you indicated an expression of interest, or something different to that?---I deemed it to be a demand more so because the redundancy letters were sent on the 13th and responses were required by the 16th, within three days.

PN653

Responses as to whether you were interested in one or other of the positions or not?---The expression of interest we were required to respond with a full application for the position addressing all the selection criteria. It wasn't merely I'm interested in this position. So it was a full application. We were told that it had to meet the criteria. And I did that because in the redundancy letter it indicated that if we didn't respond that we were deemed to have resigned basically, that we were taking the package. So it was expressing an interest in the position because of that reason.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN654

Right, thank you.

PN655

MR RUSKIN: Now, Mr Ozturk, the letter on 13 February to you invited you to indicate your interest in certain positions did it not?---Expression of interest.

PN656

Which says please indicate your interest?---This is the letter of redundancy?

PN657

Attachment 4 of Mr McKay's statement?---Attachment 4, yes.

PN658

That invites you to indicate your interest in any of the above positions?---Yes.

PN659

And you expressed your interest in one of those positions didn't you, the project manager application position?---Yes.

PN660

In response to this you made an expression of interest?---Yes.

PN661

You also made the expression of interest to one of the positions that was not listed there, is that right?---Yes.

PN662

You didn't make an expression of interest for the project manager infrastructure position did you at that time?---No.

PN663

Does it mean, Mr Ozturk, this letter of 13 February, that if you hadn't - if someone is in the redeployment process, if you don't get a job you might get a separation package, is that what might happen to someone who's a redeployee?---If you are unable to be placed, yes.

PN664

A redeployee who cannot be placed might be entitled to a separation package, yes?---Yes.

PN665

Would Mr Hogan have been entitled to a separation package?---If he approached management and said I'm interested in being - taking up separation package, I'm sure they would have considered it.

PN666

Yes. Well, what if management had said - well, let's take an example. How I gave that example about the CSO6 position that was, you know, wasn't in the new structure, you agree with that? Do you remember my example, I should say? There was a CSO6 in the old structure that was abolished and the old job has gone. Do you accept that in my theoretical example?---Yes.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN667

Yes, makes sense?---Yes.

PN668

Let's say that person whose position's been abolished isn't offered any position at all, okay?---Unlikely by the way.

PN669

Yes, all right. If they're not offered a position they are entitled to a separation package are they not?---Yes.

PN670

MS GALE: Your Honour, can I object? The line of questioning is wandering far into both hypothetical situations and situations which ask Mr Ozturk to comment at all, to interpret the operation of the enterprise agreement. I submit that Mr Ozturk's interpretation of the agreement is of little use to us. He's not held out to be in any way an expert in statutory interpretation.

PN671

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Ruskin?

PN672

MR RUSKIN: Well, your Honour, Mr Ozturk is the secretary of the NTEU branch and has been since I think 1991. He says he was familiar with the agreement. He seems to be familiar with the agreement. This is not a matter of statutory interpretation as much as understanding how he sees this clause works. And I think with there, that a person who isn't offered a position and they're in the redeployment camp is entitled to a separation package. I think it's a pretty straightforward proposition, and I'd like to ask the question.

PN673

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I'll allow the question. But since you have been interrupted, is that a convenient time?

PN674

MR RUSKIN: Yes, your Honour.

PN675

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We'll adjourn till 2.15.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.56PM]
<RESUMED [2.11PM]

PN676

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Ruskin?

PN677

MR RUSKIN: Thank you, your Honour.

PN678

Mr Ozturk, before lunch we talked - not immediately before lunch but earlier in the day we talked about when you should have been placed or accepted that you were in the PMI role, do you remember that discussion, and you thought it should have been before the 21 December meeting. Do you recall that?---I recall a discussion about when we should have been notified about consulting about the restructure.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN679

No. I asked you about the project manager infrastructure position, and I said, well, when do you think you should have been - when should you have been the occupant of that position, and you said, well, at least before the 21 December meeting, it should have been clear that was your job and you shouldn't have been part of the process. Do you recall that discussion at all?---I recall a discussion along the lines of when I should have been notified that there was a restructure happening that would impact my position, senior project coordinator position, and I recall saying that it should - management would have known of that before the restructure, and no one approached me to say there was changes happening with regard to my position.

PN680

No. That was part of the discussion, but I asked you questions about when you should have been - your case is that you should be the occupant of the project manager infrastructure position because it's similar or the same as the senior project coordinator position. Do you accept that?---Yes.

PN681

And in having that discussion with you I asked you, well, when should that have been - when should that have occurred, when should you have been told by management do you think that you were the occupant of the PMI job because it was not very different from the SPC job, and I thought you said before
21 December?---I recall answering that I should have been consulted and discussed with regard to the changes that are happening in my position as the senior project coordinator position being impacted by the restructure before this 21 December, and that there was no consultation before then.

PN682

Well, I'll have to ask you - - -?---Had - - -

PN683

Sorry?---Had I been consulted about any changes that were happening to my position description or position, then I probably could have been able to discuss it and come to a resolution I guess similar to what's happened with John Natschuv and James Hogan. We wouldn't have had to go through all this process.

PN684

I wonder if that's what you did say. But perhaps it might help if I did ask you the question again?---Okay.

PN685

It's pretty straightforward I think. Well, I hope it is. We've agreed that you say the SPC position is the same as or similar to the PMI position?---Yes.

PN686

Yes. And therefore you didn't need to go through the process, you should have been put into that position at some stage. Do you agree with that?---Well, it would have been matched, or if they consulted with me or the union before the restructure document was tabled, right, then we would have had sufficient knowledge, information, to be able to say and negotiate with the individual staff member impacted, in this case me let's say, so that position is the same as my position.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN687

And if you had said - if that had occurred and if you'd said, as you say now, that the positions are the same or similar, you would have been the occupant of the PMI position in the new structure about that time, about 21 December?---Is it - if it is at the time, that's when - that's the only time we saw the document, but prior to that we didn't see it, so it would have to be that date wouldn't it? I can't see it being any other date because that's the first we saw the document.

PN688

Yes. So if you had the document before the 21st or on 21 December, management in your view could have - would have had a discussion with you, you would have said, well, the two jobs are very similar, and you'd have been matched with that job, and that could happened around or before the restructure was announced?---If we were aware of it.

PN689

Yes, if you were consulted on 21 December?---Yes.

PN690

If, as you say, the PMI job is the same as or similar to the SPC position you should have been treated by Mr Hogan, should you not have?---In terms of matching?

PN691

Yes, and being matched before, long before - at the time Mr Hogan was or before that you should have been - by 8 February you should have been in the same position as Mr Hogan shouldn't you?---Taking that scenario, theoretical scenario you put forward, yes.

PN692

Well, let's say management hasn't done the right thing in this restructure, you think that?---They haven't followed the right process.

PN693

No. If they had followed the right process it would have resulted you say in you being in the PMI job?---Not necessarily.

PN694

How so?---Well, because of my past experience, skills and previous positions I held I could have been appointed to a match to other positions that were tabled as part of the restructure, and that includes CSO6 positions as well as CSO5 positions.

PN695

I see. I would have thought, Mr Ozturk, that if you were matched - if your position is the same or similar to the PMI job there wouldn't be any need to match you beyond the PMI job?---Not necessarily, again, because of the salary, similar salary, similar classification or a qualification, an experience that applied to being put into a different position. So they look at your current experience, skills and salary and try to match you to a position of that similar area or role.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN696

So they did the right thing did they in enabling you to be considered for other positions?---Well, they didn't match it in terms of to the salary level. The redundancy letter that was sent out was limited to the CSO5 positions.

PN697

If it hadn't been would that have been a more appropriate thing to have done?
---Sorry?

PN698

If the letter of 13 February, the letter which said your position is excess to requirements, should that list have included the business analyst position?---In terms of my role?

PN699

Yes?---Where I fit in?

PN700

Yes?---Well, if we go back to the joint announcement by the management as well as NTEU that we agreed to, we had indicated that there'd be a staged approach of fill in positions. And CSO6s were meant to be done first, and then the CSO5s would start. My salary level is at a CSO6 level. I expected notifications to be sent out regarding CSO6 levels first. That didn't happen. What came out was CSO5 and 6s at the same time. I didn't receive anything regarding the CSO6 level, but management told us that they were going to send it out anyway irrespective of that agreement we had that we'd be staging it. The idea was to have a top down approach so that people who were on the CSO6 levels would be matched to the CSO6 levels. If there was no matching possible then the next level down they would be redeployed to in terms of positions. So that, if you want to call it opportunity, whatever, wasn't afforded to me because it wasn't given to say, Gani, you're at a similar salary level therefore you're entitled to be matched to these positions. I never got that.

PN701

But, Mr Ozturk, if your position of SPC is the same or similar to the PMI job which you say, why wouldn't - shouldn't management, if that was so, simply have matched you to that position and taken you out of the redeployment process because you were like Mr Hogan? That's how it should work isn't it? If it's a similar job you should just be put into it?---And my understanding is that during the meetings that was put to management, but they didn't accept it.

PN702

What was put to management, Mr Ozturk?---In terms of having the project managers matched into the project manager roles, which is not necessarily just my role. There was another person.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN703

You're saying someone put to management on your behalf - - -?---No, this was in the PFES panelling I think with HR and - I'm trying to think - Colin Johansen probably.

PN704

So someone in the points factor evaluation process put - no?---I don't know whether it was in the points factor value - - -

PN705

But someone on your behalf said that the project - that your position should be matched with a PMI position did they?---There was a project manager's position be matched with the project managers positions.

PN706

Yes, someone said that should happen?---Yes.

PN707

Who was that?---It wasn't specifically just for me - - -

PN708

No?---I applied - - -

PN709

It included yours?---It included mine.

PN710

And someone said that did they? Do you know who it was?---Well, we would have brought it up in the consultative committee meetings to say that they should be matched, we don't need to go through the redeployment process.

PN711

So you're saying that at the consultative committee, one of them - did you attend it?---Yes, I attended.

PN712

So you attended a consultative committee meeting and at that meeting someone said that the project manager, or your SPC position and someone else's, but including your SPC position should be matched with a project manager position?
---A project manager position should be matched with project manager positions which was in the old structure and the current structure, any position descriptions that were of similar role, capacity, et cetera, should be matched, and the incumbent in that position would also retain that role.

PN713

THE VICE PRESIDENT: How many project manager positions were in the old structure?---There were two, and there was two for redeployment in the new structure as well.

PN714

MR RUSKIN: Okay. So at a consultative committee meeting someone said that the two old project manager positions should be matched with the - which included the SPC position, should be matched with the two project managers positions in the new structure?---That's what I recall.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN715

You recall. And you didn't say that someone had - - -?---I didn't say it.

PN716

Who would have said it?---All I can refer is Colin referring to - Colin Johansen.

PN717

Colin said it?---Yes, saying that there was discussions with management, HR, to say we should be matching positions prior to then going through this whole process.

PN718

Now, let me understand. I'm sorry, Mr Ozturk. You're saying that someone said that that had been discussed with management at the consultative committee meeting, or was it discussed at the consultative committee?---We raised on numerous occasions in the consultative committee meeting about matching, all right?

PN719

Yes. But let's talk about the project manager matching?---Yes. But that applied to all of them. We didn't say specifically project manager. We said matching of all positions.

PN720

I see. So who mentioned project manager matching?---Colin Johansen.

PN721

At a consultative committee meeting?---No.

PN722

You believe he said something about that at another meeting?---That's my understanding.

PN723

Okay?---But I mentioned that and we've mentioned it in consultative committee meetings time and time again that people should be matched into positions and not have to reapply for their own jobs.

PN724

You said at other consultative committee meetings that you should be matched to PMI or the PMA job?---No. No, don't put words in my mouth.

PN725

No. I'm asking, it's a question, Mr Ozturk?---Okay. No, I didn't say that.

PN726

You didn't say that. I see. If, as you say, Mr Johansen had said that and management had listened to Mr Johansen, then you would have been matched with a PMI job or a PMA job would you not?---Yes.

PN727

Okay. If you had been matched you would have been out of the redeployment process because you'd been matched, is that right?---No.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN728

You could still be in the redeployment process?---Well, being matched doesn't mean that the person's given up their rights to a fair process.

PN729

Well, you mean if someone's matched with, say the PMI job, you're saying that having been matched you can still go in the redeployment pool?---If the arrangements that you've got in place with the matching are not suitable, as preconditions are set with regard to the matching, then they may ask for our assistance, that's the NTEU, or direction to apply the redeployment process, or alternative agreed processes in the individual agreement.

PN730

But if you'd been matched to the PMI job at the time Mr Johansen you say raised it, you wouldn't have had a dispute about that would you, because it was similar to your old job?---Well, we wouldn't have a dispute if the existing arrangement stayed, as in the individual's agreement was honoured.

PN731

Okay. Well, in other words if there'd been a matching of your position - sorry, if the SPC position had been matched with the PMI position at about the time you think Colin raised it with management, then that would have - you'd have just been placed into the PMI job and retain existing benefits wouldn't you?---If management accepted the matching proposal right from the beginning, yes.

PN732

The matching proposal of the SPC to the PMI?---No, matching proposal for all positions.

PN733

No. Well, let's talk about your position. I don't care about other positions?
---Well, I can't tell you when that discussion took place. You'd need to ask Colin Johansen.

PN734

Yes. Well, it's interesting he doesn't mention it isn't it?---Well, I don't know.

PN735

Okay. You've read his statement?---No.

PN736

You haven't?---No. What would I be reading his statement for?

PN737

You don't mention this in your statement do you?---In terms of in here?

PN738

Yes, your statement to this Commission?---Well, if it's not in - you asked the question, I'm answering questions.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN739

Well, you wrote the statement. Did you put it in your statement?---If I didn't - you asked me a question and I answered your question.

PN740

Okay, let me ask another question. Did you make any mention of this discussion you believed Colin Johansen had with management in your first or second statement?---Not that I can recall.

PN741

Is that a no?---I can't recall.

PN742

You really can't recall what you put in your own statement?---Look, there's a whole heap of documents here that have been witness statements from other people as well that I've been reading through and responding to, so I don't - I can't recall including words to that effect, okay? You asked me a question, I'm answering it truthfully.

PN743

Yes, you just can't recall, all right. Mr Ozturk, there was an issue about people - about the CSO6 positions. The union was concerned that management had proposed to externally advertise CSO6 positions before they had been filled internally. Do you recall that issue?---Before the redeployment process was complete?

PN744

That's right?---Yes.

PN745

You do, okay. Who can apply do you think in the redeployment process, who can apply for or be matched with positions if it's not external people, who in the organisation can apply do you think for those positions? Anybody?---No.

PN746

Well, then who can?---The agreement we had as part of the consultative committee meeting was that when the positions, the CSO6s is the levels I say, they were to be matched, they have to match them. They didn't agree to the matching process. What happened was that they would be discussed with the CSO6 level staff, those people who were in those levels first, and they wanted to advertise within the department, within IS&S department, and that if the positions were not able to be filled within the department then they would be advertised externally. Now, we, as I said, we would never agree to the fact that they would be advertised. We actually sent an email - I'm trying to recall what date. As soon as I got - I think it was the 13th when the redundancy letter was sent, responded back saying we want a freeze of all positions. I couldn't find that one.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN747

Yes, that's okay?---A freeze of all positions at particular levels, salary levels, until the process was complete, and that didn't happen.

PN748

Could Mr Hogan have applied for the CSO6 position after 8 February?---After 8 February when the redundancy letters were sent out, I think 12 and 13, if the positions were advertised - - -

PN749

Perhaps my question's a bit vague?---Yes.

PN750

I'll help you. Mr Hogan, it was agreed in the minutes of 8 February, was exempt from the redeployment process. Do you recall that?---Yes.

PN751

And it was said that his job was substantially similar in the old structure to the new structure?---Yes.

PN752

Do you recall that?---Yes.

PN753

And so he retained his old position or he was put in a new position - a similar position?---Yes.

PN754

Upon that happening, which is 8 February I think that meeting was, could Mr Hogan have applied for the business analyst position about 13 February?
---Not that I can recall.

PN755

No. Do you think he was exempt from applying for that position once he's been matched?---Once he's been matched? If the agreement had been met and they went by the levels then that would - that scenario would never have arisen because he's a CSO5 level and so he would not be able to be considered for the CSO6 level.

PN756

And you said you should apply for the CSO6 position because your salary was similar?---Yes.

PN757

You weren't a CSO6 at the time were you, you weren't classified as a CSO6 in February 2007?---The position description wasn't - I wasn't classified as CSO6.

PN758

You were classified as CSO5?---I was, but the position description, if it was to be PRPSd would come out at CSO6.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN759

Would have come out at CSO6?---Yes.

PN760

Should the PMI position come out as CSO6?---That's for the PFES panel to look at.

PN761

Well, they looked at that didn't they?---Yes.

PN762

And wasn't it agreed by the points factor evaluation panel that it was a CSO5?
---Eventually.

PN763

Eventually, but they did agree didn't they?---Yes. My understanding is originally they came out higher but they were reduced.

PN764

Yes. And there was an agreement it was a CSO5?---The position description was a CSO5.

PN765

A CSO5, yes. But you say that the SPC position that you occupied, you were classified as a CSO5 but you think that position was a CSO6, is that right, you just said that?---It would have been evaluated at that level.

PN766

If they'd evaluated it at that time?---Yes.

PN767

Okay. Why is that?---Because when I made the individual agreement arrangements and was redeployed from my previous manager position to the team leader position to the senior coordinator position, on each occasion no changes were made to the salary arrangements or the vehicle arrangements. Even though the position description changed, the position changed, I kept my existing salary. I kept my existing salary arrangements regarding the vehicle, and the position description was put as a CSO5 with the above award salary component.

PN768

Right. But it should have been a CSO6?---That's for whoever did the review at the time.

PN769

Well, you thought so?---Yes.

PN770

You think the SPC6 position should have been points factor evaluated at a CSO6 don't you? Yes?---The fact that while I've been advised it's a five, is what I'm taking as fact, because that's what they reviewed it at.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN771

No, I'm not talking about the PMI job, I'm talking about the SPC?---No, I'm talking about the SPC.

PN772

Yes. No, it is a - you were a five in February 2007, a CSO5?---February 2007, this year you're talking about?

PN773

Yes. But you're saying the SPC position that you occupied should have been classified in your view as a CSO6?---I'm not saying it should have been. It would have been. That's different.

PN774

It would have been. Well, what's the difference?---Well, it's not for me to decide, it's for the panel to sit down and review it.

PN775

But you're entitled to have an opinion?---I can have an opinion on it.

PN776

Well, what's your opinion?---I've said it would have been.

PN777

It's a six, it would have been a six?---Right, would have been.

PN778

Why would it - - -?---But whether that's a fact is for the panel to decide.

PN779

Why would it be a six? What is it about it?---Because of the nature of the role, as I said.

PN780

The nature of the role of the SPC?---That is a project manager management role.

PN781

And that was a CSO6 position?---No, I didn't say it was CSO6 position.

PN782

You're quite right to pick me up on that. It would have been a CSO6 position?
---If the panel reviewed it - - -

PN783

It would have been a CSO6 in your view?---I can want it to be the director of the organisation, it doesn't help.

PN784

You want to be I understand?---It wouldn't help, right? I could want to be, yes. But the fact that that's not the case with the position description doesn't change the situation.

PN785

No, it doesn't. But you think in your view the SPC position was worth points factor classification, being points factor classified as a CSO6?---Again, not for me to decide. That's for the panel to decide.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN786

No, it isn't. But that's not the question. It's, but you think it should be, you believe it would have been classified as a CSO6 if it had been points factor evaluated don't you?---But it was points factor evaluated, it came out at CSO5. So me wanting it to be CSO6 or - - -

PN787

But it should have been a - - -?--- - - -or wishing, it doesn't help the situation, all right?

PN788

No?---That's just - - -

PN789

But you did say it would be?---Well, that's me saying from my perspective, right? But what the panel comes out with I can't control.

PN790

When did they find it was a five?---From memory in 2001.

PN791

In 2001?---Probably.

PN792

And - - -?---That's when I was appointed to the position.

PN793

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I thought you said that it would be classified as a six because your salary and conditions was retained at that level when you moved into that role?---Yes. But what happened was that because of that salary arrangement and the vehicle not being able to be salary sacrificed, then the position - the classification was at a lower level. Now, what changes happened to the position description to reflect that I'm not aware of, and I can't recall any changes being made. So in the individual agreement when you look at it, it will say CSO4 as the base salary level. It doesn't say five and it doesn't say six. So from that perspective, to maintain the salary and the vehicle arrangements they had to have that arrangement in place in terms of positions.

PN794

Why wouldn't it have been done for reasons of maintaining your previous salary and conditions rather than based on an analysis of the position?---The position description was the senior project coordinator position, was created in 2001 after another restructure. There were two senior project coordinators at the time and basically the structure was, I was team leaders operations and support, and there was another person who was business strategic. Both of our positions they said no longer exist, and they redeployed us into senior project coordinator roles keeping our existing rate. We didn't go through an application process. They said this is the position that reflects the current requirements of the organisation and your existing salary arrangements and vehicle usage arrangements stay. You will get the additional training he said while you take up this position. And that's the way it's always happened in the past, that you did not lose pre-existing conditions when there were restructures. You changed to the needs of the organisation, you assisted and worked with your managers, and they worked with you giving the training, and you built your skills up into that position if it was required. That hasn't happened in this restructure and it's made it extremely difficult in resolving it. As I say, we probably wouldn't have been here had we moved through that process in the same way as we've always done. Have I answered your question?

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN795

Yes, thank you.

PN796

MR RUSKIN: The title of your previous position, the position you occupied, let's say from September 2006 when you came back to the role, that role is called senior project coordinator?---Yes.

PN797

And how long has it been called senior project coordinator, do you recall? For a couple of years?---Since 2001 I think, because that's when I got appointed from memory.

PN798

Right, okay. Mr Ozturk, if I just take you to your statement at paragraph 2 of your statement?---My witness statement?

PN799

Yes, your first witness statement?---Paragraph 2?

PN800

Yes?---Yes.

PN801

For some reason you call that your position as senior project coordinator/manager. Why did you do that?---When the - in 2001 the institute had an analogy of calling people managers, project managers. We weren't entitled to use manager in our titles, so they decided to call them coordinators, although the flexibility was there, and I've printed up business cards with both titles over those periods.

PN802

Have you?---And they have been authorised.

PN803

Yes. Your email you don't use that though do you? In fact you've got another title for your emails, coordinator senior projects?---Yes.

PN804

Why is that?---It's no different to any other thing, it can go both ways. It's coordinator, sometimes I got it senior project coordinator, sometimes I put project manager.

PN805

Well, coordinator senior projects sounds like that you coordinate only senior projects, don't you think?---No.

PN806

You don't, okay?---That's just interchangeable. There's no - - -

PN807

So you didn't put the term - you put it in paragraph 2, at paragraph 2 of your statement?---Yes.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN808

And then you've put it in paragraph 27, you use the term senior projects coordinator/manager. It wasn't trying to give the impression that there's a greater parallel between the two, the PMI job and the SPC job by slipping in the word manager in this witness statement was it?---Not at all. If you have a look at the position descriptions you'll see references to both project manager and project coordinator.

PN809

Well, let's go and have a look at them shall we? I think it's attached to Mr Johansen's witness statement?---I don't have a copy of it.

PN810

You don't have a copy of it? Well, Mr Johansen's witness statement, you can take it from me, attaches a position description which is called senior project coordinator. It doesn't say manager?---Yes.

PN811

And Mr Langarish, have you got his statement there?---Langarish, yes.

PN812

He attaches the position - yes, he attaches it at attachment 9 of his statement. Have you got it there?---No. Senior project coordinator.

PN813

It doesn't say manager does it, anywhere?---If you look through the document - - -

PN814

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's got the word manager a few times in the primary objectives?---Yes. It's not just in the title. That's what I was referring to, that it's in the title, but it's referred to in the position description and you'll find the same thing in other position descriptions. It's fairly interchangeable. As I said, the only reason they made it coordinator was because the general manager at the time did not want people to be called managers in their titles.

PN815

MR RUSKIN: The word manager appears, but it's not manager - it's not in the sense of being a manager, it's in the sense of managing projects isn't it?---Yes, project manager, that's right. That's the way we looked at it as well.

PN816

But your job was coordinating projects wasn't it?---Senior projects coordinator.

PN817

Or coordinator senior projects. It was coordinating projects? Do you think there's a difference?---The only reason it was coordinator was because the general manager would not allow it to be called manager, so it would have been called senior projects manager.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN818

And that was someone who managed projects?---Yes.

PN819

And you think that there's no difference between coordinating projects and managing projects?---I don't believe there is. There's different titles where they call them project coordinators and project managers, but at the end of the day they're the same thing.

PN820

You weren't able to use the term manager you said. But were you then permitted to were you?---Probably three or four years later when there was a change, but the position description never got changed. We were entitled - I was allowed to get a business card printed because the immediate manager okayed it. I don't know whether they got the okay from the general manager at the time. But it was common industry understanding that project managers described more closely what our roles were rather than project coordination.

PN821

At paragraph 23 of your first statement I think it is?---The first, 23, yes.

PN822

Refers to you as the IS&S customer relations officer?---Paragraph 23, yes.

PN823

That's just a contact point isn't it? It's no more than this; that the organisation has said there should be people who are contact points within IS&S that people outside I&S can come to, isn't that right?---No. That was clearly set out in the instructions sent out.

PN824

Okay. Well, we'll have evidence - Mr Langarish doesn't agree with you on that point, but that's okay?---I wish it was, it would have made life easier.

PN825

Well, that's what he wants you to do, Mr Ozturk?---That's not what's happening.

PN826

No, that wasn't a question. SPC and the PMI roles, I want to talk about that for a moment. If you look at Mr Langarish's statement, he, at about paragraph 52 of his statement. You've read his statement?---Yes.

PN827

He attaches the PMI job description and the SPC job description, do you recall that? He says the primary object of the SPC position description is not found in the PMI role. The PMI is not required to perform business case development, cost benefit analysis, requirements analysis and systems design. Do you agree that the job description of the PMI position doesn't specify that the PMI role is to perform those functions?---It doesn't put it in those words.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN828

But you think it puts it in other words?---Yes.

PN829

Can you point us to the word that you think talk about systems requirements analysis and systems design? I think you'll find it at attachment 8?---Which particular one would you like?

PN830

Well, let's take the business analyst?---Business analyst?

PN831

Sorry, business case development?---Business case development. Preparing project and customer documentation, analysing customer requirements under typical duties, developing plans and policies. We support the objectives of systems equipment and software. The wording is not the same.

PN832

But you think it means that?---Manage the installation under that bullet point, documenting short and long term objectives for systems equipment and systems installation and maintenance, establish in short and long term customer support objectives. All of these come from this position as well as the role of customer relations officer which is looking after a group of five departments with five managers that we consult with, that I consult with when there is a need. They contact me, we sit down, look at what their requirements are, put a proposal up for resolution of whatever the issue may be, and that may entail putting together a full document, or it may be a simple email with a quick solution.

PN833

Mr Ozturk, the preamble to that, to the first one you analysed, customer requirements, contribute to the provision of new and modified systems which satisfy customers needs by assisting with, doesn't it, it says assisting with?---Yes.

PN834

It doesn't say assisting within the SPC position does it?---No.

PN835

Mr Ozturk, what you've described just in that last statement about what you do, that, Mr Ozturk, is a description of what you did in the past. But you're not going to be required to do that in the future are you?---Not at all. It's actually happening in the - what I'm doing right now in the PMI role is the same as what I was doing in the SPC role. Things haven't changed.

PN836

Okay. Mr Langarish says in his statement - he's the manager of the department is he?---Yes.

PN837

He says in his statement that he won't require you to do these things. So I just wondered why you think that you will be required to do them?---Because I've delivered documents on them and I've submitted the documents to my supervisor at the time, James Hogan, a submission that was requested by us for funding ..... submission.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN838

Yes. The second primary objective of the SPC position description - and if you look at paragraph 54 of Mr Langarish's statement, he says - - -?---Fifty four?

PN839

Yes?---Yes.

PN840

He says the PMI is not required to extract, synthesise, analysis customer requirements to be of a recommended appropriate IT solution. You see he says that?---Yes.

PN841

That which is in quotes is from the SPC position is it not, that's a quote from the SPC position?---If you're telling me that's from the position then I'll take it.

PN842

Well, I'm not telling you. Let's take it. I don't want you to be - - -?---No. I recall seeing those sort of terms in the position.

PN843

Okay. Now, they are not the functions that you are required to do in the PMI role are they?---They are.

PN844

They are?---Yes.

PN845

So do you reject the view that these - do you see the next sentence of Mr Langarish is:

PN846

These functions have been transferred to the senior systems analyst position.

PN847

Do you see that, and other such positions?---Yes.

PN848

You don't agree with that?---They may be in that position description as well.

PN849

They're in both?---Well, it hasn't stopped all the other position descriptions that have been created, if you have a look at all, I think 22, 25 of them, have got identical wording and identical duties on all position descriptions. I don't think - yes, it may well be in those ones as well.

PN850

So people are going to do these things?---It may well be.

PN851

You're not required to analyse customer requirements to be able to recommend an appropriate IT solution. You're to assist, everybody's to assist customers. That's a pretty straightforward requirement isn't it for anyone in IT, to assist customers?
---Your definition of assist would need to be clarified depending on what type of assistance provided.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN852

Mr Ozturk, Mr Langarish will say you are not to recommend an appropriate IT solution, you are to implement a project. Someone else is going to find the solution and you're to implant it. You don't agree with that?---That's not what's been happening.

PN853

Okay. Mr Ozturk, you said in your statement, your first statement I believe, at paragraph - sorry, your second statement actually, if you'd just have a look at your second statement?---Yes.

PN854

In your second statement at paragraph 10 - yes, paragraph 10 you say:

PN855

Simply not the case that there could be a hard and fast division between infrastructure and applications project management.

PN856

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN857

Do you say that really you shouldn't devise the position so that one is called infrastructure and one is called applications because they really should be called both, should have both titles or be both generalists?---It's not up to me to say.

PN858

No. But you do think that if someone's called a project manager infrastructure they'll be doing as much applications as the project manager applications?---It depends on what the business needs at the time. Whichever is in demand that's required then they're the sort of projects that are assigned to the individual. If it's infrastructure, if it's applications it's applications.

PN859

If Mr Langarish as the manager wanted you to focus on infrastructure, which is in your job title, you'd do that wouldn't you?---I do what's requested. So if I'm given a project to manage infrastructure, it's infrastructure. If I'm given a project to manage applications I manage applications.

PN860

Well, Mr Langarish has said in his statement and will say that he doesn't want you mostly to focus on applications. Do you accept that?---He can say that.

PN861

Yes. And you go along with that?---Not necessarily because I - - -

PN862

Well, you wouldn't go along with it?---I don't go along with it because of the work that's given to me from my manager and my supervisor. It's not consistently the same. It's not always applications, not always infrastructure.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN863

I just want to take you through a couple of other parts of the statement, the additional statement that you've provided?---Yes.

PN864

You say in paragraph 7 of your second statement:

PN865

From the management position these discussions were that the new structure would be decided upon. The only matter to be discussed was the process of implementation.

PN866

Do you see that?---That's from management's perspective.

PN867

Well, do you see that those are the words that you used?---Yes.

PN868

That there was no consultation with the union or with staff generally about the development of a new structure?---Definitely.

PN869

There were discussions that led to the changing of the job, to the position descriptions weren't there?---No.

PN870

You don't know of any?---Not me.

PN871

Not you, no. But what about your union?---No, not that I'm aware of.

PN872

The position descriptions were amended weren't they, like the business analyst position was changed wasn't it? It was a CSO5, and after discussions with the occupant of the - the new occupant of the position it was changed to CSO6 wasn't it?---The term there is the development of a new structure. There was no consultation with the union or with staff generally about the development of a new structure. There was no consultation until we got that document on 21 December at 3.30 pm.

PN873

And that was the start of the consultation process?---If that's what management are calling consultation, yes.

PN874

Well, weren't there consultation meetings on the - - -?---Because management tabled that document, 15 minutes later we met with the staff and it was tabled to them to say this is what's happening, these are the dates they're going to happen, and have a good Christmas.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN875

And didn't they say they're going to go down the consultation process?---We asked for the consultative agreement committee to be established to look at that, but the meeting had already been formed, the staff had already been called to say this is going to be tabled, whether you agree or not we're going to be tabling this to the staff, that was the way it was. We had no - there was no discussion with regard to the development of the new structure until we got that document on the 21st.

PN876

Yes, okay. You say in paragraph 10 on page 3, that last sentence:

PN877

I offer solutions -

PN878

The second last sentence:

PN879

I offer solutions and approaches and sit down with programmers and clients to do testing.

PN880

Do you see that?---Paragraph 10 you said?

PN881

Yes, of your new statement?---Sorry, where were you? Paragraph 10 you said, yes?

PN882

Yes?---Where are you - - -

PN883

THE VICE PRESIDENT: At the top of page 3?---Sorry, I was looking at the bottom of page 2. Yes.

PN884

MR RUSKIN: There are some things that you can offer solutions to in your role as a project manager. But Mr Langarish will say - do you agree with this - that he doesn't want you to offer solutions and approaches and sit down with programs and with clients to do testing. Do you accept that?---He can say that.

PN885

Well, he's the manager isn't it?---Yes, he can say it. But what I can - what I say is that I'm directed otherwise by a supervisor.

PN886

Okay?---And prior to the supervisor being appointed Trevor Langarish directed me to manage projects and meet with department managers in resolving issues that they raised.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN887

Perhaps there was a crossover in the position. But you're not required to - Mr Langarish will say you're not required to do that as a PMI?---He may say it, but that's not what's happening on the ground and that's not what's in the position description either.

PN888

I see, all right. You say in paragraph 11, second dot point?

PN889

In the laptop project infrastructure we build software operating environments, SOE.

PN890

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN891

SOE doesn't stand for software operating environments, it stands for standard operating environment doesn't it?---Yes. It's interchangeable.

PN892

Interchangeable. Mr Langarish doesn't want you to build software, standard operating environments, or he doesn't want you to design them for each department. Do you accept that he doesn't want you to do that in your new role?
---As I say, he may not want it to happen, but in the position description it looks at analysing the customer requirements and providing and preparing documentation for those customers. So in order for me to be able to prepare that documentation I have to be part of that process of development of the SOE and testing of the SOE. The SOE developer, he will contact me and say what are the requirements of this standard operating environment or standard software operating environment? I consult with the customers, find out what their needs are in terms of what needs to be included, I provide that information to the standard SOE developer, they commence development of the application and they consult with me on an ongoing basis in terms of is this correct, have we done this right, tell us what we've got to do next. I can't just leave them on their own and then they come up with the product and I say to the customer they're finished now, go ahead and use it. I have to continue consulting with the customers to ensure that it meets their requirements, and in that - - -

PN893

And do you have - sorry?---And in that there is testing involved, which I need to be part of.

PN894

And you have to do that even if Mr Langarish told you not to, you had to do it?
---I've had no direction telling me not to do that. There hasn't been anything of that nature. Generally when a project or work is assigned I'll receive an email that says there's a requirement in this department, go to the department manager or individual, analyse what they're interested in and come back with a response.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN895

Well, I'll take you just to two more things. You say in the next dot point:

PN896

The XP rollout is primarily applications work. In this project I've been involved in testing.

PN897

I put to you, Mr Ozturk, you haven't - you've only arranged for a tester, you haven't been involved in the testing. Do you agree with that?---I disagree.

PN898

Okay. You say on the next - if you go on paragraph 13:

PN899

The way in which projects arise and are dealt with essentially remains as follows.

PN900

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN901

And you say in the third dot point:

PN902

The request is assigned to a project manager.

PN903

Do you see that, the next page?---Yes.

PN904

Now, Mr Langarish will say that it doesn't go to a project manager, it goes to the leadership team, and that doesn't involve you. Do you accept that it isn't going to go to you?---The request, no, I don't actually.

PN905

You don't?---The request to fix the need if a problem comes to IS&S sometimes directed to me, sometimes to other staff or senior managers. The request is assigned to a project manager. Yes.

PN906

Okay. You say in the next dot point the project manager investigates the request. Mr Langarish will say that he doesn’t want you to investigate the request. He wants you to get on with the - that doesn't go to - he doesn't want you to investigate the request. He wants you to proceed and implement the predefined solution in relation to the project, and that doesn't involve investigating the request. Do you accept that?---No.

PN907

Your task is to come up with a project - you should come up with a project plan, isn't that right, that's your task, not to be involved in all these other things?
---That's one of the tasks.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN908

Okay. You say on paragraph 14:

PN909

It remains the project manager who develops project proposals.

PN910

Do you see you say that?---Yes.

PN911

Mr Langarish will say this is not what he wants you to do, that is not what the PMI is to do. You're to implement a predefined solution. You would accept that he has that view?---He can have that view.

PN912

But you seem to have a different view from Mr Langarish about what a project manager should be. Ultimately it's for management to determine what a project manager should do don't you think?---The fact that the position description includes ..... methodology, the ..... methodology will give you definitions with regard to what a project manager does, and it's not limited to just producing a project plan. And even if it was in your case, in your argument, then to put together the project plan I still need to consult with the customers, I still need to consult with the stakeholders and I still need to identify what their requirements, needs are. I still need to identify whether they've got sufficient funding to be able to afford the solution that we're putting together. So it's not a case of me getting what is their predefined solution. I don't get a folder that has got the Ts crossed and the Is dotted that says on this date you will do this task using this resource and this funding allocation. So it's not a case of me receiving that and saying right, I'm going to follow these timelines based on the information that I've received. I actually put that document together in consultation with the customers and the department, and respond back for that approval from the manager to proceed.

PN913

You're saying to us that we do that. But Mr Langarish - sorry, Mr Ozturk, that's what you say, that Mr Langarish doesn't want you to do it that way, that's the old way, isn't that right?---It's not about the old way. It's the fact that I've been receiving and I continue to receive requests for me to do that.

PN914

Mr Ozturk, there's a business analyst position in the structure now isn't there?
---Yes.

PN915

Was there one in the structure earlier this year?---In 2007?

PN916

Mm?---Other than the restructure?

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN917

Yes, other than the restructure?---It would have been last year rather than earlier this year.

PN918

But someone wasn't appointed to the position till this year, wasn't that right?
---You're talking about the restructure proposal, business analyst?

PN919

In the restructure proposal we've got a position of business analyst and you applied for it, remember that job?---I didn't apply for it, I put an expression of interest.

PN920

That's different?---That's different.

PN921

Okay. Well, you chose to put an expression of interest in it?---No.

PN922

You weren't invited to put an expression of interest were you?---I was cornered, that if I didn't put a response to that redundancy notice that I would be terminated and give a separation package.

PN923

But it didn't actually include that position in the letter did it?---It didn't include that position in the letter.

PN924

Look, my question is, I'm talking about that job anyway, okay, that job of business analyst?---Yes.

PN925

That wasn't in the old structure in 2006 was it?---Yes, it was.

PN926

It was? How was that in the old structure?---It was called the information analyst.

PN927

And you think it was similar to the business analyst position?---I wouldn't be able to say, but you've asked me, I've given you an honest answer.

PN928

Okay. Well, let me ask you that question. Do you think the information analyst position is similar to the business analyst position?---I can't answer that question.

PN929

Why can't you answer the question?---The title matches, the detail of the position description information analyst I'm not aware of.

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN930

You haven't looked at it?---No, I wouldn't. It's not information analyst - - -

PN931

I just thought you were familiar with the structure, you might have looked at it. But you haven't so you can't answer the question?---I haven't.

PN932

Okay. There was a meeting on 20 February, I'd like to take you to that, which you may or may not recall. If we go to Mr Mackay's statement. Your Honour, this is my last set of questions?---Which item?

PN933

Let's go to item 5 first, attachment 5. We've gone to this before I think at the very start?---Attachment 5 you said?

PN934

Remember that, your "Hello Margaret" letter?---Yes.

PN935

And you said at the very end:

PN936

Based on the above clause I'm assuming that my salary now is CSO6 entitles me to submit an expression of interest in the business analyst professional services coordinator's position.

PN937

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN938

Do you recall that there was a meeting on 20 February with Mr Turnbull, Ms Burke, Mr Mackay and yourself about your interest in the CSO6 position, do you recall that meeting?---I recall the meeting but I don't recall the exact date.

PN939

Okay. Fine, that's okay. Mr Mackay refers to it on paragraph 13 of his statement. The date doesn't matter so much. So taking that meeting - - -?---Paragraph 13?

PN940

You asserted in that meeting didn't you that 10 to 15 per cent only of the new position of CSO6 business analyst was different to what you were doing as a senior project coordinator?---I recall some discussion along those lines but I can't recall whether it was 10 to 15 per cent, yes.

PN941

But did you say it was similar to the senior project coordinator position?
---Business analyst professional services coordinator?

PN942

Yes?---Similar to the senior project coordinator position?

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN943

Yes?---Yes.

PN944

You did say that?---Yes.

PN945

Thank you. And do you recall Ms Burke reiterating in the meeting that in your estimation 90 - just putting it the other way round, that 90 per cent of the duties of the business analyst position were the same as the current position of senior project coordinator?---The percentages I can't recall.

PN946

Do you recall if percentages were mentioned by you or Ms Burke?---No, I can't recall.

PN947

You can't recall?---I can't.

PN948

You've just said that you think you said at that meeting that the position, the two positions were similar?---Yes, similar in the sense that there are tasks and duties that match with the senior project coordinator between the business analyst as well.

PN949

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Did you suggest that the two positions should be matched for the purposes of placing you in a business analyst role?---I did - I think we looked at matching to that position in consideration, yes, but I don't know that we talked about percentages relating to it. It seemed to me to be a likely fit in terms of roles and salary, looking at the salary level, and also in terms of career path opportunities as well. Yes, there would be a challenge in taking up that position and in maybe some training requirements, and that was put forward in terms of my expression of interest to the position, to say with reasonable training experience I may be able to pick up the role and continue in the role to the benefit of the organisation. But it was in those terms and along those lines.

PN950

MR RUSKIN: If you look at the next document - sorry, attachment 7?---Whose statement, sorry?

PN951

Sorry, Mr Mackay's statement?---Seven.

PN952

You see just on that point, do you see that email from Ms Burke?---Yes.

PN953

Yes. She says on the second sentence:

**** GANI OZTURK XXN MR RUSKIN
PN954

But not offering to match him into the similar position of business analyst.

PN955

Do you see that? Do you agree with that?---Yes.

PN956

Thank you, your Honour. No further questions.

PN957

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ms Gale?---Can I ask for a five minute rest break?

PN958

Sorry?---Can I ask for a rest break?

PN959

Yes, we can adjourn for five minutes.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [3.22PM]
<RESUMED [3.25PM]
<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE [3.26PM]

PN960

MS GALE: Mr Ozturk, can I ask you to turn to your original witness statement?
---Yes.

PN961

And to attachment one of that statement?---Yes.

PN962

Can you just take us to the key points in that attachment that illustrate the history of how the senior project coordinator position was classified?---How it was classified?

PN963

Yes, in the context of that individual agreement?---In terms of the individual agreement? The senior project coordinator position was created once a restructure had occurred in what was at the time IT services department, it's called IT services, and I was redeployed to that position. The position description was created and we were offered that position as a redeployment from the position of team leader operations support. The individual agreement was drawn up in such a way to permit me to keep the salary level and the EBA increments to continue to apply irrespective of future changes in the EBA, and that would apply to the over award or above award, whatever word that's used currently today.

PN964

And which parts of that agreement have that effect?---On page 12 of my statement the top level where it says:

PN965

Substantive classification and rate of pay. Over award payment as per attachment A for future increments under the current PACCT EBA, the over award payment will continue to apply over and above the appropriate PACCT award rate in future PACCT EBA agreements.

**** GANI OZTURK RXN MS GALE
PN966

At the top of that page though it's CSO grade 4, level 4?---That's correct. And from the - well, there's two levels. There's computer services manager, team leader, operations support, senior project coordinator, and now we're going through another redeployment which is project manager infrastructure I guess is what I've been offered, except that unlike in the past this agreement is not being honoured. That's the way I read it.

PN967

And on page 18 of that attachment, or page numbered 18, can you explain the words at the top of the page against the subheading classification?---As I say, the individual agreement to allow for the vehicle arrangement to be made, the position was set at CSO4 even though it's a CSO5 position, and that wording is specifically included in there to reflect that it's always been a CSO5 position, the senior project coordinator position.

PN968

Now, a little earlier in response to a question you said that you thought that it was probably at CSO6. Given this is properly CSO5, what makes you say CSO6?
---CSO6, the only way I guess I can look at it is the above award and the benefit associated with the car as well as the fact that I'd been redeployed from a position which was at that level. So that kept that same arrangement when I got redeployed to another position. And that's what I expected to happen with this restructure, that there would - I mean, we change the way that's required in terms of the positions and we do - we work, as I say, with our staff to get the jobs done and the work done, and we're all in favour of getting reorganisations happening and that sort of thing, and commitments were given on 21 December that no one would be out of a job. So it seems there have been people who had left basically.

PN969

Could I ask you now to look at the witness statement of Mr Langarish?---Yes.

PN970

And turn to page 10?---Attachment 10 or page 10?

PN971

No, page 10 of the statement?---Of the statement, yes.

PN972

Mr Ruskin took you to paragraph 52?---Yes.

PN973

And drew your attention to the proposition that the PMI, your current position, is not required to perform business case development cost benefit analysis requirements - sorry, requirements analysis and systems design. You said I think something to the effect that those words are not in your - not in so many words in the current position description. And Mr Ruskin took you to the current position description which is at attachment 8 I believe, yes, and asked you to point to the parts there which you say relate to business case development?---Yes.

**** GANI OZTURK RXN MS GALE
PN974

Could you please point to the parts there that you say relate to cost benefit analysis. Or perhaps to speed things up I should say to the parts that relate to cost benefit analysis, requirements analysis and systems design?---Yes. In its - as I say, it's not in so many words. But what I think I pointed to was analysing customer requirements was one of them in terms of identifying their needs, and I think I referred to the fact that I discussed with the customers whether they could afford to - where they had the funding, et cetera, in terms of for that project, and it's part and parcel of being a project manager, looking at establishing short and long term customer support objectives again. How you could do that without looking at costings and putting together a project plan without looking at costings is not possible. I mean you can pick anything. Contribute to system security, risk management by assisting with is a reference, assisting and developing and testing disaster recovery procedures. All of those would involve costings or assessing and analysing customers' requirements. It doesn't restrict it to just the absolute definition.

PN975

If you could turn back to your own witness statement, I think the supplementary witness statement?---Yes.

PN976

And turn to paragraph 11 on page 3?---Yes.

PN977

Could you explain what your involvement has been in the testing and reviewing of applications in relation to the XP rollout?---Yes. What I needed to do was work with the programmer in developing a script to backup, copy the files that are on the local computer, so an individual's computer, onto the storage location and then install Windows XP, the operating system. That is done in consultation with the SOE developer, the systems engineer, where we work together to ensure that there's an end to end process in place where the backup of the data is carried out, the installation of the operating system, Windows XP is done, then the restore of the data is done with the scripting. That scripting, the programming that was done, is done by a programmer, but the programmer is in constant contact with me as we go through the testing and that person asks me how do we do this, where do we go next? I give him direct feedback and I've got direct feedback communication with email saying make these alterations, change these wording to ensure the script works. They cannot do that by themselves if the so called divide existed between the application's infrastructure or roles shall we say. I am the contact between the business and the technical resources, so I give them assistance and direction and do the testing in this case, as I've done with previous testing in the previous role of senior project coordinator, and I sent out notifications asking people to do the testing and respond back to me with regard to how they went, and that's - the same is applied, and I've got responses back from my immediate manager saying the test was successful. So if I was not to be doing that role why would my immediate manager say to me that he had carried out the test and it was successful? I wasn't told not to do that.

**** GANI OZTURK RXN MS GALE
PN978

You will recall that Mr Ruskin asked you about the IS&S customer relations officer role?---Yes.

PN979

Could you turn to your original witness statement?---Yes.

PN980

If I can take you to attachment 8?---Yes.

PN981

Could you show us why you disagree with the proposition Mr Ruskin put to you, that that role is simply being a contact person?---Well, the fact that the communication from Rodney Spark at the time, who was the manager of information systems and services, sent that email to the general manager Greg Waddell, informing him of the roles that I would be taking up, and in that one it specifically refers to being the single point of contact, and reading the first paragraph, through - - -

PN982

Which email are you referring to?---At 19 September 2006, page 43, assigning specific IS&S customer roles. And that paragraph, probably better if I read it out:

PN983

Each senior IS&S staff member has been assigned customer responsibility for a particular IS&S client group. I am pleased to inform you that Gani Ozturk is the person who will undertake the role of business services group.

PN984

As I say, in this position they had six or seven managers, they merged, there's now five managers in that department with multiple department mergers:

PN985

As such we'll provide you with a single point of contact through which you and your managers can direct your IS&S service inquiries or issues as they arise. This includes providing advice and assistance for ICT based projects and innovative work practice and regular attendance at your group managers meetings. The outcome sought by the IS&S in introducing these new roles are improved IS&S understanding of business needs of each customer group.

PN986

So that was for me to address:

PN987

Simplify IS&S contact for your customer group, more timely resolution of IS&S service and project related issues. Gani will act as your advocate within IS&S to ensure ICT needs of the business services group are met now and into the future.

**** GANI OZTURK RXN MS GALE
PN988

There's no reference to say that it's a call centre or a contact centre or a point where somebody gives me a message and I just give it to somebody else. I'm actually required to attend the group managers meeting, the department managers meetings and, in fact, I have been attending an ongoing ICT department meeting. I think we've had three meetings so far with the team leaders and provide the - capture that information that's required, document it and we take it up with the individuals in our department. I take it up and talk to them about resolving those issues. So it's not a case of me receiving it and passing it on to somebody that's done. I actually make a time and sit down and negotiate, talk to the customer, identify their needs, put together a possible solution to it, or look at working with the engineers and coming up with alternative solutions as well.

PN989

Now, that email that you've pointed to is dated September 2006?---Yes.

PN990

So that's well before the restructure?---That is. But those roles have been confirmed since, and Trevor actually agreed to the roles being implemented. When the resignations occurred due to the restructure, the redundancies, I sent Trevor and James Hogan at the time, who was my supervisor, the draft for discussion purposes document, page 42, and said that this needs to be updated now that we've got people who have left. Colin Johansen was another person that's no longer in that list. And he came back and advised that James would be taking up one role in the position, for I would be taking up another one when he was appointed as a supervisor. So it's still going. I mean, that hasn't stopped even though it was proposed in the 2006, September 2006.

PN991

So when you say James and Farai, is that James Hogan?---James Hogan and Farai Suvamhu, who is my current manager.

PN992

Is he the business analyst?---Business analyst, appointed as the business analyst.

PN993

There was considerable discussion about the consultative committee process and that two positions were, I think you said matched rather than putting into the redeployment pool?---Yes.

PN994

And that was James Hogan, and there was a second position which was the telecom analyst or the network analyst?---It's easier to probably say network engineer.

PN995

Network engineer?---That's the general definition that's used.

**** GANI OZTURK RXN MS GALE
PN996

Did the matching of the network engineer position, or occupant to that position hadn't occurred at the time of the February 8 meeting?---No. I believe from memory I received the letters of redundancy on 12th - 13th is they're dated, and I think it was just before those letters had been received that he may have made some arrangements. But I found out about it afterwards.

PN997

And did that matching of the network analyst position come back to the consultative committee for approval?---No. We just got a notification saying this has happened.

PN998

Can I ask you to turn to the witness statement of Trevor Langarish and attachment 1 of that document?---Yes.

PN999

You'll see that attachment has two organisational charts?---Yes.

PN1000

I'm sorry, attachment 1 is post restructure. Sorry, Commissioner, if you'll bear with me a moment. I think we are needing attachment 6?---Yes.

PN1001

The first page of that is the previous structure?---Yes.

PN1002

The pre restructure organisational chart for your department. And over the page are two versions of the future structure 1 February 2007?---Yes.

PN1003

Starting with the page described as present structure December 2006, can you please point to us where the position of what you described as two project managers can be found in the old structure?---It is senior project coordinator PCO5 Jerry, senior project coordinator PCO5 Gani.

PN1004

So that's the first two boxes in the second row down?---That's correct.

PN1005

Okay. And then in the new structure over the page can you identify the new project manager infrastructure and project manager applications?---Project manager applications CSO5, project manager infrastructure CSO5 which reports to business analyst professional services coordinator CSO6.

PN1006

So they're in the centre column?---Centre column under professional services.

PN1007

Thank you. In relation to the consultative committee meeting on 8 February you were asked to have a look at the minutes from that meeting which are in Mr Mackay's witness statement at attachment 1?---Yes.

**** GANI OZTURK RXN MS GALE
PN1008

You were asked whether these minutes were accurate, and your answer in response to that question was cut short. Is there anything that you believe you need to add in order to fully answer the question of whether or not these are accurate minutes?---I think I go back to the fact that we hadn't agreed to item 5 and 6, that I recall. The fact that the minutes were captured was the case, and as far as I can see the 8th of February 2007, I was on leave until 22nd I think, so that's about it. I wasn't - because I'd taken my annual leave.

PN1009

But you were back from annual leave at the time of this meeting?---As I recall. I'm fairly sure I was. Yes, yes.

PN1010

No further questions, your Honour.

PN1011

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ms Gale. Thank you for your evidence, Mr Ozturk. You may be excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.51PM]

PN1012

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Is there any other evidence apart from tendered witness statements?

PN1013

MS GALE: Yes, your Honour. I seek to tender an extract, or two extracts from the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

EXHIBIT #G6 EXTRACTS FROM NEW SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY

PN1014

MS GALE: And as you can see, your Honour, they include the definition for the word peripheral and the word incidental, which are words used in the redundancy provisions of the agreement.

PN1015

THE VICE PRESIDENT: You're not relying on the definitions of other words on those pages?

PN1016

MS GALE: Not at this stage, your Honour, no. Inchoate may come to mind later. That concludes the evidence for the NTEU.

PN1017

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ms Gale. Do you wish to commence with your evidence today?

PN1018

MR RUSKIN: I'm happy to, your Honour.

PN1019

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay, you may.

PN1020

MR RUSKIN: Thank you, your Honour. I won't do an opening. I've provided an outline of submissions. I have two witnesses to call. I'd like to call Mr Trevor Langarish please.

<TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH, AFFIRMED [3.54PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR RUSKIN

PN1021

MR RUSKIN: Mr Langarish, did you prepare a witness statement in this matter?---Yes, I did.

PN1022

And is it a witness statement of about 14 pages?---Yes, it is.

PN1023

And it has about 14 attachments?---Yes, it has.

PN1024

And do you agree with the contents of the witness statement, is it accurate, is there anything you want to change?---It is accurate and yes, I agree with it.

PN1025

I'd like to tender that, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #R1 STATEMENT OF TREVOR LANGARISH WITH ATTACHMENTS

PN1026

MR RUSKIN: I have a few questions of Mr Langarish arising from the witness statement of Mr Ozturk that was filed last night.

PN1027

Mr Langarish, do you have a copy of something called the supplementary witness statement of Gani Ozturk?---I do.

PN1028

Can I take you to paragraph 7 of that statement. It says in the second sentence:

PN1029

There was no consultation with the union or staff generally about the development of the new structure, only about the detail of the implementation of the new structure.

PN1030

Do you agree with that statement?---I did not agree.

PN1031

Why is that?---There was considerable discussion with both members of staff within the department and I believe through the NTEU with our management.

PN1032

Thank you. Paragraph 9, it says that - there's a reference to a meeting on
19 March and it says:

PN1033

During that meeting Mr Langarish stated that in practice the PMI role would not be limited to infrastructure but would also have applications responsibilities.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XN MR RUSKIN
PN1034

What do you say about that statement?---I'd say it's broadly correct. The weight of what I was saying was that he'd been appointed to the project manager infrastructure but that from time to time there may be need for him to cover some applications work.

PN1035

In paragraph 10 it says in about the third sentence:

PN1036

Although the new projects I now manage tend to have an infrastructure focus I am required by the nature of the work to develop or project manage the development of applications aspects with infrastructure to ensure effective delivery of the projects. I am regularly asked by programmers how do you want us to do this in relation to a particular project. I offer solutions and approaches. I sit down with programmers and do testing. I do end to end testing of solutions which involve implementing and testing all aspects of a project through applications aspects.

PN1037

Do you agree with the parts of his statement I've read out?---No, I don't.

PN1038

Why is that?---More than that, I don't want the project manager infrastructure to be involved in designing the solution or in changing the solution. I want the project manager infrastructure to implement a solution.

PN1039

In paragraph 11 there's examples of the overlap in my current projects, do you see that?---Yes.

PN1040

He talks about in this statement the laptop project infrastructure?---Mm.

PN1041

We building software operating environments for the laptops and design the SOE for each department.

PN1042

Do you agree with that statement?---No, I do not. The project manager's role is to coordinate input from a range of experts. One of them is the standard operating environment engineer who will develop the SOE rather than the software operation environment, the standard operation environment for the PCs.

PN1043

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Are you confident that in practice things work as you intend?---Certainly in this case, your Honour, that Peter Gloufltsis, who is the SOE development engineer, will do that work without input from the project manager.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XN MR RUSKIN
PN1044

I guess the test is when the matter goes to the project manager whether there's further work of the nature of refinement or review of the solution?---Your Honour, the project manager would not be qualified to alter the standard operating environment. It's a technical role that requires technical expertise.

PN1045

And is that the case for all aspects of solutions?---The role of the project manager is to implement a predefined solution and as such his role or her role is to identify the tasks that need to be covered and identify the specialist that will deliver those individual tasks. That is the role of the project manager. It is really about coordinating a range of specialist external vendors and other people within the organisation to deliver the solution.

PN1046

And can there be some confusion or people operating from different definitions of what is delivering a solution compared to viewing and refining?---I think Mr Ozturk's statement does demonstrate that he fails to understand the requirements of the new project manager infrastructure. I am very clear what I want that role to do, and I believe that the position description actually describes clearly what the role should do.

PN1047

And is it clear to your knowledge and on a day to day basis in terms of particular projects and particular work?---I am clear what I require of that position. The position, as you will recall, the position actually reports up to the business analyst professional services, and I'd expect that person as part of my leadership team to manage the two project managers.

PN1048

Yes, thank you.

PN1049

MR RUSKIN: Mr Langarish, there's been - paragraph 11 from Mr Ozturk's statement says:

PN1050

It's examples of the overlap in my current projects.

PN1051

His Honour was asking you questions about effectively whether the theory is the same as the practice. How might it have occurred that if you say he isn't to do these things, and he says he actually is doing some of these things, how has that happened? Is he doing them and you don't know that he's doing them, or what do you think has happened?---On occasion I'd become aware of Mr Ozturk working out outside of his position description and I've asked him, for example, not to speak to our senior managers around issues that may affect our policy, our strategy or have an impact upon our budget or, in other words, I've asked him to, really to confine himself to the role of project manager infrastructure.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XN MR RUSKIN
PN1052

In the third example of paragraph 11, the second sentence says:

PN1053

In this project, which is the XP rollout, I have been involved in testing and reviewing.

PN1054

Has he been involved in testing and reviewing of the applications do you say?---I say that he has not and he is not required to.

PN1055

Has he had any involvement, what has his involvement been?---His role is to work with the SOE development engineer to ensure that the various SOEs as they're called are delivered on time and ready for implementation according to the plan that he has developed.

PN1056

Paragraph 13 of his second statement describes the way in which projects arise and are dealt with essentially remains as follows. He sets out some points there. The third says he request is assigned to a project manager, the fourth point says the project manager investigates the request and develops a suggested project to address the need or problem. Does that describe the role of the project manager infrastructure in accordance with the position description?---No, it does not. I do not want the project manager infrastructure or the project manager applications to be involved in basic requirements analysis or in working with the business requirements. That is a role of the business analyst professional services coordinator, and my leadership team and myself.

PN1057

Could there be an overlap?---There is no overlap.

PN1058

Paragraph 14 says:

PN1059

It remains the project manager who develops project proposals.

PN1060

Does that describe the project manager infrastructure position in accordance with its position description?---In fact it does not. I believe it describes the role of the previous senior project coordinator role that had some responsibility for developing a project plan. This role, the project manager infrastructure, is to implement the solution, that is, to plan and schedule for the delivery of the predefined solution.

PN1061

No further questions.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XN MR RUSKIN
PN1062

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ms Gale, do I apprehend your cross-examination may be lengthy?

PN1063

MS GALE: I fear so, your Honour.

PN1064

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. It might be appropriate then that we commence that cross-examination tomorrow. We will now adjourn and resume at 10 am tomorrow.

<ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY 15 JUNE 2007 [4.06PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #G1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOANNA DENTON DATED 25/05/2007 PN15
EXHIBIT #G2 OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS PN16
COLIN JOHANSEN, AFFIRMED PN20
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE PN20
EXHIBIT #G3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF COLIN JOHANSEN WITH ATTACHMENT DATED 25/05/2007 PN27
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RUSKIN PN28
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE PN218
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN228
GANI OZTURK, AFFIRMED PN229
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE PN229
EXHIBIT #G4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF GANI OZTURK DATED 25/05/2007 PN235
EXHIBIT #G5 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF GANI OZTURK DATED 13/05/2007 PN246
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RUSKIN PN247
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE PN959
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1011
EXHIBIT #G6 EXTRACTS FROM NEW SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY PN1013
TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH, AFFIRMED PN1020
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR RUSKIN PN1020
EXHIBIT #R1 STATEMENT OF TREVOR LANGARISH WITH ATTACHMENTS PN1025