C2007/2689, Transcript of Proceedings [2007] AIRCTrans 311 (27 June 2007)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 17026-1

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

9.58AM, FRIDAY, 15 JUNE 2007

Continued from 14/6/2007

Hearing continuing

PN1065

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ms Gale, your witness for cross-examination isn't here?

PN1066

MS GALE: Your Honour, before we ask Mr Langarish to step back in to the room, I have a couple of points to raise. One is in terms of timetabling. My expectation is that I will take all of today with the cross-examination of the employer witnesses, so I wanted to flag that I'd be seeking directions for written submissions. Secondly, I note that Mr Ruskin has provided a list of authorities and I should say that I have not prepared a list of authorities at this stage and we would not be in a position to provide one today, but if we have directions for the submissions, then we would be happy to do so shortly.

PN1067

THE VICE PRESIDENT: What's the position with cross-examination of your other witness? Is there a desire, Mr Ruskin, to cross-examine her?

PN1068

MR RUSKIN: No, your Honour.

PN1069

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Not to cross-examine her at all? So it's simply - - -

PN1070

MR RUSKIN: Ms Denton.

PN1071

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, yes.

PN1072

MR RUSKIN: No, your Honour.

PN1073

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So the only thing will be submissions after today. Well, what's your view, Mr Ruskin, as to whether written submissions are the appropriate way forward?

PN1074

MR RUSKIN: I would have thought, your Honour, that it would be fine to provide an outline of final submissions to your Honour, but I would have thought your Honour would want an opportunity to confer and ask questions of our submissions in relation to the way the case has been presented. I thought that that would be beneficial and appropriate. There are some jurisdictional points which I'm sure your Honour would wish to press us on and I certainly don't support just written submissions, and this was a two day case, so Ms Gale says she doesn't have authorities, but that's of her own making.

PN1075

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. My preference is that there be oral submissions, combined with whatever the parties wish to have in the way of writing to make the submissions, I guess, more succinct and to make points in the best way that the parties wish. So my inclination would be to set another day. We may not need a whole day but assuming that it might take a good part of the day for the parties to make submissions based on the evidence it will be complete as of today and perhaps at the end of the day we can compare our respective diaries and set a day with sufficient time to allow the preparation of submissions and written documents to talk to, if that's preferred, and including, if desired, an opportunity to have a transcript available for the purpose of that.

PN1076

So they're the considerations I think would be relevant to when that next date might be.

PN1077

MS GALE: Thank you, your Honour.

PN1078

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Is there any other housekeeping matter?

PN1079

MS GALE: The only other matter that I'd like to raise before Mr Langarish resumes is to seek to recall Mr Ozturk to the witness stand. There was a matter raised in the supplementary questions asked by Mr Ruskin of Mr Langarish, which we have not heard before and has not been put to our witnesses and we would seek an opportunity to ask Mr Ozturk a question in relation to that.

PN1080

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And when do you say is the appropriate time to do that? Before Mr Langarish is cross-examined or at some point afterwards?

PN1081

MS GALE: We would propose to do it immediately, your Honour, and then resume the cross-examination of Mr Langarish.

PN1082

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Do you see any problem from your perspective if that's done, Mr Ruskin?

PN1083

MR RUSKIN: Well, your Honour, the matters that I understood were put to Mr Langarish arose from the material, the supplementary material that had been filed by the NTEU and so they should have foreseen that I might ask questions about that material. If it is about a question that I may have asked arising from something that you said, that happens - you don't always have the situation where you don't do examination-in-chief at all. We haven't had examination-in-chief because we've had witness evidence. Sometimes you do have examination-in-chief and I don't see the need for a witness to be recalled simply - - -

PN1084

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Are you objecting to the recalling of Mr Ozturk at all, rather than having a view of when that might happen?

PN1085

MR RUSKIN: Yes, your Honour. I object, your Honour.

PN1086

THE VICE PRESIDENT: What do you say, Ms Gale, about Mr Ruskin's points?

PN1087

MS GALE: The question of whether or not it's usual to have examination-in-chief appears to me to be by-the-by as we have not had examination-in-chief in this matter, with the exception of additional questions that Mr Ruskin says relate specifically to Mr Ozturk's supplementary witness statement. Perhaps if I could ask Mr Ozturk to leave the room while we discuss this?

PN1088

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.

PN1089

MS GALE: In response to one of Mr Ruskin's questions, Mr Langarish made a specific factual assertion which we have not heard before which was not put to our witness and which we believe has to be tested and that specifically relates to the evidence given by Mr Langarish that he has instructed Mr Ozturk not to speak to specific staff in relation to policy issues, I think he said. That is not an issue that was put to Mr Ozturk and we believe that it's appropriate to recall Mr Ozturk and test his recollection of that assertion.

PN1090

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ms Gale, I'll allow you to recall Mr Ozturk. I think the parties should have every opportunity to call the evidence they wish to with some latitude perhaps in normal accord with those procedures, so I will allow you to recall Mr Ozturk and I think it's appropriate for you to do so now before Mr Langarish commences his cross-examination.

PN1091

MS GALE: Thank you, your Honour.

<GANI OZTURK, RECALLED ON FORMER AFFIRMATION [10.07AM]
<FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MS GALE

PN1092

MS GALE: Mr Ozturk, yesterday you heard Mr Langarish state that he has asked you not to speak to senior engineers or managers in relation to policy issues?
---Yes.

PN1093

Do you recall him stating that?---I do recall him saying that.

PN1094

Do you recall any occasion on which Mr Langarish has made that request of you?
---Yes. It was a request from one of the prison campuses, Kieran McCann is the Manager and he had a requirement for a service to be provided for his area and that communication came through one of the senior engineers requesting me to follow up and provide a - discuss with the manager the requirements. Now, I communicated - we played a bit of phone tag with the manager initially and I sent emails to him indicating that I needed - "Give me a little detail of what you want to achieve and what your needs are", what your requirements are and he sent me an email. I then forwarded that email to the engineer that requested it and I believe I cc'd Trevor Langarish indicating that the manager was interested in resolving or receiving some services. Now, this manager is not within my role of customer relations officer, but is nevertheless a manager that has a need and was directed to me. So I couldn't say to the person, "It's not my responsibility. Have someone else do it", as such. A customer comes and we need to deal with them and point them to the right direction. So once I had given - had discussions with him of what the requirements were and suggested ways forward, the manager was suggesting that they needed a server in the organisation to network their computers and from my end of it, my discussion was, "Well, we can have a look at that. It may be that you need a server or not, but I need to discuss that with the engineers, senior engineers and inform them of it." And I left that communication with Trevor and I understand that there was discussions with the manager and Trevor afterwards about that request.

PN1095

What instruction have you received from Mr Langarish in relation to your communications with the manager?---I haven't been told not to communicate with senior engineers or managers with regard to anything that I can recall. I don't recall any direction saying, "No, you can't talk to people about policies and procedures and work related matters in terms of a project." To me it would be contrary to the role of the customers relations officer as well as project manager. Project management includes people management and discussing with stakeholders and all stakeholders. So really I don't recall any instance where I've been directed not to discuss about policies and procedures with managers or senior engineers. I don't know why he said that, so.

**** GANI OZTURK FXN MS GALE
PN1096

Did the discussions in relation to that request you just described from a manager in relation to whether or not he needed a server in his area?---Yes.

PN1097

Did those discussions involve any policy issues?---No policy issues that I can recall per se, no.

PN1098

Thank you. No further questions.

<FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RUSKIN [10.11AM]

PN1099

MR RUSKIN: Now, when was this?---Sorry?

PN1100

When was this?---I would probably say three weeks, something like that, in that order.

PN1101

And when you say that you haven't had a direction about this matter and that to be given such a direction would be contrary to your role as a customer service contact person, if you were given such a direction, presumably you'd follow it, wouldn't you?---If I was given it in the sense, but how I would follow it is the difficulty in terms of the role as well as just as a person taking a communication that's coming through a customer and saying, "I need assistance with this", and it's coming to our department as IS&S and I need to respond to that, direct it to the right person for it to be dealt with and that's part of the role. Now, if I'm telling the manager, "No, it's not my area, you need to go see somebody", that would put our department in the role of declining a service or support contrary to what my role is in terms of customer relations key contact.

PN1102

But that role can be - those roles can be changed, can't they? You can cease to be a contact officer, can't you?---I don't know.

PN1103

You don't know?---No, I don't know that I could cease to be one.

PN1104

If you're directed not to perform that additional contact or customer service role that we talked about yesterday, you think you could not be directed not to continue to perform that function?---I may be, but I haven't been.

PN1105

No, I understand that, but if you were, would you accept that as a direction or would you regard that as an infringement of your right?---No. I would accept it if I'm directed and I receive something to that effect, then I would need to advise the customer of that to say that our manager has directed us that we're not to consult with or communicate with you and you need to discuss with whoever we have been directed to, right.

**** GANI OZTURK FXXN MR RUSKIN
PN1106

Yes. And you said it wasn't in your - "Not my responsibility" I think you said to the inquirer, is that right?---It wasn't under the customer role area that I manage, okay, per se, but the communication was actually sent to me by the engineer.

PN1107

But this must happen, mustn't it, you're so well known in Kangan after 18 years of service that people would contact you about things, it doesn't mean, does it, that you must perform the task about which they inquire, do you agree with that?
---No, I don't actually because it's not to do with whether I'm well known or not. It's the processes and procedures that are the norm in our department. So if the senior project manager, senior engineer would not have forwarded that to me had they not envisaged that it was something that a project manager needed to look at.

PN1108

When you say "it's the norm", Mr Ozturk, how long has it been the norm?---Norm as in that is the practice, that the - - -

PN1109

How long would it appear to be practice, years?---I would hazard a guess.

PN1110

Months, years?---Yes.

PN1111

Years?---Yes, I would say years, yes.

PN1112

You say years. But things have changed, Mr Ozturk, haven't they? There's been a whole restructure so when you say it's the norm, do you recognise in saying it's the norm that there's been a fundamental restructure of the department?---It was proposed as - - -

PN1113

Well, hasn't it been implemented, the fundamental restructure of the department, hasn't there?---Yes, and I think that's part of the - I guess, discussion, that has it actually been implemented fully. I can't see that it has. If it was - - -

PN1114

It's still - sorry?---Yes. Yes, I can't see that it has because that's - - -

PN1115

But it's still being implemented, you say it is?---Well, we're still discussing. We're here.

PN1116

We're here, but this case is not about the implementation of the restructure. It's about a certain particular matter?---Yes.

PN1117

Do you think this case is about the implementation of the restructuring of the IT department at Kangan?---No, it's totally one aspect of it. It's one aspect of it.

**** GANI OZTURK FXXN MR RUSKIN
PN1118

This case isn't about whether the role that you've been offered as Project Manager Infrastructure, and I think you're keen to accept or we have a dispute about whether you accept it or not, whether that role, whether you've come into that role by virtue of the processes under clause 22 or whether it's your old job, that's what this case is about, and that won't have any impact, will it, on what your role is in the department or the restructuring of the department, is it? It's got nothing to do with that?---Do you - you've made that statement.

PN1119

Well, I'm asking you - - - ?---I'm answering your question and I - based on what I understand, so, but I can leave it at that.

PN1120

But you could try and answer my question, which I've just asked and that question is, you've acknowledged that this case is about whether how you've come into the role of Project Manager Infrastructure, do you agree with that?---Yes.

PN1121

So it's not therefore about whether the restructure has been implemented, is it?
---No.

PN1122

So if there is a - assuming there hasn't been a direction, I understand your view, if there is such a direction about - in relation to this issue of your responsibility and the like, you say you will follow the direction. Would you see it as being the subject of the dispute that might be caused within the department or - - - ?---No.

PN1123

Or involve the NTEU?---No.

PN1124

You don't, okay. No doubt, Mr Ozturk, you will get inquiries from people outside of the IT department, such as you got - such as the request that was made, you said, three weeks ago where you won't have the - it won't be within your portfolio, your job to deal with. You'll have to say, "I will take that query to someone else or to my supervisor", do you agree with that?---Yes.

PN1125

And you would do that?---Yes.

PN1126

You will only do, in relation to your job, what your job is, do you agree with that?---Yes.

PN1127

Or you will do the job, those parts of your job that you're directed by your supervisor to perform, do you agree with that?---You said "or I'll do"?

**** GANI OZTURK FXXN MR RUSKIN
PN1128

I'll repeat the question. You will also do - firstly, you agree you'll do the scope of your job only?---Yes.

PN1129

You will also, or as well, you might be directed to only perform certain parts of your job. You accept that you might be told, "For the moment, don't do this part of your job, just only do that part of your job", do you agree with that?---Yes, yes.

PN1130

Okay, thank you. No further questions.

PN1131

THE VICE PRESIDENT: If you were to receive an inquiry that involved someone else's responsibility your course would be to refer it to that other person, whereas through the head of the department or directly to that other person?
---Absolutely.

PN1132

And with the expectation that that other person would get back to the person who made the initial inquiry?---Indeed, indeed. There is - the reference to me being there for years and, you know, people knowing me there for the consultant to talk with with regard to it, I would capture as much of the information as I can from that person before I would forward it. I wouldn't say, "Nothing to do with me, here, Joe, you look at it." That would be totally inappropriate but I certainly wouldn't be seeking out to try to provide a solution et cetera for that individual. It was only within the bounds of what I'm permitted to do and work with. There's enough work for me to do it, than to be taking up any more additional areas.

PN1133

Anything arising from that, Mr Ruskin?

PN1134

MR RUSKIN: Just a factual point, your Honour, that doesn't really arise from it. I'm not sure that I captured the name of the person who made this request.

PN1135

Did you mention the person's name, by any chance?---Kieran McCann, Port Phillip Prison - - -

PN1136

Could you say it again, Kieran?---Kieran, K-i-e-r-a-n, M-c-C-a-n-n.

PN1137

Thank you, that was all.

**** GANI OZTURK FXXN MR RUSKIN

<FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE [10.22AM]

PN1138

MS GALE: You've just said that sometimes inquiries that might come to you would be appropriately forwarded to other people to deal with?---Yes.

PN1139

Has that - was that the case prior to the restructure?---Was that the case prior to the restructure? Yes, if they are for others to deal with, but it would be dealt with in the same way that, you know, you'd have a little bit of conversation and then capture what's needed to and then forwarded on to put it in context sort of thing.

PN1140

No further questions.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.23AM]

PN1141

THE VICE PRESIDENT: You may recall Mr Langarish.

<TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH, RECALLED ON FORMER AFFIRMATION [10.24AM]
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE

PN1142

MS GALE: Mr Langarish, is it fair to say that you designed the new IS&S structure?---Yes, it is.

PN1143

You drafted the position descriptions?---Yes, I did.

PN1144

Were many of the position descriptions changed from the drafts that you've prepared?---From memory the drafts were draft, and there were probably significant changes to three or maybe four or five of them.

PN1145

Were there significant changes to the project manager infrastructure position?
---There were no significant changes to that position description.

PN1146

When did you start at Kangan?---On Monday, 25 September, 2006.

PN1147

And when did you begin to design the new structure?---On being engaged by Kangan, one of the things I was asked to look at was the structure and I gave my then manager the assurance that I would give him an outline of how I felt the department should be structured within four weeks and that I would work towards delivery of the final structure within a period of three months, that was, if changes were necessary.

PN1148

And did you meet those time lines?---Largely, yes.

PN1149

So within four weeks of starting you had an outline of what changes you thought were necessary?---What I'd done is to create a view of how the department could be organised, organised into three vertical areas covering infrastructure, support and development, application of support and development and they had in the centre an area called Professional Services at that stage.

PN1150

Now you said you were asked from the outset, as it were, to examine the structure of the department. Who asked you?---My line manager is Richard Turnbull, who is the General Manager for the organisation, covering finance systems and processes.

PN1151

And what form did that instruction or request take?---It's pretty open ended inasmuch as, "Trevor, we brought you in from outside. We'd like you to bring your experience to look at how IS&S is operating today and to give me a view about how you think it could operate in the future to deliver the customer service, the quality service, the firm platform for Kangan's aim to become the number one TAFE institute by 2008." So pretty broad.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1152

And that was at the interview or very soon after you started?---The interview was targeted at examining my skills, knowledge, experience, so not at interview.

PN1153

But shortly thereafter?---That's correct.

PN1154

Shortly after you commenced or before you commenced?---After I commenced.

PN1155

And you spent - well, within the first four weeks, you developed an outline, you described it as having three organisational sections within IS&S?---Yes.

PN1156

And where did you take that outline to?---Where did I take - - -

PN1157

What were the processes for dealing with that, with other managers, with - - - ?
---I'm not sure I understand the question.

PN1158

Your supervisor? Did you just beaver away on that by yourself or did you, once you'd developed your outline, who did you report it to or consult with?---Well, in fact what I brought to the process was pretty much my experience of working for a very large systems integrator and my knowledge of what happens in the sector. I had discussions with people such as Rodney Spark who had been covering my role, he's the General Manager, who had been covering my role for some months before I got there, but pretty much it's about me bringing - what I felt was more or less standard practice in the outsourcing so just - - -

PN1159

I'm asking you, when you'd got your outline sorted, you had that in your head or on paper, approximately four weeks after you started you had your outline?
---Correct.

PN1160

Who did you take that to, who did you report it to, who did you discuss it with?
---My manager, Richard Turnbull.

PN1161

And what feedback did you get from him?---Very little. He was happy that I was able to demonstrate my thinking behind it and he asked me to take it on further.

PN1162

In your witness statement you say that you had - you were given constraints and a time line and you've explained the time line. What other constraints did you have on the scope of your re-design?---I guess the major constraint was budget. My manager made it fairly clear that although the institute needed to achieve change, it was not going to fund a huge increase in IS&S salaries, but that was about all.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1163

Now, am I right in the way you've described it in your witness statement, I get the impression that you basically designed the new structure from scratch rather than working from the existing structure that you looked at what you thought was an ideal or best practice within that budgetary constraint?---That's correct.

PN1164

What you came up with is how you thought the IS&S department worked best to deliver its objectives?---That's correct.

PN1165

So that new structure that you developed is the - or at least a graphic representation of it is the one you've provided at attachment 1 of your witness statement, is that right?---There were a number of drafts. I expect - yes, that is correct.

PN1166

I think you say that this draft represents what you originally envisaged, I think that's how you've described it, is that correct?---I'm sorry. I'm still catching up trying to find attachment 1. Yes, that is correct.

PN1167

Now, it may be a result of the shortage of colour printers in the world, but the draft that I have has a number of black boxes in it?---Unfortunately.

PN1168

Including across the bottom of the table there are four different categories described, positions that report to marketing or LR&D?---Yes.

PN1169

Positions that report to other departments?---Yes.

PN1170

Redefined positions that are within IS&S?---Yes.

PN1171

And then a mystery. What is the mystery, it's black on my version? Are they perhaps new positions or - - - ?---They would be additional positions within - or redefined positions within the structure or non existent positions within the previous structure.

PN1172

Well, if we perhaps have a look, I think, at attachment 4 and the last page of attachment 4 - sorry, the one labelled page 7 of 8, near the back, it's two pages from the back, attachment 4?---Yes.

PN1173

It's a similar chart, isn't it?---Yes.

PN1174

And on that week we can see that the mystery boxes appear to be Applications Developer?---Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1175

Security Officer Change Manager, in the middle at the bottom?---Yes.

PN1176

And then on the right hand side an SOE Developer/Engineer?---Yes.

PN1177

And a Service Desk Analyst?---Yes.

PN1178

Now, some of those categories exist already in the first - in other positions in the table, for example, there are two service desk analysts, one of which in the first graph is coloured white and the other is in black. You can't remember what the black category might have referred to?---Sorry, are we going back to 1 again?

PN1179

Yes?---That would be a senior role, I believe.

PN1180

Now, looking at that map, this is what you've described as representing your original proposal?---Yes.

PN1181

So we're looking at attachment 1 and attachment 1 has two pages. Is there any difference between the two pages? I see, one has classification levels and the other - so instead of PCO we see PCO6 or PCO4 on the second page, that's the new structure with levels, okay. Now, that was prior to the position descriptions being PFES, wasn't it?---This is a - sorry, the second one is a later representation. It has levels on it for - the first representation did not have levels on it because we hadn't gone through the PFES process. The first structure was issued without levels because the levels had not been determined. I'm not sure where this second structure comes from. It would have been issued far later in the piece.

PN1182

So if we look back to your witness statement at paragraph 22, you see there, the second half of that paragraph you say, "I attach a copy of my proposed structure as at December 2006 as attachment 1. While the final structure was slightly different, it represents what I originally envisaged"?---Yes.

PN1183

So the bit that represents what you originally envisaged is the first page of attachment 1 but not the second, is that right?---If I could - I'd actually refer you to the document that - - -

PN1184

No. I just want to clarify the status of the second page of attachment 1. Is that part of what you originally envisaged?---No.

PN1185

So that was a later iteration?---If it includes the levels, it must have been.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1186

And you can't really shed much light on what the sub category might have been that appears black on the page that we've got?---Not without - - -

PN1187

What was the common thing that grouped those positions together that distinguished them from others?---I'm sorry. I would need to go back and - - -

PN1188

Now, still looking at the first page of attachment 1, there are, as you've described three boxes, if you like, within which those positions are organised?---Yes.

PN1189

On the left there is an application, Support and Development Virtual Team?
---Correct.

PN1190

In the middle there's the Customer Relationship Management Group?---Yes.

PN1191

And on the right is the Infrastructure Support and Development Team?---Yes.

PN1192

Okay. Now, above that section there's a representation of management structures?---Yes.

PN1193

The fact that ICT Management is on the left and the executive team on the right bears no relationship to the applications of infrastructure divide below, does it?
---Correct.

PN1194

So just looking at that central set of boxes in the white area?---Yes.

PN1195

Applications, Customer Relationship and Infrastructure?---Yes.

PN1196

The Applications area, am I right in thinking that the first column, Applications Developer Victor, Applications Developer Paul, Shaun, Mark and Max?---Yes.

PN1197

Those five positions down the very left hand side of the page are the positions that report to marketing or LR&D?---Correct.

PN1198

What's LR&D?---Learning Resource and Development.

PN1199

So those people are actually employed in different organisational structures within Kangan?---Yes, they are.

PN1200

But they would be linked in in a practical sense with Applications Project Development?---In fact, Ms Gale, this diagram represents a situation that may exist in the future. It talks about a virtual team that I have sign off for from the senior management, but is not in place at present. There is another diagram that should in fact make up the second part of it that shows IS&S excluding those members of the virtual team.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1201

And then the second column, the boxes in grey, which don't include the Business Applications Coordinator, but all of the boxes below that position in that column?---Yes.

PN1202

The positions that report to other departments?---Yes.
And those other departments, you've used the term Super User?---Yes.

PN1203

What do you mean by Super User?---A Super User - I'll just use a couple of examples. We have a gentleman, David McGrail, that runs our HR system and we have a complex application that he manages. IS&S's responsibility is to provide infrastructure support. That is, we support the server, the large computer that it runs on. As a Super User he's responsible for adding users to the HR system, to running reports on the HR system and, to some extent, to the configuration of the human resources system. Similarly in the area of finance there is a finance super user, a gentleman by the name of Peter Freeman and once again, his role is to administer the finance system from a systems perspective. We again provide the infrastructure support for those systems.

PN1204

Just for the assistance of the transcript, McGrail, is it?---McGrail, yes.

PN1205

How is that spelt?---M-c-G-r-a-i-l.

PN1206

I think we can guess at Freeman. Okay, so that in your ideal structure, that's the virtual team. Some of those people obviously are in other departments but their role makes them logically connected into that team work, at times at least?---I'm suggesting to the institute that these people, although they operate independently today, need to be more closely aligned to IS&S and IS&S with their work.

PN1207

So the actual IS&S employees in the Application Support and Development Virtual Team would be the Business Applications coordinator?---Yes.

PN1208

The Senior Systems Analyst?---Yes.

PN1209

The Applications Developer?---Yes.

PN1210

And I think, it's a second Applications Developer?---Correct.

PN1211

Then in the Customer Relationship Team in the middle in your ideal model, you have a professional services coordinator sitting above a senior business analyst and a systems analyst, a departmental assistant, and that's an administrative position?---Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1212

Not an IT expert?---Correct.

PN1213

And then project manager?---Yes.

PN1214

Now, that's not actually what it looks like in the end, is it?---That's correct.

PN1215

Because the business analyst and the professional services coordinator have been merged?---Yes.

PN1216

Yes. I think yesterday we struggled with the acronym, BAPSC. And you have two project managers instead of the one depicted there?---Yes.

PN1217

You still have a systems analyst in that team?---A systems analyst has moved into application support, and in fact you can see a senior systems analyst in the application support and development virtual team.

PN1218

So that systems analyst role has been subsumed in the senior systems analyst
or - - - ?---It was a duplication.

PN1219

And then the one at the bottom is a change manager and risk position?---I believe the earlier name was security and change management officer, and I think it remains that today.

PN1220

Is that position filled?---No.

PN1221

Then on the right we've got the infrastructure team?---Yes.

PN1222

And I see at the bottom there in a dotted form there is a potential for some casual project staff to be engaged presumably as needed on specific projects?---Yes.

PN1223

But the rest of the staff there are actually direct, or would be in your model, would be direct IS&S employees?---Yes.

PN1224

Now this structure was subsequently amended, wasn't it?---Yes.

PN1225

What was the process by which it was amended?---Well, I guess after I'd got to this point I took it to a number of people within the organisation and reflected on it with a number of my colleagues from outside of the organisation, and I guess the major feedback that I got was from a couple of general managers, my boss in particular, Richard Turnbull, and my predecessor or the guy who had been covering my role, Rodney Spark, and we talked about how that central area, in particular, could operate and should operate in the future. And so those changes came about as a result of discussions with a number of people within the organisation and some without.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1226

So did those discussions involve discussions with staff as a group or with the union?---At what - at the stage that I - there were several discussions with staff around how the restructure and the department might work in the future. In terms of the timetable - - -

PN1227

I'm specifically asking about having a look at that structure that you'd thought up and feedback on, critical feedback on the model that you were looking at?---At this stage I cannot remember whether this went to just the executive team or this is the structure that I sent out on 21 December.

PN1228

21 December was the first time that the structure was sent out, broadly, to staff?
---To staff, yes.

PN1229

And at that time it went to staff in the IS&S department?---Correct.

PN1230

It didn't go to staff who were listed down that left hand column in other departments?---That is correct.

PN1231

Have they been consulted about that yet?---About what?

PN1232

The restructure?---About - no, no.

PN1233

Now when you say that was circulated or was given to staff on 21 December, in what form was it given to people?---Okay. I believe we sent - I actually printed hard copies that were available in the room.

PN1234

Was it also emailed to staff?---From memory I don't think it was. I don't think I sent out the soft copy of it.

PN1235

So it was tabled at the meeting?---Yes.

PN1236

And that's a day, two days before the institute closed for Christmas?---21st and we close on the 22nd.

PN1237

And would any staff have already been on leave?---There were one or two staff, I expect.

PN1238

Did you take any steps to make sure they received the hard copy?---I do have a vague recollection of somebody being sent something by email, but I can't remember.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1239

Now, if we turn to attachment 4 of your statement, and I think that is the version of the structure document that was circulated to staff in January after the PFES process had occurred, is that correct?---Yes.

PN1240

There's actually two documents bundled together, aren't there? On 12 January there's an email exchange which shows that you circulated the list of positions and the classifications that had emerged from the PFES'ing, the table listing position, is that right?---Yes.

PN1241

And then the next document in the same attachment is dated 15 January, three days later, and that's from yourself and it's addressed to Information Systems and Services. Does that indicate that it went to all staff in IS&S?---Yes.

PN1242

And that has attached to it a document dated January 2006, Proposed New Structure for IS&S, but that actually is January 2007, isn't it?---Yes.

PN1243

Presumably I think if you had a version in December 2006 that might have just been amended without the year being amended?---I don't know.

PN1244

So that document is the same document that was tabled on 21 December?---I believe so, yes.

PN1245

And then attached to that are some more organisational charts, but before we get to the organisational charts, can I take you to the email, the covering email from Monday 15 January, can I ask you whether you believe that email to be correct at the time you sent it?---Yes.

PN1246

Can I ask you to turn to the page numbered 4 of 8 in that document. In that it refers to the fact that on Thursday, 21 December - I'm sorry, towards the bottom of that page under Timetable for Change, that there was consultation with the staff and unions. I suggest to you that the consultation was that the document was tabled for the first time, it was not really an opportunity on 21 December for considered response, was it, from staff or the union?---I'm certainly aware that the trade unions were present along with my staff and I believe that there was a meeting after that announcement to staff from memory.

PN1247

The document was tabled for the first time on 21 December to staff?---Yes.

PN1248

And that was late in the afternoon, 3.45 I believe the meeting was scheduled for?
---It may have been.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1249

Well, what I'm putting to you was that there was not opportunity on 21 December for staff to have read, contemplated and given considered feedback to that document?---That sounds reasonable.

PN1250

It's more in the nature of an initial information session than consultation really, isn't it?---I believe it was a consultation. We certainly didn't have too some questions from members of staff at that meeting.

PN1251

Then on that page it refers to union consultation and input, January 2007. In December, on 21 December the version of the document that you tabled then talked about a period of team review as part of the staff consultation process, didn't it?---A period of team review?

PN1252

Yes. That part of the consultation and in put process would be team review. You don't recall that?---No, I don't recall that.

PN1253

That it included a proposal that the consultation process would include updating during that week, you don't know what week it might have been referring to?---Do you have a document where that is referred to?

PN1254

Well, you don't recall that?---Could you say the question again?

PN1255

Okay. I'm asking you whether the document that was tabled on 21 December, in that section titled Consultation and Input, which I think then was called Staff Consultation and Input rather than Union Consultation and Input, it referred to something being updated during that week. It started with Team Review, updating during that week, senior roles would be interviewed in the following week, if not filled, externally advertised, updating the PDs with the coordinators and then interviewing the remaining staff and appointing, you don't remember that consultative process being set down?---That would certainly be my intention, that the intention throughout was to appoint coordinators - - -

PN1256

Do you recall that consultative process having been provided to staff on 21 December, that staff were informed that that was the intended consultative process? Do you recall that?---No, I don't recall that.

PN1257

Perhaps if I could ask that the witness be shown this document, please.

PN1258

MR RUSKIN: Your Honour, is this a document that's been relied upon and produced in the materials, because I thought there was an order by your Honour that one was to produce documents upon which the parties relied upon by a certain time frame. Is this a new document, your Honour?

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1259

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Is it something that's otherwise there, or is this a new document?

PN1260

MS GALE: It is a new document, your Honour.

PN1261

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And the basis for relying on it now?

PN1262

MS GALE: The basis for relying on it now is that the witness has not been able to confirm the information we have put to him and I seek to show it to the witness to refresh his memory.

PN1263

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'll allow you to do so, Ms Gale.

PN1264

MS GALE: Thank you, your Honour.

PN1265

MR RUSKIN: Your Honour, may I inquire whether there will be other documents which have not been tendered which will be produced in these proceedings by Ms Gale to witnesses, just foreshadow if there are any other documents that Ms Gale intends to produce, perhaps she could show them to us now.

PN1266

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ms Gale can take that on board.

PN1267

MR RUSKIN: Could we see the document, your Honour, at some point?

PN1268

THE VICE PRESIDENT: At some point, yes. Ms Gale is entitled to put a document to the witness in the light of her cross-examination.

PN1269

MR RUSKIN: Yes, your Honour.

PN1270

MS GALE: Do you recognise that document?---Yes, I do.

PN1271

Is that the document that was tabled on 21 December?---I couldn't say. It looks like a similar document.

PN1272

Having seen that document, do you now recall that staff were advised on 21 December that that was the intended consultative process?---What I can see is under Staff Consultation there are a series of question marks around 2006 or stroke 2007, Team Review, and yes, the rest pretty much defines what it is I would like to happen.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1273

What did you mean by Team Review?---Team Review. I guess that meant that people who have received this document could look at it and review it and come and speak with me about any issues they might have with it.

PN1274

Now, we were looking at attachment 4 which has a later version of that consultative document, or that information document, the proposed new structure, and in that version which is dated at the bottom of the page, 15 January?---Yes.

PN1275

In that version the reference to consultation is Union Consultation Input January 2007, is that correct?---Yes.

PN1276

And that was circulated by email on 15 January?---It may have been.

PN1277

Well, I think you've given evidence that it was. This is the attachment to your witness statement that you've attached to an email dated 15 January. How many staff in IS&S would have been on board between 22 December and 15 January?
---On board on - - -

PN1278

Not on leave?---From memory I think Mr Ozturk was on leave until the 22nd. A few - a significant number of people were on leave for the first two days after the Christmas break, but most were back by about Monday the 9th.

PN1279

Now, attached to that version of the explanatory document, there are again some organisational charts. The first of those is called Present Structure December 2006 and that is the pre-restructure organisational chart of the department?---Yes.

PN1280

The next is Future Structure February 1, 2007 and I think this might be closer to the version you were looking for earlier that only includes the IS&S staff?---Yes.

PN1281

It doesn't have the virtual team listed on that page?---Yes.

PN1282

The virtual team, I think, turn up on the next page. Now, when compared to your original proposal at attachment 1, there are some changes here that - in the way that it's organised. Can you identify what the key changes are from your - - - ?---I can see that they're pretty much round professional services and the program office area.

PN1283

And they are?---That's - there are two coordinators in that area now, for a business analyst, a professional services coordinator and a program office coordinator and that there are two project managers, one covering applications, the other covering infrastructure.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1284

And the program office coordinator, is that an IT professional or an administrative professional?---Largely administrative although he has a significant role in the work of the department.

PN1285

Now, you've introduced there the division between the two project managers, applications and infrastructure?---Yes.

PN1286

And you've given a fair bit of evidence about the division between applications and infrastructure and I think you characterised infrastructure as hardware and applications as software, is that a fair characterisation?---Yes.

PN1287

Bearing in mind that many of us here don't speak professional IT. So those titles for the project manager jobs?---Yes.

PN1288

Refer to the nature of the projects that they manage?---Yes.

PN1289

Rather than saying that they would have organisational relationship necessarily with the applications staff, or the applications team or the infrastructure team?
---Sorry, can you ask the question again?

PN1290

Okay. You've got a structure here that clearly divides a large number of the IS&S staff into applications team and infrastructure team?---Yes.

PN1291

I'm asking you whether the project manager applications is called applications because of the nature of the projects that they would be managing or called applications because they would be expected to work with the applications team?
---The answer is that part of the reason for separating the two project management roles is to create specialists in project management. My experience is that, you know, organisations organise themselves, ICT organisations organise themselves into applications broadly and infrastructure broadly and that specialisms develop within those areas and what I'm looking to do is to build specialisms for my project managers either on the applications side and so they will build very close relationships with my applications support and development team and for the infrastructure project manager to build very close relationships with the infrastructure support and development team.

PN1292

It's the case, isn't it, that in relation to an applications project the project manager might be coordinating resources in terms of expert staff from both teams?
---Coordinating? The role of the project manager is to deliver a - - -

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1293

I'm asking you whether in their delivery of a project the applications project manager might need to call on the expertise of staff or to choreograph, to oversee, however you like to characterise it, but involved in the actual delivery of the project, there might be expert staff from each of the applications and the infrastructure team involved in a single project?---I would agree that the applications - sorry, the project manager applications may need to ensure that some infrastructure is in place to support the application.

PN1294

In doing so, would they go through the infrastructure project manager or would they be expected to simply have as part of their project team on a particular project some expertise that could cover that infrastructure aspect?---I think it would really depend on the size of the project, if this were relatively trivial, that was, it did not require additional server infrastructure, storage, back up, significant infrastructure, they might well take care of it themselves. If there was significant work, then I would see that the project manager infrastructure would be engaged as well.

PN1295

Would that mean it would be two separate projects?---What I might do is just take some time to talk about what a project is. A business project might be the implementation of a new human resources system, in which case there is - the major project is owned by the business and IS&S has a component in rolling that out. The applications - sorry, the project manager applications would be the primary person responsible. However it may well be that additional servers and infrastructure is required to be installed in which case the project manager infrastructure would be engaged for that part of the overall project in the same way as the project manager applications would be engaged in delivering the application. However the Super user, and this is process only, would actually own the project.

PN1296

Let's think about a small exercise, perhaps the introduction of laptops into classrooms?---Yes.

PN1297

No, let's try a different one. Let's try the replacement of and upgrading of some computers?---Yes.

PN1298

So you've got someone sitting in their office or in their classroom with a computer that has files on it that they don't want to lose with the computer replacement. So the replacement of the computers is a hardware exercise, isn't it, basically, it's about purchasing and putting in place new boxes, but it has a software aspect, doesn't it? That is, making sure that the new boxes have the right operating environment?---Okay. When we talk about infrastructure, we really talk about the hardware and the systems software. An application is something like your HR system, a banking system, a finance system. So I'd just like to clarify the difference between software and an application.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1299

So infrastructure includes systems software?---Systems software which is the operating system and the base set of functions that run on a PC. It's not a server, it's not delivering an application. It's providing access to an application.

PN1300

So in taking out your old computer and putting a new one on your desk, your old PC?---Yes.

PN1301

The infrastructure team, the infrastructure project has to make sure that your files are properly transferred across to the new PC?---Yes.

PN1302

In doing that they might call on an applications developer to provide an appropriate application for that transfer process, might they not?---I can think of an example. Certainly the project - Mr Ozturk is working on at the moment, the XP upgrade actually requires, and I've suggested in my role as Business Analyst at that point that we simplify the process by creating a script that could copy and identify files from the local PC and save them, yes.

PN1303

Now, with something as finite and really simple as that?---Yes.

PN1304

In relation to an infrastructure project?---Yes.

PN1305

You wouldn't expect that part of it to be spun off as a separate applications project involving the applications project manager. Your infrastructure project manager would handle that bit of it too, wouldn't they?---The infrastructure - - -

PN1306

To the extent that they handle the project?---The infrastructure manager may choose to engage a programmer.

PN1307

So that that distinction is not quite as hard and fast in the real world, is it?---I believe it is hard and fast. I am very clear that I want the project manager infrastructure and the project manager applications to confine themselves to the areas of specialism that their titles define.

PN1308

But when you said that applications was software and infrastructure was hardware, that was a general description. You've now agreed that infrastructure includes hardware and some software?---Not applications, hardware and software.

PN1309

Yes. So infrastructure is hardware and software, applications is a subset of software?---Applications are - applications, and they tend to be - - -

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1310

A big subset?---Sorry?

PN1311

A big subset?---Yes.

PN1312

Now you've said that from time to time the project managers might need to handle project in the other area, you don't see that as a standard thing, but from time to time it might happen?---From time to time, it's not likely, but it's possible.

PN1313

And that's actually reflected in the position description, isn't it, for the project manager, infrastructure?---I think what I say in the position descriptions is that I will require the people that hold those roles to take on a number of roles that may or may not be defined in their PD. In the end, no. I'm the manager of a large department.

PN1314

Perhaps if we could turn to attachment 8 of your witness statement which is the Project Manager Infrastructure PD. If I can draw your attention to page 3 of 7 in that PD, a section called Position Dimensions. Have you found that section?
---Yes, yes.

PN1315

The second paragraph there says, "The incumbent will also work closely with colleagues within the section sharing knowledge and information to ensure that she is able to provide project management services across the whole range of activities covered by IS&S"?---Mm.

PN1316

Is that not a reference to the fact that they need on occasion to be ready to handle an applications project?---That's not my intention. My intention is to say that the department requires this person to work with the whole team cooperatively to make sure that the entire team meets its requirements, providing support as necessary.

PN1317

Your intention is a secondary consideration, isn't it? The primary consideration is what the position description says?---I believe that, for myself, my intention is my intention. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the legal requirements of PDs.

PN1318

Is it you who decides or the business analyst who decides if a project is infrastructure or applications?---I have a leadership team which is just about coming into formation now. We have a number of projects that are likely to happen and we will be directed to implement projects. In terms of determining who does what, where a project comes about, yes, I'd expect to have some discussion with the business analyst, professional services coordinator to determine which of the two project managers will do what.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1319

And if a project has some overlap aspects that involves both infrastructure and applications, how do you decide which way to send it?---I would expect there to be a weight in one direction or the other, that - and as I said earlier, where there were significant components in the whole project for both applications and infrastructure, then I'd expect that those two components would be assigned to the two project managers.

PN1320

Are you a member of the Union Management Consultative Committee?---No.

PN1321

Did you attend any of its meetings in relation to the IS&S restructure?---No.

PN1322

At paragraph 23 of your witness statement you refer to the material you obtained from Flinders University on position descriptions and related materials?---Yes.

PN1323

Now, at attachment 2 you've provided some of that material, I think it's called Position Description Developer Manual Version?---Yes.

PN1324

Can you tell us what the context and origin of that document is?---It comes from Flinders University. This was a document developed by them some years ago in response to, I guess, the issue that many of us have in the IT business where the requirements of a role will change frequently and what tends to happen is that positions descriptions become out of sync. This document was designed for the University to assist people like myself to come up with a consistent view, if you like, of what should be in a position description for people who work in the ICT sector. And so, if you look at the document, you'll see there is a pick list, if you like, of responsibilities. The manager is able to weigh the requirements for the particular role, dependent on whether it's a senior, middle or junior role.

PN1325

We'll come in a minute to the actual way the document works. I was just asking about its context and where it came from, thank you. Could the witness be shown this document, please. Have you seen that document before?---I did see something like it. It may have been this document.

PN1326

Well, would you agree that this is the report from Flinders University's human resource division which provides a context for the document that you have used?
---That is the heading of the reports, yes. I must say I've not read this report.

PN1327

You've not read this report before?---I may have seen it.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1328

Can you turn to appendix C, which follows page 16 of the report?---Appendix?

PN1329

C?---On page?

PN1330

No, I'm sorry, of the Flinders report?---This document?

PN1331

Yes?---On page?

PN1332

It appears to be page 17, though it's un-numbered?---Yes.

PN1333

Do you recognise that as - you see that says, "PD Writer, manual version updated 12 May 2006"?---Yes.

PN1334

Do you recognise that as an earlier version of the document that you used, which I think is dated June 2006?---I certainly recognise it as a similar document, yes.

PN1335

I seek to tender that document, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #G7 FLINDERS UNIVERSITY INFORMATION COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY ICT REVIEW PROJECT CONTEXTUAL REPORT DATED 13/06/2006

PN1336

MS GALE: Can I ask you to turn to page 10 of the Flinders University document and you see a section there headed 8.1 ICT Position Descriptors?---Yes.

PN1337

The second paragraphs reads:

PN1338

These descriptors will form the basis for developing updated ICT position descriptions and are attached in appendix C for information. It should be noted that this information merely provides supervisors with a first level of information that may be included in the position description. Supervisors will be expected to critically review the information provided and modify position descriptions so that they are relevant to their area.

PN1339

Were you aware of that guidance in how to use the Flinders' position description generating table?---I don't recollect that paragraph, but it's certainly what I'd want to do in any case.

PN1340

If we can go back to attachment 2 to your witness statement, which is the version of the Flinders document that you used. What I'd like to do is to ask you to look at both that attachment 2 and attachment 8 simultaneously, so perhaps if the witness could be - I have a clean copy of attachment 8 which might make the process easier. Now attachment is, is it not, the Project Manager Infrastructure Position Description as it finally exists? It's not a draft version. It is the current version?---Yes, yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1341

Now, in the Flinders document, the very first page deals with generic titles, typical position title and relevant stream?---Yes.

PN1342

And they propose a generic title of ICT Project Manager. They say that the position, typical position title in that field might be project manager or project officer?---Yes.

PN1343

And that the stream that they propose within - their stream structure is project management. The streams really is about a Flinders thing, isn't it, to do with their classification structure?---I guess so.

PN1344

You didn't particularly pay attention to organising your PDs according to streams?---I'm not sure that I understand the sense of a stream, so - - -

PN1345

So probably not then, okay. The second page of the Flinders document deals with some key responsibilities and outcomes concepts. I'm sorry, first it has the Key Purpose and then the Organisational Environment. These are familiar concepts to a position description writer. Did you basically follow this template approach?---Basically.

PN1346

So which part of attachment 8 would you say is the key purpose section?---I don't know that it is. When I look at Mr Ozturk's current position description I see that they're pretty much my words.

PN1347

The key purpose there proposes a two to three sentence description of the key purpose of the position. I'd suggest to you that that's pretty equivalent to the section 3, Purpose of the Position?---Mm.

PN1348

Would you accept that?---So you're asking me to compare - - -

PN1349

I'm asking you whether the section of the Position Description which is called Purpose of the Position fulfils the role proposed in the Flinders model for the key purpose statement?---Yes, agreed.

PN1350

The Flinders statement then talks about an organisational environment section providing brief background information about the organisation, description of the unit, objectives, supporting relationships. I would suggest to you that perhaps brief is not the word, but sections, organisational environment at the beginning of the position description followed by Institute Vision, Mission Values, Purpose and Strategic Priority Areas on the second page, really are a description - well, the organisational environment is a description of the organisational environment and perhaps it could be said that the mission values section supplements that. Would you accept that?---I'd accept that the organisational environment pretty much describes the institute and that our vision, mission and values describe the institute's missions.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1351

Then the Flinders document moves into a section called Key Responsibilities and Outcomes. At point 6 there, Leadership and Direction, which they talk about as from HEO Level 8 and above. Are you familiar with the HEO classification structure in universities?---No, I'm not.

PN1352

If you turn back to the first page of the Flinders document in column one, Generic Title, do you see that the reference to ICT Project Manager indicates that it would normally be at HEO8 and above?---Yes, I can see that one.

PN1353

The next section 7 deals with Budget and Resource Functions. You don't have a specific section in the position description dealing with either leadership and direction or budget and resource functions, do you, as a specific organised part of the position description?---You're asking me if I do?

PN1354

I'm asking you to agree that those are not there?---It's not in the project manager infrastructure.

PN1355

And nor is there a specific section dealing with administrative functions, as such?
---Not specific as a section heading, correct.

PN1356

The Flinders document then has specialist ICT key responsibilities and outcomes on the following page. Number 9 deals with Systems Equipment and Software Development?---Yes.

PN1357

Number 10 with Systems Equipment and Software Installation and Maintenance and number 11 with Client Technical Support, 12 with Client Training and 13 with Security and Risk Management. Those are all areas where you have drawn specific wording to put into the project manager infrastructure position description, aren't they?---I don't know about all of them, but some of them certainly.

PN1358

Well, perhaps if we turn to the role of the position at paragraph 5 of attachment 8 which starts with Typical Duties. "In meeting the Institute's strategic plans the project manager infrastructure will contribute to the provision of new or modified systems which satisfy customer needs by assisting with." Can I suggest to you that that's the first words under item 9 in the Flinders document, "Contribute to the provision of new or modified systems which satisfy client needs by assisting with"?---Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1359

Now, is the way that you went about drafting this position description, and the others, that you drew on these suggested phrases and words?---As appropriate, yes.

PN1360

So if we stick to that Systems Equipment and Software Development item, presumably in your mind, given that this was a project manager infrastructure, you were focused more on the systems and equipment than the software development, but nevertheless Flinders have grouped it together, after the introductory, "Contribute to by assisting with" there are four different introductions that Flinders put forward as appropriate to choose from, is that right?---Correct.

PN1361

And then there are some suggested specifics to illustrate the ways in which the employee might assist with?---Yes.

PN1362

And you've pulled out particularly developing plans or policies and procedures which support the objectives of Systems Equipment and Software, that is the second arrow dot point?---Yes.

PN1363

You've got Project Managing the Implementation Including Scheduling and Directing Activities, which really runs - sorry, the third and the fourth final dot point you've run together there into a single proposition. That column actually goes down to the - flows down to the next page of the Flinders document and there we find some of the other ones that you have used about two-thirds of the way down the list, still under section 9 of the Flinders document, you find Analysing Client Requirements. You're preferred the word "customer" to "client"?---Yes.

PN1364

I see, throughout the documents, it's a culture difference between Kangan and Flinders?---Yes.

PN1365

The next is "Preparing project and/or client documentation" and the last one on the Flinders list is the last that you've included under that heading of "Contributing to the Provision of New or Modified Systems", which is "Entering data, relevant to systems, equipment and software development." So I just want to be clear that this list here in the position description is drawn from a selection of the examples put forward in the Flinders document, the selection that you see is appropriate to this position?---Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1366

Is it the case that the majority of the typical duties are drawn directly in that way from the Flinders document?---I'd imagine the majority, yes.

PN1367

If I suggest to you that in fact all of the typical duties are drawn directly from the Flinders document?---In much the same way as some words and phraseology has been changed, as you demonstrate in the removal of "client" for "customer", similarly there will be other differences.

PN1368

But the actual nature of the roles, the typical duties proposed is not changed?
---Where I took the words from is pretty much from this document, with modifications to suit the Kangan Institute.

PN1369

Two pages further on in the Flinders document, we find heading "Supervision Received", number 14, Level of Direction. It's still within the table of Position Description Developer?---Number?

PN1370

Number 14, level of direction, it's in the left hand column of second last page?
---Yes, I've got it, yes.

PN1371

Now, I see that you have chosen for the Project Manager Infrastructure the general level of direction, the words, "The incumbent will determine their priorities and operate within the framework of established policies and work systems"?---Yes.

PN1372

That appears immediately following the dot point list under "Typical Duties" on page 4 of the position description?---Yes.

PN1373

You also provide in the next paragraph of the position description that, "The incumbent is expected to consult with the coordinator on matters where activity cannot easily be determined by reference to past practices or established procedures." So you expect the incumbent, where there's established practice or procedure, to operate on that basis and to refer for direction or advice on what to do where that guidance fails them?---In practice what it means is if there is not a requirement to change IS&S policy or to bring about an impact on our budget, yes, use your prior knowledge.

PN1374

And in fact reference to past practices?---Quite.

PN1375

That sentence, "The incumbent is expected to consult with the coordinator on matters where activity cannot easily be determined," in fact also is drawn directly from the Flinders document, isn't it, three columns to the right under part 17, Expectations Regarding Consultant?---Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1376

It's the middle of the three levels there?---Yes.

PN1377

Two pages further on, the Flinders document moves from Typical Duties to Selection Criteria and this is the area from which you drew many of the items in the key selection criteria statement?---Yes.

PN1378

Now, in Key Selection Criteria 1, the selection criteria in fact encompasses all of the key competencies in the table above, doesn't it?---Yes.

PN1379

So those seven competencies, as demonstrated by a list of dot points?---Yes.

PN1380

Constitute the first essential selection criteria for the job?---Yes.

PN1381

Now, if I can ask you to look back at the Flinders University context report that I provided you with a copy of and at page 11 of that document there's a paragraph headed 8.4, Position Description Template, do you see that?---Yes.

PN1382

It reports there that an unexpected outcome of the review at Flinders University was the development of an updated position description template better aligned with the classification guidelines and that template is attached as appendix D. If you could turn to appendix D which is the last two pages of the document. Have you seen that template before?---Yes, I have.

PN1383

In what context have you seen it before?---I saw it on the website with the other material.

PN1384

Did you follow this template at all?---No.

PN1385

If you could look at page 29, the last sheet of the document under Selection Criteria, Essential Criteria, do you see there that it recommends normally between five to seven essential criteria?---Yes, I can see it.

PN1386

And Desirable Criteria normally 1 to 3?---Yes.

PN1387

This is the document that Flinders University developed to work together with their selection criteria generator?---Agreed.

PN1388

Now, you've required a lot more than five to seven essential criteria, haven't you?
---Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1389

We'll just look at attachment 8. Depending on how you read it on my count there are 21 items listed under - or 21 dot points listed under the heading Key Selection Criteria Essential, and the first of those dot points you've told us includes the whole of the table above, which is seven key competencies?---Yes.

PN1390

Or if you look at the dot points that people are asked to demonstrate there, it's perhaps 22 elements that need to be demonstrated?---Correct.

PN1391

So really when you add all that up that's at least 27 and possibly 42 essential criteria?---Yes.

PN1392

It's an awful lot of essential criteria?---It is.

PN1393

And you were conscious in developing that that you were not following the guidance that Flinders University had established?---As I say, I have not followed the second part of the - your contextual reports, of Flinders contextual report.

PN1394

42 essential criteria?---Mm.

PN1395

What was your thinking?---My thinking was - I mean, if we just take the first half. I think there are 22 items in there which pretty much describe the culture and the way that we at Kangan want people to operate. The first selection criteria is asking them to understand the way in which Kangan and IS&S wishes to operate. The remaining 20-something are about my wish to put in place the right person with the right skills, experience and attitude to fit this role.

PN1396

So the first one you say is about asking people to understand an organisational culture, but it actually asks them to demonstrate their capacity?---Mm.

PN1397

Not simply to understand, doesn't it?---Yes.

PN1398

Okay?---To understand what will be expected of them in that role.

PN1399

Now, the business analyst position description ended up with 34 essential criteria, didn't it?---Yes, it did.

PN1400

Have you seen the witness statement of Geoff Mackay?---No.

PN1401

Do you recall that after Mr Ozturk was not selected for the position of Business Analyst?---Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1402

Or was unsuccessful in his expression of interest in relation to that?---Yes.

PN1403

That he sought information as to why he had been unsuccessful?---Yes.

PN1404

Do you recall that he was provided with information in the form of a list of essential criteria that he had failed to meet?---Yes.

PN1405

Or failed to fully meet?---Yes.

PN1406

That was a list of numbers, "You didn't meet criteria's 1, 3" et cetera?---Yes.

PN1407

You've seen that list?---Yes.

PN1408

Could you turn, please, to attachment 10 of your witness statement which is the Business Analyst position description? I'm sorry, can you tell me who drew up that list?---Which list?

PN1409

The list that was provided to Mr Ozturk to point out - - - ?---I did.

PN1410

You drew that?---Yes.

PN1411

Now, in looking at this position description?---Yes.

PN1412

I have to say it's difficult to actually work out how it adds up to 34?---You're looking at an updated position description?

PN1413

Has it been changed since the interviews?---Yes, it has. It was changed at the point at which we failed to get any external candidates. We updated to reduce the number of selection criteria.

PN1414

So this is not the position description for the position which Mr Ozturk applied for?---Mr Ozturk applied twice. He applied once to the old position, with the larger number of essential selection criteria. Then he applied again when the role was advertised externally.

PN1415

I should probably say "expressed interest in" rather than "applied", but the key selection criteria in the new position description, if you were numbering them 1 to whatever they add up to, where would you start the numbering?---In the new one?

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1416

In any position description? There's no numbers. There's dot points. When I'm given a list of - I haven't met criteria 3, 7, 9 and 15?---Yes, and - - -

PN1417

How do I work out what on earth you're talking about?---I do believe that that question was asked and that we got back and said, "Please start with selection criteria 1."

PN1418

Key selection criteria 1?---Yes.

PN1419

So all of the key competencies section, 1 to 7 including all of the dot points is encompassed within the information that he had not satisfied key selection criteria 1?---That is correct.

PN1420

And with the Business Analyst there are even more dot points in there than there are for the Project Manager position, aren't there?---In the first version of that, yes.

PN1421

So your feedback was you didn't fully meet the key competencies?---Correct.

PN1422

Now, when the union came back to the institute after that email saying that that wasn't really satisfactory, he said there was further discussion, there was a meeting with Mr Ozturk and Ms Burke from the union, wasn't there, to talk
about - - - ?---With myself and Richard Turnbull, yes.

PN1423

So you were present at that meeting?---Yes.

PN1424

And arising from that meeting you were asked to do a comparison of the old SPC position with the new business analyst position, weren't you?---Not from that meeting, no.

PN1425

Could the witness be shown this document, please. Do you see at the bottom of that page there's an email from Richard Turnbull to Geoff Mackay copied to yourself and Margaret Balsillie?---Yes.

PN1426

And that says, "Hi, Geoff. Following up from our meeting with Janet and Gani I'd ask Trevor to compare the old position against the new position. We're both of the firm opinion that there's more than 30 per cent change in the role. As per our agreement with the consultative committee we are of the firm opinion that this role should be advertised as there's no close fit to any role in the old structure." Do you recall that email?---I do, yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1427

Do you agree with its representation of your opinion, "We're both of the firm opinion that there's more than a 30 per cent change in the role"?---Yes.

PN1428

Okay, and you'll see, as represented by little pointy brackets above the text of that email but below the subject line, there is reference to an attachment, Business Analyst Position Doc?---Yes.

PN1429

Could the witness be shown this document, please.

PN1430

MR RUSKIN: Your Honour, I really must say again that there were orders made about the provision of documents in these proceedings and these orders have been ignored by the applicant and I just note a protest that this is now the fifth document that has been provided to Mr Langarish about which we had no prior knowledge and I would like to know how many more we can expect, five, 10, 15?

PN1431

THE VICE PRESIDENT: If there's any unfairness to you by that circumstance, Mr Ruskin, certainly there will be consideration given to you to get appropriate instructions or whatever's needed. I'd hope that there is not a lot more.

PN1432

MR RUSKIN: Thank you, your Honour.

PN1433

MS GALE: Do you recognise that document as the attachment to that email?
---Yes. I recognise the document. I don't know that it was the attachment.

PN1434

Is that the analysis, the comparison that you did of the old position, that is, the Senior Project Coordinator position with the new position which was then in contemplation in relation to Mr Ozturk, the Business Analyst position?---I just need to try and put it into some sort of context. I think this was sent out - I'm not sure when this - do you know when this document was generated?

PN1435

I do, yes. Well, I put it to you that it is the attachment, Business Analyst Position Doc, that was attached to Richard Turnbull's email of 21 February?---All I can is that it may be, I don't know. It may be.

PN1436

You were asked, according to Richard Turnbull's email, you were asked to do a comparison of the old position against the new position?---Mm.

PN1437

And you did so?---This is my document.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1438

And that is the document that you produce, okay, thank you. I tender that document. I'm sorry, I should tender the email and the attachment as a single exhibit.

PN1439

THE VICE PRESIDENT: The email is an email of 12 June 2007 with other forwarded emails and the attachment, which was a two columns document will be exhibit G8.

EXHIBIT #G8 EMAIL DATED 12/06/2007

PN1440

MS GALE: Do you think that was a fair analysis of the comparison between the Business Analyst and the Senior Project Coordinator role?---On reflection I think it is not fair because it just looks at selection criteria and doesn't actually look at the function of the role. So I think I could have done a better job.

PN1441

Do you think it's a fair analysis of the selection criteria?---It shows the selection criteria.

PN1442

It also includes at the top some analysis, does it not, and at the bottom of the first column?---I think - - -

PN1443

So there's not just a list of the criteria, there is your analysis of the comparison, is there not?---There is some analysis of the essential selection criteria, yes.

PN1444

If we can go back to your witness statement, Mr Langarish, and particularly if I can ask you to look at paragraph 38. You see in the last line of that paragraph you say, "Therefore the sole purpose of the PMI role is project management." Is that right?---Yes.

PN1445

And if you can have a look at paragraph 51 you say, "Consequently project management which was about 60 per cent of the SPC role constitutes with training 100 per cent of the PMO role"?---Yes.

PN1446

How much of the PMO role does training constitute?---I think in - it would really depend on the project. On a significant project it might be very little training for the project manager infrastructure to deliver. On a relatively small project that person may become responsible for training, for example, members of their department.

PN1447

So the training function is actually quite a small part of the role?---It could be.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1448

Well, is it or is it not?---As I say I think - - -

PN1449

I asked about the role as a whole, not a specific project?---I guess, at best guess, it will be somewhere between, I don't know, five and 10 per cent of the role.

PN1450

So when you said the sole focus of the role as project management you actually meant the 90, 95 per cent, the focus of the role as project management?---I would include training as part of the project manager's role.

PN1451

Now, you've got an educational qualification yourself, don't you?---Yes.

PN1452

You've got a Certificate of Education in the teaching of adults?---Yes.

PN1453

Do you know in Australian terms, is that more in the nature of a Graduate Diploma in education or is it in the nature of, say, a Cert IV? Is it a Workplace Training and Assessment type qualification or - - - ?---I am a trained teacher of adults and works in the equivalent in the TAFE sector in the UK.

PN1454

So it would equate to a Graduate Diploma of Education, for example?---I'm not sure.

PN1455

In Adult Ed?---I'm sorry, I don't know the Australian system well enough.

PN1456

And I think you've said that every PD includes the reference to the values and objectives of the institution which include educational objectives, don't they, Kangan's values and objectives?---Yes.

PN1457

Being a learning partner of choice focusing on the needs of the learner?---Yes.

PN1458

Does that objective only apply to students or does it extend to staff training?---I think the words say that we will act in support of those objectives and if I could just refer? So it says here, "Support in the implementation of teaching the learning delivery and/or related services with a demonstrated customer focus." If that's what you're referring to.

PN1459

You're looking there at the typical duties?---I'm looking at competencies, number 5 - sorry, number 4, "Lead in with vocational education and training." "VET with a customer focus."

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1460

If you have a look at the section of the position description which is titled Institute Vision Mission Values Purpose and Strategic Priority Areas?---On page?

PN1461

Page 2?---Yes.

PN1462

"The Institute's vision is to be the learning partner of choice, to be flexible, innovative, responsive and committed to our partners in learning," and you see down under, "A culture of success focusing on the needs of the learner"?---Yes.

PN1463

I'm asking you whether those values, the mission and the vision of Kangan Institute of TAFE extend to its staff as learners as well as to its students?
---Inasmuch as we're all learning and may choose to learn within the Institute, yes, as learners overall, yes.

PN1464

Now in the Project Manager position description training is one of the five identified typical duties in the PD, isn't it?---Yes.

PN1465

It's got the longest list of subsidiary dot points, it's got, I think, eight?---Yes.

PN1466

But you're saying that it's relative weight in terms of being part of the job is not reflected by its relative volume in the position description, it's actually five to 10 per cent of the role?---The section describes what it is they want the Project Manager Infrastructure to cover. As I've described earlier, I think it would probably cover something like five or 10 per cent of the role.

PN1467

So some of the typical duties with a shorter list of dot points might be a larger part of the role?---Yes, certainly.

PN1468

Managing the installation and maintenance of systems, for example, has only two dot points, but that will be a big part of the role, would it not?---Managing the installation?

PN1469

And maintenance systems?---For the Project Manager infrastructure would be a very significant part, yes.

PN1470

And if I can take you to the essential selection criteria of that position description, that is, attachment 8 to your witness statement?---Yes.

PN1471

Can you point to the essential criteria that you say relate to the training duties?
---There is no - - -

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1472

There are none. Now at paragraphs 44 to 48 of your witness statement, you provide an analysis of the SPC role, the Senior Project Coordinator?---Yes.

PN1473

Did you talk to the occupant of the position when making that analysis?---No.

PN1474

So is it based on the PD?---It's based on the PD and my knowledge of what Mr Ozturk was doing during the time it was covering the role and before.

PN1475

So it's actually analysis of the work that Mr Ozturk was doing not specifically of the SPC position?---Yes, it is an analysis of the SPC position. You'll see there that I put some weightings in which reflect what I saw in the PD and some sense of what I see Mr Ozturk doing.

PN1476

The PD itself dated from 2001, didn't it?---Yes.

PN1477

Hadn't been updated?---I don't believe so.

PN1478

Did you inquire as to whether the role had changed since the PD was written?---I did have a discussion with Mr Ozturk about his role and it seemed in fact that the position description that I had was the incorrect one and he provided the correct one. So, yes, we did discuss what the role entailed.

PN1479

If I can take you to paragraph 46 of your witness statement. 46.3, "The SPC was required to manage multiple concurrent projects." That's also true of the Project Manager infrastructure, isn't it?---Yes, it is.

PN1480

So 46.4, the SPC was required to have skills in relationship management, "To achieve excellent work in relationships and professional credibility with client groups and their representatives, contract suppliers, peers and his or her team." It's the case, isn't it, that the Project Manager Infrastructure is required to achieve excellent working relationships with - and professional credibility with those people?---Each client group and their representatives' contract suppliers, with the exception perhaps of the contract suppliers, our program office coordinator is responsible for vendor relationships. However, I'd want the person to be able to have good relationships with everybody that he had to work with, of course.

PN1481

"Providing leadership and direction for project staff." The Project Manager Infrastructure does that, do they not?---Not leadership, no.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1482

Not leadership. If I can take you back to the position description for the Project Manager Infrastructure?---Yes.

PN1483

Does it not say they are required to lead innovatively, "to lead and manage change"?---Yes, it does.

PN1484

The SPC position description primary objective was "quality focus", I assume that's a break in the sentence rather than a focus demonstrated, "quality focus, demonstrated focus on the delivery of quality services and system solutions throughout projects which meet user expectations." You expect the Project Manager Infrastructure to have a quality focus on the delivery of quality services and system solutions?---Yes.

PN1485

"Proactively monitor project progress resolving problems wherever possible and escalating issues as required"?---Yes.

PN1486

"Prepare and maintain project planning, scoping and implementation documentation commensurate with the magnitude and complexity of the project"?---There are elements covered in the Project Manager Infrastructure that are similar.

PN1487

Does the Project Manager Infrastructure prepare and maintain project planning, scoping and implementation document?---He would produce a project plan, rather than project planning. The scope of the project will have been defined prior to it being delivered to him and yes, he will implement and provide documentation.

PN1488

And he will maintain and update that documentation during the project?---Yes.

PN1489

And you'd expect it to be commensurate with the magnitude and complexity of the project?---I'm not sure what that means, I'm sorry.

PN1490

Does the Project Manager Infrastructure operate within IT project budgets?
---Project budget for staff, yes.

PN1491

But not for hardware purchases, for example?---They will have been pre-defined and the selection made prior to it arriving with the Project Manager.

PN1492

And they would then operate within those parameters?---Yes, yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1493

They would operate within those budgets, they would liaise with the business customer, internal and external providers and management as required?---I would expect the Business Analyst, Professional Services Coordinator to do the liaison with the customer where there was an implication on the solution.

PN1494

So the Project Manager would not deal directly with the customer, and by customer we're talking about perhaps a manager in the Port Phillip Prison or a head of school in a department or a librarian, library manager, a project affected their area of work?---I think all I'd want to do was clarify what they'd mean by deal with. In terms of reporting to the project owner, the business process owner, yes, I'd expect the manager to do that. In terms of negotiating the content of the project, the solution, design, then no, that would not be that person's role.

PN1495

So they would tell that person what was going on, if that person had any - - - ?
---Report regularly, yes.

PN1496

If that person had any feedback to give it should not be given to the project manager?---That person may report back to the Project Manager. The Project Manager then take it to the process owner within IS&S which is likely to be the Business Analyst Professional Services.

PN1497

The liaison role rather than a decision making role?---Correct.

PN1498

Down to 46.10, does a Project Manager Infrastructure report project activities, schedules and progress against the target deadlines to IT management?---Yes.

PN1499

At paragraph 47 you describe the Senior Project Coordinator as "Having a high degree of autonomy, reporting directly to the Services Delivery Manager, but expected to work largely independently with management control being handled on a progress reporting basis and intervention only occurring in a crisis or by escalation from the role itself." What does "escalation from the role itself" mean? When referred up from the Project Manger, from the Senior Project Coordinator?
---We're talking about the Senior Project Coordinator role?

PN1500

Yes?---Or by escalation from the role itself.

PN1501

Yes. What do you mean by that phrase?---It's not my words. These are the words of the PD. I think - - -

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1502

You've adopted them in your witness statement, yes. What do you mean by that?
---By escalation - or in other words the person will determine that there is an issue to be escalated. I believe - - -

PN1503

So referred up by the SPC? When they see there's something, they need to consult senior management on, they'll do so?---Yes. I don't know about senior management. But escalation.

PN1504

Up the chain?---Mm.

PN1505

Now, with the exception of the reporting line, that is the Project Manager Infrastructure doesn't report directly the Services Delivery Manager, but reports to the Business Analyst, et cetera, et cetera position?---Yes.

PN1506

So there's a change of reporting line there?---Yes.

PN1507

But other than that change, that's a description of what we've just looked at in the Project Manager Infrastructure position description, is it not?---I believe that those elements that you pulled out there are duplicated in some degree. There are parts that are missing in the new Project Manager Infrastructure that exist in the Senior Project Coordinator role position description.

PN1508

In relation to autonomy and reporting relationships?---In autonomy - to that one point on 47?

PN1509

Yes, yes?---The same.

PN1510

The same. 48, "The Senior Project Coordinator role required self management including influencing and managing high IS&S strategic directions representing 10 to 15 per cent of the position"?---Mm.

PN1511

The Project Manager Infrastructure is required to exercise self management, aren't they?---Yes.

PN1512

They're required to have input in to strategic directions of the institution?---No, beyond that, everybody in the department is. I have a leadership team.

PN1513

Everybody in the department is expected to have input into IS&S strategic directions, are they not?---That's right.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1514

Yes. That's in fact something you've introduced as a culture of asking all staff to have input into strategic directions?---Yes, yes, it is.

PN1515

Now, you've said fairly clearly that you don't want the project managers to have a role in the design of projects?---I do not want - can I just rephrase my answer? I do not want the project managers to be involved in the design of the technological solution, whether that's infrastructure or application. They implement the solution. The design of the project, as I understand project management, means that they will take the requirement that is fully scoped and defined. They will then plan how they will deliver that requirement.

PN1516

So take the requirement that is fully scoped. They are not to have a role in identifying the requirements?---The requirements should come from the business process owner in every case.

PN1517

So do you recall the business process owner, a Mr McCann, I think, in one of the prison sites recently requesting that there be an upgrade of infrastructure of his site including - he wanted a server. Do you recall that proposal?---Yes, I do.

PN1518

So that was a business owner identifying their need and communicating it to IS&S?---Yes.

PN1519

And that communication in fact came to Mr Ozturk, didn't it?---I don't know if it went to Mr Ozturk first. It certainly came to me at some point.

PN1520

It was referred at some stage to Mr Ozturk, was it not, whether it was first or second?---Yes.

PN1521

Or third?---I don't know.

PN1522

You don't know that it went through Mr Ozturk at all?---I'm not aware that it went through Mr Ozturk. I am aware that it came to me eventually.

PN1523

I put it to you that in fact it came to you in the form of communication from Mr Ozturk?---Okay.

PN1524

You don't recall that?---I don't recall it, no.

PN1525

It's the case, isn't it, that requests like that may come in to IS&S in a number of different ways. People may follow a formal procedure or they may ring up someone they know or they may look up titles in the phone book and make the wrong guess about who is the person they should talk to?---Yes, that's correct.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1526

Yes. And so all of your staff would be involved in that sense in identifying a need and referring that to someone else in IS&S to follow up?---That's broadly correct, yes.

PN1527

And you'd expect your Project Manager Infrastructures to play that role as well?
---I expect them to direct inquiries to the right place in the department, certainly.

PN1528

You would expect them to exercise their initiative when they're out and about dealing with projects when they see something that might merit further inquiry, that they should draw that to your attention, or to the Business Analyst's attention or to someone's attention?---Yes.

PN1529

So they should spot gaps, as it were, as they go about their work?---That is not the purpose of the role. If they spot gaps, then, yes, and that's about how much time I'd expect anybody to spend on gap spotting and filling. Their role is to implement projects.

PN1530

But their role is not to select projects?---To select?

PN1531

Yes?---No.

PN1532

Not to approve a project?---No.

PN1533

Not to initiate or plan the implementation of a project?---Initiate in the sense that they would, for example, go to - they call the team together, the initiation of their part with the implementation, they'd pull together their project team and initiate from that point.

PN1534

When you say that a predetermined solution will be provided to a business manager - sorry, a project manager, what's the shape of that pre-determined solution, what form does it take? Give me an example, a real world example from this year?---Okay. It could take a simple request from me as manager to implement the upgrade of the outstanding 2000 PCs that operate in the operating system, Windows 2000 to Windows XP and it could contain very little more than that. Perhaps an email clarifying what I want to happen.

PN1535

So this is something we need done, the upgrade into XP?---Yes.

PN1536

I'm allocating it to - is that infrastructure or applications?---That's infrastructure project.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1537

So it's that part of software that is actually operating systems?---Yes, part of the systems software, yes.

PN1538

So that goes to infrastructure. What the project manager gets then is perhaps an email from you saying, "There's this project"?---Yes.

PN1539

Do you say, "We've got $2.8m to spend on it" or "I don't want it to exceed 100,000", or is that part of the initial proposal?---In this particular case I have not given limitations on budget for the implementation of the XP upgrade. It has to happen.

PN1540

So the predefined solution, as you describe it is in fact the problem, it's the challenge, it's not a packaged solution, "You will do this and this and this." That's actually the plan, isn't it, that you want the project manager to develop?---The projects in this case as I defined it was that I wanted PCs that were running 2000 or earlier versions of the operating system, if any exist, should be upgraded to Windows XP, and that that should be service pack 2 rather than any other version and not Windows Vista or any other particular version of the operating system.

PN1541

So that's an example of the scope of a predetermined project?---A very small project, yes.

PN1542

Now, you're aware that Mr Ozturk is the identified Customer Relations Officer for the Business Services Group?---Yes.

PN1543

And the Business Services Group is?---The Business Services Group is covered by the General Manager for the area, who is Greg Waddel and it covers departments such as our ICT department, our Information Communications and Technology department, teaching department.

PN1544

That's where they teach ITC?---Yes.

PN1545

So that includes some teaching departments, are in the Business Services Group. Is it all teaching departments?---Yes, yes.

PN1546

Have you seen Mr Ozturk's witness statement?---Yes.

PN1547

Do you have a copy with you?---I do.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1548

If you could look at Mr Ozturk's first witness statement, which is the one that starts with Personal Details. Attachment 8 to that witness statement contains two emails from Rodney Spark?---Yes.

PN1549

The first of those is dated 27 July 2006?---Yes.

PN1550

That's long before you started?---Yes.

PN1551

The second is dated 19 September 2006?---Yes.

PN1552

And that's actually still before you started, isn't it?---Yes.

PN1553

And yet it's cc'd to you?---Yes.

PN1554

So that was waiting for you when you arrived?---Correct.

PN1555

Or were you already receiving emails from - - - ?---I was already receiving some emails, yes.

PN1556

In fact, if you turn to page 2 of that email, right at the very bottom, you'll find an announcement of your imminent arrival, "Trevor Langarish to commence as the IS&S Manager from Monday, 25 September." You see that?---Yes.

PN1557

And if you turn over the page, the first paragraph on page 3 of 3, it says, "The new arrangements outlined above have been made in consultation with Trevor and are consistent with his desire to better align IS&S planning and services with the institute's strategic business goals and directions"?---Yes.

PN1558

And that you had asked for arrangements to be made for yourself and Gani, that's Mr Ozturk, to attend the next meeting of the Business Services Group?---Correct.

PN1559

Is that a fair representation of what happened, that you had been consulted?---I received this email, inasmuch as I was consulted, yes.

PN1560

So when Mr Spark said, "The arrangements outlined above have been made in consultation with Trevor", he was lying, was he?---Absolutely not, no. I see. Absolutely not.

PN1561

So had the arrangements been made in consultation with you?---Mr Spark had sent me this email and an email before saying this is what he intended to do.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1562

So you had previously been informed about it and had an opportunity to have input?---Input - I mean, I was still working, I had the job at that stage. So my input was really a matter of reading Rodney's email.

PN1563

Were you happy with what was done?---I have to be, yes.

PN1564

Now you started about a week after that email. Did you attend the Business Services Group meeting with Mr Ozturk?---Probably.

PN1565

Probably, okay. You haven't taken any steps to change that customer relations role since the restructure, have you?---In fact I have, actually, and so I intend that my leadership team will become the customer contacts, the prior contacts.

PN1566

You intend that. Have you taken any steps to actually change that role yet?---I've asked my leadership team, to put in place to nominate which of the two general managers they want to cover.

PN1567

You've not changed the customers relations role?---I've not taken the customer relations role away, correct.

PN1568

Now you said yesterday that you had to instruct Mr Ozturk not to talk to a senior manager or engineer?---Mm. I don't think I said - I used those words. What I meant was that I did not want Mr Ozturk to negotiate with general managers anything that was likely to effect my strategy or the strategy of the department that would have an implication on our policy or our budget.

PN1569

And presumably there you mean to negotiate in his capacity as PMI, not in his capacity as Secretary of the NTEU?---Certainly not his capacity as a representative of the NTEU, not at all. It really was about making sure that requirements that were going to affect the strategy of the IS&S department came through the leadership team or myself.

PN1570

And how was that instruction conveyed?---I held a meeting with Mr Ozturk.

PN1571

When?---I'm not sure if it was before Christmas or after Christmas. Some months ago.

PN1572

Some months ago?---Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1573

While he was the SPC?---Yes, yes, he would have been in that role, certainly.

PN1574

And what did you say to him?---At that point I wanted to clarify that I expected him to cover a project management role and that inasmuch I'd expect him to implement projects and not engage in developing strategies or setting expectations with business process managers, or other people in the organisation that he would provide a solution for them.

PN1575

You were conveying your expectations if you took up a project management role?---I was really asking him to concentrate his time on delivering projects. I did not want him to be engaged in developing any new strategy, any new solutions in cooperation with senior managers outside of the work of myself or my leadership team.

PN1576

And did you warn him against speaking to senior managers?---I asked him not to.

PN1577

Did you understand it to be part of his role as the SPC to speak to senior managers about such things?---About such things?

PN1578

Yes?---I don't think I had a view about the role of the SPC in talking to managers about changes in IS&S strategy and structures.

PN1579

And have you ever instructed Mr Ozturk not to speak to engineers?---No.

PN1580

If I can take you back to paragraph 46 of your witness statement. Now we looked at 46.3 through to the end of 48 and that is what you've identified as the primary elements of the old senior project coordinator role and we've agreed that they pretty much are also things that are done by the Project Manager Infrastructure. It's right, isn't it, that the main point of distinction you draw arises from those first two primary objectives that you've identified in the first two paragraphs there?
---In the main, yes.

PN1581

And you draw the distinction that you say that the Project Manager Infrastructure is not a leadership role, but a supporting role?---Yes.

PN1582

Is it not both a leadership and a supporting role?---There is leadership - there is a requirement to provide leadership to his project team. That is really about identifying the resources that he needs to deliver his project and to marshal those resources, not to line manage, but simply to allocate them a time by which they will have executed their tasks.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1583

The Senior Project Coordinator didn't line manage anyone, did they?---I beg your pardon?

PN1584

The Senior Project Coordinator didn't line manage anyone, did they?---That is correct.

PN1585

They also managed the project team that they'd gathered together to work on a particular project from time to time?---Yes, that is correct.

PN1586

The same sort of management?---I guess the only difference would be that there was a project officer working alongside the Senior Project Coordinator.

PN1587

So the Project Manager Infrastructure doesn't have the benefit of the project officers' presence?---I beg your pardon?

PN1588

Sorry. I put to you that the Project Manager Infrastructure exercises the same sort of leadership, that is, leadership of the project team during the life of the project as was exercised by the Senior Project Coordinator?---Well, I disagree on the basis that the SPC role, the Senior Project Coordinator, had a wider scope than the scope of the Project Manager Infrastructure. What I see in the Senior Project Coordinator's PD is an engagement early on in the process of the project's definition rather than the implementation of a pre defined solution.

PN1589

I'm asking you specifically about the leadership role, their relationship to other staff, supervision, management, leadership. The leadership that the SPC was required to do in relation to working with other staff is the same as the leadership done by the PMI, it's leadership within the project, is it not?---There would be components that are exactly the same, it's true. However, the Project Manager Infrastructure engages at a later stage in the process. The leadership the role provides is leadership in the implementation rather than the development of the solution.

PN1590

Well, with respect, a message saying, "We need to upgrade the operating systems on all the computers that haven't been upgraded yet, is not a very late stage in the process, is it? If the Project Manager picks it up from there, or works out who is going to be in the project team, develops a budget to bring back to you or to the Business Analyst for approval, it's not a very late stage in the process, is it?---I think it's a trivial example, but yes, that - - -

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1591

I'm sorry, but it is the example that you gave?

PN1592

MR RUSKIN: I think you raised it, Ms Gale. You raised it - - -

PN1593

MS GALE: I think not?---It is a trivial example and - but in those terms, in terms of rolling out a simple project the role of the Senior Project Coordinator would have been similar in an upgrade of an operating system, it's true.

PN1594

The direction of project staff was part of the SPC role to the extent that they could manage the project, they didn't have line management direction of staff?
---Correct, that's right.

PN1595

And nor does the PMI?---Correct.

PN1596

Well, I put it to you that the level of directing of other staff has not changed?---I think it has changed inasmuch as the position at which the Project Manager Infrastructure engages in the overall project is - - -

PN1597

So the duration in relation to a project has changed. How has the level of direction changed?---I guess the Senior Project Coordinator had a senior role within the development of the solution and his position, or the role's position talks about analysis and design, it talks about business case development, cost benefit analysis. These are the types of activities that occur right at the beginning where business process owners will identify a direction that they're trying to take and looking for a solution that might fix that.

PN1598

I'm not asking you about the business analysis at the moment. I'm not asking you about the cost benefit analysis. I'm asking you about the directing of project staff, the level of responsibility in relation to the direction of staff during the project has not changed, has it?---I guess I'm trying to make a distinction between a project and the implementation phase of the project. During the implementation phase the level of responsibility for the team has not changed.

PN1599

Are you distinguishing between a project and the implementation of a project?
---Yes.

PN1600

Isn't the project manager responsible for the full project from beginning to end?
---No, and I might just - to help clarify this, I might actually explain what happens out in commerce. Where there is a significant project involving many lines of business, we'd have a project director. The project director would engage in - - -

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1601

Sorry, out in where?---In commerce, industry.

PN1602

Okay. So you're not talking about Kangan at the moment. You're talking about other places?---Yes. I'm bringing my experience in.

PN1603

Okay?---So we might have a project director who would work alongside the business process owner to identify how the particular solution has been agreed and developed prior to implementation would be developed. That person would engage a Project Manager Infrastructure, a Project Manager Applications, somebody from facilities, whoever needs to be engaged in delivering the entire project. The role that I'm asking the PMI to cover is about implementing the IT component of a pre-defined solution.

PN1604

So if in implementing the roll out of new computers, replacement of the boxes, the example you were talking about earlier?---Yes.

PN1605

If the project stumbles across a problem with cabling or desks not being properly organised, that would require someone from facilities?---Yes.

PN1606

To get involved?---Yes.

PN1607

The Project Manager Infrastructure would not handle that as it arose during the project?---There would be a Project Manager Facilities or somebody from Facilities responsible for that part of the project. The Project Manager Infrastructure is not responsible for moving furniture or identifying rooms or anything that is outside the area of ICT.

PN1608

So you're saying that when the project is allocated to them, they are told at that time who their team is?---No, no, no.

PN1609

Can I ask you to turn to attachment 10 of your witness statement. Is it attachment 10? No, sorry, that's not what I'm looking for. Sorry, attachment 13 of your statement. These are the bits you say have been pulled out of the - well, not pulled out because that's not the approach you took. These are the roles that were in the Senior Project Coordinator position description, as you've read it, which you say are now located in either the Business Analyst position or the Senior Systems Analyst position?---Yes, yes.

PN1610

It's the case, isn't it, that a large number of those dot points are also located in the Project Manager Infrastructure position description?---Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1611

Now you've provided us with a couple of copies dating from early January of the New Information Systems and Services Structure, the explanatory document for the restructure?---Yes.

PN1612

You've pointed to some differences in the attached tables, that is, setting out the graphic representation of the structure?---Yes.

PN1613

Are there any substantive changes in the actual text of the document? Did it basically remain the same rationale for the restructure as you put forward in December?---As I put forward in December on the 21st?

PN1614

Yes?---Largely the same, yes.

PN1615

Had you put it forward on another occasion in December?---Yes, I presented the plan to the executive team of the institute.

PN1616

And when was that?---Early or - early December or late November. I can't quite remember.

PN1617

And did the executive team make any decisions upon presentation?---They endorsed my suggestion that we should go ahead with a restructure within IS&S.

PN1618

That was late November or early December, you say?---Correct.

PN1619

I notice your own position description is quite different in its structure from all of the others, is that because you didn't get to write it?---That's correct.

PN1620

It hasn't quite got the vision thing. At attachment 12 you provide some emails relating to the WBOA project?---Yes, yes.

PN1621

What is WBOA?---It's Web Based Online Application.

PN1622

Thank you. Now, the first of those indicates - is an email from Mr Ozturk to half a dozen people?---Mm.

PN1623

Stating that there is a test site URL under development which will enable people to - or as part of the process, is enabling people to apply online?---Mm.

PN1624

So that's flagging something that's coming and then the next email is later, this is at a stage when the site is operating, is it, and generating some applications that might come through to the departments as a result?---Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1625

So what is it about those two emails that you say indicates a level of involvement that the PMI would not do?---I guess what I'm demonstrating here is that Mr Ozturk was very heavily engaged in the development of the solution rather than in simply implementing it.

PN1626

He's still heavily engaged in the development of solutions, is he not, to that extent? He still advises other staff of feedback or test sites that are in operation in relation to a project?---Yes, he might ask somebody to go to a test site, yes, he might.

PN1627

And he might still gather feedback from people in response to that test?---Yes, he might.

PN1628

So really that doesn't show us anything different, does it? No.

PN1629

MR RUSKIN: Sorry, was there any answer from the witness?

PN1630

MS GALE: Sorry, was that - - -

PN1631

MR RUSKIN: Was there an answer?

PN1632

MS GALE: Was there an answer?---No, I didn't answer, no.

PN1633

Would you like to answer the question?---Does it show us anything different? Could you ask the question again, please?

PN1634

You've presented those two emails as evidence - - - ?---Yes.

PN1635

That in the Senior Project Coordinator role, Mr Ozturk did things that he doesn't do in the Project Manager Infrastructure role?---Yes.

PN1636

You've just agreed that in fact those other sort of things he might well do in the Project Manager Infrastructure role?---I agreed on the two examples that you gave me, yes.

PN1637

Yes, and those are the examples you've given in your statement, is that right?---I think that - my belief is that the two emails demonstrate a wider involvement than simply implementing a predefined solution.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1638

And I'm suggesting to you that to the extent that that is a wider involvement, that wider involvement is part of the current role?---No, it is not.

PN1639

To the extent that the Project Manager Infrastructure might now advise people that there is a test site?---I agree with that example, yes.

PN1640

Yes, which is one of the two examples you've given?---Mm.

PN1641

With the extent to which the Project Manager Infrastructure might now invite people to provide feedback on the test process?---I would agree with that one too.

PN1642

Yes, thank you. Could you turn to attachment 14 of your witness statement, which is a document called Appendix G The Project Development Process; where does that document come from?---It's pretty much based on something that I found on the internet and I've added my flavouring to it.

PN1643

There are roles under the Responsible Roles list that don't exist in your current or proposed IS invest structure, aren't there? You don't have a solutions architect, for example?---Well, the solutions architect role is covered by a range of people within my department.

PN1644

Okay, so the responsible roles might not refer to positions but to the fact that the activities are, in fact, spread across a range of positions?---If you take, for example, the solution architect example.

PN1645

Yes?---The roles that might cover it would be the specialist, the coordinators, application support and development coordinator, the senior systems analyst, the centralised infrastructure coordinator or one or two other specialists within the department.

PN1646

There was a network position that was upgraded during the filling of the new structure, wasn't there?---There was a position that was initially graded at a CSO5 that then changed to CSO6. Yes, that's correct.

PN1647

Okay, and were you happy with that change being made?---Yes, I was.

PN1648

How was it justified in terms of meeting your preferred structure?---Justified?

PN1649

Yes?---I don't put position - I don't put the numbers next to the position. I guess what happened is that the position description was published. The person who was most interested in it came and saw me and discussed the content and suggested that it could be upgraded and that - as a result of that it may well be reclassified at a higher level, and in fact it was.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1650

Now you have argued in your witness statement that the PNI position is quite different from the SPC position?--- Yes.

PN1651

You have pointed to the business analyst - analysis and budgetary responsibilities?---Yes.

PN1652

You have said there are differences in the levels of leadership, I think?---Levels and type of leadership to be provided.

PN1653

Type of leadership?---Mm mm.

PN1654

You have particularly pointed to the fact that the project manager does not play as significant a role, you say, in the early stages of scoping the project, developing the project?---Developing the project, yes.

PN1655

Okay?---If there is a project to be developed in fact.

PN1656

Would you say that the project manager infrastructure role was similar to the senior project coordinator role?---I'd say that it has components that existed in the previous position description.

PN1657

There's significant overlap, isn't there?---Yes.

PN1658

Yes, somewhere in the order of 60 to 70 per cent overlap?---My estimate is somewhere between 45 and 60 per cent.

PN1659

Okay, in relation to business analysis skills, I put it to you that there are still business analysis skills required in any project management work; they may not be the initial analysis of a project but in the ongoing implementation of a project are there not some business analysis skills required?---No. There are not.

PN1660

None at all?---No.

PN1661

No further questions, your Honour.

PN1662

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ms Gale. Mr Ruskin, is it a convenient time?

PN1663

MR RUSKIN: Yes, your Honour.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH XXN MS GALE
PN1664

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn until 2pm.

PN1665

MR RUSKIN: 2 pm?

PN1666

THE VICE PRESIDENT: 2 pm.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.53PM]
<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.53PM]
<RESUMED [1.56PM]

PN1667

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Can we recall Mr Langarish.

<TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH, RECALLED ON FORMER AFFIRMATION [1.57PM]

PN1668

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Ruskin.

PN1669

MR RUSKIN: Thank you, your Honour.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RUSKIN [1.57PM]

PN1670

MR RUSKIN: Mr Langarish, during the cross-examination this morning you were asked some questions about the meeting that was held, I think you said the unions were present, on 21 December?---Yes.

PN1671

Yes, and I think you said that staff took - asked questions; is that right?---Yes.

PN1672

Were there opportunities to take questions or did people just ask questions?---We provided an opportunity to ask questions.

PN1673

I see, and was there any consultation with staff about the structure after 21 December?---Yes, there certainly was.

PN1674

Were staff able to approach you about the proposed structure in the period from the 21st to the end of February or early February?---Absolutely, and many staff did.

PN1675

Okay. There was a mention of the telecom analyst position?---Yes.

PN1676

I think you mentioned that that position had changed in its classification?---Yes.

PN1677

You mentioned that the - a person interested in that position had a view about it; how did that person come to talk to you about it? I think you said they talked to you about it; did you approach them or did they approach you?---It was John Natschuv and he simply asked to meet with me to discuss that particular role.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1678

What did you do as a result of your discussion with him?---What came out of that discussion was his view that there were a couple of key elements that were missing from it in terms of, you know - for the department to deliver what it needed to deliver and he persuaded me that I should include some additional roles within the position description.

PN1679

You accepted those?---I did, yes.

PN1680

Was that a - what did you think of his suggestion?---I thought it was a perfectly reasonable suggestion and identified a gap in the position description.

PN1681

I see. Thank you.

PN1682

Your Honour, there was a document that - I think the first document that was given to Mr Langarish and I don't think I ever got a copy of it.

PN1683

MS GALE: No, it wasn't tendered.

PN1684

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't think it was tendered either.

PN1685

MR RUSKIN: Right, well do I need to see it and - so you won't be relying on it, of course?

PN1686

MS GALE: I'll be relying on the transcript.

PN1687

MR RUSKIN: Well, might it help if I had a look at the document, your Honour, to see if I should ask any questions about it? I'm sorry, I thought I was going to get it over lunch.

PN1688

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think in fairness it would be appropriate to provide it.

PN1689

MS GALE: I believe Mr Langarish has it?

PN1690

THE WITNESS: I now have a number of documents. There is a contextual report which was in addition.

PN1691

MS GALE: It's the document that was tabled at the 21 December meeting?

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1692

THE WITNESS: The requirements of the role of business analyst, Professional Services Incorporated versus The Sydney Project - - -

PN1693

MS GALE: No, it's the document that was tabled at the 21 December meeting, that included - in relation to the restructure. It had some handwritten - a date and time handwritten at the top of the front page?

PN1694

THE WITNESS: This one?

PN1695

MS GALE: Yes.

PN1696

MR RUSKIN: Does this bear a resemblance to a document which is in your witness statement, or is it in your witness statement?---It bears a resemblance, yes. It looks a previous version. The particular point that Ms Gale pointed to - - -

PN1697

Yes?---You'll see that there are some question marks. I believe it's on the second page towards the end, "Around consultation".

PN1698

Circles, was it?

PN1699

MS GALE: No, it's on the fourth page there.

PN1700

MR RUSKIN: Is it those? Those here, I see, yes. Thank you. No questions on that document.

PN1701

Mr Langarish, you talked during cross-examination about the leadership group?
---Yes.

PN1702

I think you used that term?---Mm mm.

PN1703

What is the leadership group; what does it do?---The leadership team, as I define them, are those people that report directly to me. Together with me we will form the leadership team of the department. So that's the five coordinators and myself, six.

PN1704

Mr Ozturk, is he a part of that?---No, he is not.

PN1705

Is the leadership team or group, was that in the previous structure?---Certainly not. No.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1706

So what implications does the establishment of the leadership group have for the operation of IS&S development?---Well, I hope that it will make it more focussed on delivering quality service. What I saw in the old structure was a very hierarchical situation where there was a second-in-charge type of position that pretty much managed about three-quarters of the department, leaving the Manager IS&S fairly separated from the everyday work of the dept. I flattened the structure to create a leadership team that will easily communicate the requirements of the leadership team to everybody within the department.

PN1707

What implication, if any, does the establishment of the leadership group have on other positions in the structure, such as the PMI position?

PN1708

MS GALE: I object. This is a leading question. Mr Langarish has answered the open question about the implications of his leadership team.

PN1709

MR RUSKIN: Are there any implications for the positions in the old - in the new structure that perform project manager responsibilities, compared to the positions in the old structure that performed some project management responsibilities?---I think the significant change is that the project managers in the new structure are no longer required to engage in the early part of a project. That is, defining whether a project is required and in its specification, taking it through to design and finalisation of solution. That requirement must have been covered off in the old structure by a range of people within that, and I'd say mainly the senior project coordinator.

PN1710

Mr Langarish, you were taken to a document which is now marked G8 during your cross-examination, which you said was a document you prepared that looked at the requirements of the role of the business analyst professional services coordinator versus the senior project coordinator role; do you remember that?
---Yes.

PN1711

I think you said something like, "I could have done better"?---Certainly.

PN1712

In what way could you have, or what did you mean by that?---Well, I guess I was asked to quickly whip up a view of how the essential selection criteria compared between the two roles, which is what I did. What I did not do is look at the specific duties and functions of the two roles and compare them.

PN1713

Are the positions different?---My view is that they are significantly different. Yes.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1714

That is between the business analyst role and the then senior project coordinator role?---Certainly that is true. Yes.

PN1715

Are there differences between the business analyst professional services coordinator and the project manager infrastructure role in the new structure?
---They're vastly different.

PN1716

Thank you. Do you have G8 in front of you, that document? That's right, yes?
---Yes.

PN1717

You will see that there is a sentence, if you go on the left side of the document?
---Yes.

PN1718

There's a sentence after the dot points which say, "The role requires"?---Yes.

PN1719

Can I take you to the second sentence. It says, "The previous role". What is that a reference to, "The previous role"?---The senior project coordinator.

PN1720

Thank you. It says," The previous role was focussed on project management". You see it says that?---Yes.

PN1721

Was it only focussed on project management?---No. The previous role, the business service - sorry, the senior project coordinator had a significant amount of business analysis, systems analysis, design and some - and a significant part of project management too.

PN1722

The next part of the sentence says, "And no business analysis experience, qualifications or skills". Is that a reference to the role or is it a reference to a person?---It's a reference to the essential selection criteria, I believe, of that role.

PN1723

The essential selection criteria of what role?---The senior project coordinator.

PN1724

If I could take you to a document in your witness statement, which is document number 9 of your witness statement. The senior project coordinator position, the primary objectives; you will see there it says in the first part:

PN1725

Management ..... leading information technology projects including aspects such as -

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1726

it says:

PN1727

- business case development, cost benefit analysis.

PN1728

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN1729

On the next page it talks about specific accountabilities?---Yes.

PN1730

It says:

PN1731

Extract, synthesise and analyse business and technical needs.

PN1732

Do you see that?---I'm sorry, Mr Ruskin, I'm just catching up. We're looking at the senior?

PN1733

Project coordinator position?--- Yes.

PN1734

Now, I've just taken you to the first page of that which says, "Primary objectives"?---Yes.

PN1735

I've taken you to business case development?---Yes.

PN1736

I've taken you to page 2:

PN1737

Extract, synthesise and analyse business and technical needs.

PN1738

?---Yes.

PN1739

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN1740

Are there differences between what is stated in the two parts of the document that I've taken you to and the role of a business analyst?---The real difference comes in the emphasis. It's the purpose of the business analyst role.

PN1741

Yes?---It is a business analyst role and they come with business skills. The role is to assist the business in identifying how their processes work, how data flows between those processes and their information requirements. That business analyst will then work with the business process owner to define whether there are gaps in their processes and if there are gaps, how a system may be developed to meet those gaps. The system may or may not be a(sic) information technology based system. The previous role is - applies to information technology solutions.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1742

Then what do you see are the - the roles described in the senior project coordinator position of, "Business case development, cost benefit analysis- - - ?
---Yes.

PN1743

- - - and extract, synthesise and analyse business technical needs". What do you say do they amount to, in terms of what the functions are?---They cover - they cover a component of business analysis inasmuch as they're looking at the business's requirements. But they actually take those business requirements and take them right the way through into implementation. The business analyst is not responsible for implementing the solution.

PN1744

Thank you. If I could take you to your witness statement to paragraph 46, when Ms Gale asked you a number of questions about, I think, 46.3?---Yes.

PN1745

Down to 46.10?---Yes.

PN1746

You talked about - and I think the focus of the questions was on that which is described for the SPC role, the senior project coordinator- - - ?---Yes.

PN1747

- - - and the role of the project manager infrastructure?---Yes.

PN1748

Do you say are there any differences between those descriptors in 46.3 to 46.10 and the responsibilities of the project manager infrastructure?---Many of those would be replicated in either the same form or slightly different form. I guess the only difference would be the point at which the project manager is engaged in the process, and it's difficult to point out those differences in those points 46.3 to 46.10.

PN1749

46.4, Relationship Management?---Yes.

PN1750

Do you require that for any other staff in IS&S?---I require all members of my department to work with our customer base, with their customers; to work with them so that they understand what it is that IS&S does and they become - they come to understand what the business owners do, whether that's a teacher or a member of the finance department. That is, the whole department needs to understand how the Institute operates. So yes, they should have good relationships with their customers.

PN1751

You were asked questions about paragraph 48 of your statement. I think it was - well, it may not have been paragraph 48. It was the discussion about managing and inputting; do you remember that? I think 48 - yes, it was 48. It says:

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1752

Required self management including influencing and managing high IS&S strategic directions.

PN1753

?---Mm mm.

PN1754

Yes. I think you said, you used the term input?---Yes.

PN1755

Is there a difference between that which is described there, "for managing high IS&S strategic directions" and your reference to input?---Clearly - what I'd want to be clear is that I developed a structure that has a leadership team, that determines IS&S's structure - strategy. That strategy is aligned with the Institute's strategy. Any changes to the strategy and our policies within that strategy, for implementing that strategy, need to come from the leadership team. I would want all members of staff within the department to understand what our strategy is and to abide by it and similarly, to understand our policies and to abide them also.

PN1756

So do you require the PMI role to manage high IS&S strategic directions?
---Certainly not.

PN1757

Mr Langarish, there were questions or an example that I thought Ms Gale had given, but I'm possibly wrong, about implementing 2000 PC - the XP project?
---Yes.

PN1758

Yes, I think you said later in questions that it was a simple project?---Yes.

PN1759

What is the size of the project; are there projects which are different sizes?
---Certainly. What I might do is have a look- give you an example that looks at the infrastructure that we're likely to change. We have a vendor coming through shortly. He's been working with our leadership team to look at consolidating our 85 servers into a much smaller number. What will come out of that, I'd imagine, is a very detailed specification and scope for a piece of work that will reduce the number of servers from 85 to, I hope, a number that is closer to 40. This is a huge and significant piece of work that I expect the infrastructure - sorry, the Manager, Infrastructure to manage. Compared to the updating of an operating system on the desktop it - well, the XP roll out is trivial. The money involved is really the money involved in hiring some relatively low skilled people to actually go out and visit the various PCs around the site to make sure that that goes smoothly. Compared to the server consolidation process which will require the engagement of some very senior people and we'd certainly, almost certainly, go outside to get some external consultation on how to achieve that best.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1760

So is the server consultation process - consolidation process, how would you describe that project in terms of its size; simple, big, small, what?---I'd say complex.

PN1761

Complex. If that is a complex program, can you describe in that program what role the PMI would play in it?---Okay.

PN1762

And at what point, if at all, the PMI would play a role?---Okay. We've already begun the initial process of looking at a project to consolidate the number of servers that we have. So the people who are engaged in that are mainly the technical experts within my leadership team. Certainly the business analyst and one or two specialists from the department who come in from time to time to give us advice about what's available. We're talking two vendors about their view about how they can assist us and we've in fact agreed to engage a company called Dell to come in and provide us some free consultancy. What will come out of that, I would imagine, would be a fairly detailed document that identifies what we have at the present, what they believe we may be - what we may need in the future and some ideas about how we go from where we are today to that position in the future. At some point or other expect one of our other vendors to come in to do a similar exercise. We'll take that forward at the leadership team, we'll make an analysis of what they're suggesting against the costs for achieving it. At some point or other we will agree what it is we want doing. At that point we'll take a - we'll create a specification for the project and hand it over to the project manager to implement. At that point we've decided the manufacturer, the number of machines, the roles that the machines will take, how they will integrate with our networks et cetera, et cetera. The role of the project manager will be to take that specification and engage the people who are needed to implement it.

PN1763

What role does the business analyst play in that?---The business analyst presently is engaged as a part of the leadership team, in looking at the requirement and how the requirement will meet the Institute's future needs, as against its strategic aims and objectives.

PN1764

Taking your understanding of the primary objectives of the SPC role?---Yes.

PN1765

Which I think you set out in paragraph 46?---Yes..

PN1766

Are you able to say what role an SPC would have played in that server consolidation process?---Yes, and in fact Mr Ozturk - - -

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1767

Rather than- - - ?---because he's been involved in a number of projects around the replacing of infrastructure in his application for both of the roles. If you look at the old structure there was a 2IC, a second in charge, reporting to the manager of IS&S. There was no business analyst role in there. There was no leadership team. His role would have been key, I would imagine, in providing some input into the development of the solution and certainly Mr Ozturk would have been engaged in vendors and talking to vendors on a regular basis about the sorts of services that they can offer and would like to offer.

PN1768

You were asked a question about the role of the customer service responsibilities that had been assigned to some staff in IS&S?---Yes.

PN1769

You said that the role had not changed as at today?---Yes.

PN1770

But you made reference to discussions that you had with the leadership team?
---Yes.

PN1771

Could you tell us what are the nature of those discussions and what, if any, impact it will have on the application?---Okay. The discussions came about as a result of my trying to update a communication to the Institute about how they should interact with the Institute. We're just about to implement a new help desk system that will let people either telephone call or put their request in through the internet, and at that point I wanted to communicate to the Institute how that might work for them, the individual users dotted about the place. I pulled together a draft that I sent out to my leadership team and the feedback that I got was that there was some confusion here and I had to agree that what we really needed to do was to pull or to clarify how you would communicate with IS&S. I think in the past my predecessor, Rodney Spark who initiated this idea, saw that there was no clear method of communicating with IS&S, except through the telephone, "I want to do this. My this that or the other is broken". Where project work was likely to be possible he saw the need for somebody to become a liaison officer. That is, "I want to do this. Who should I speak to in IS&S?" and that's how those roles were created. From here on I want people to talk with my leadership team about those types of requests so that we are aware of what is happening out in the business and what the business's requests are, in terms of their ICT requirements. If they go to other people in the department we would ask them to escalate back up to the leadership team. So we're aware that, for example, the teaching department of ICT has a need, has a problem and it needs IS&S's input into it. The leadership team will address that issue.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1772

Thank you, Mr Langarish. In cross-examination you made reference to a project officer position that was in the new structure, if I understood you correctly?---Yes, a project officer.

PN1773

I though that you - - - ?---Project officer coordinator? Yes.

PN1774

Yes?---Yes.

PN1775

Did you say whether that was in the new structure or not and is it in the new structure?---It is in the new structure, yes.

PN1776

Are there any positions, project officer or management related positions in the old structure which are not in the new structure?---There is not a project office coordinator role in the old structure. However some of the roles covered by the new role did exist in the old structure.

PN1777

I see?---Some of the functions that are presently covered by that role existed in the old structure.

PN1778

There was discussion about the WBOA project?---Yes.

PN1779

Ms Gale took you through, I think, your statement which contained some emails about the WBOA project?---Yes. Yes.

PN1780

She gave two examples that were comparable, which I think were said to be examples of what might be done by a PMI and what might have been done by the SPC?---Yes.

PN1781

You said, "Yes, that's two examples"?---Yes.

PN1782

Are there other examples that bear on the role of the PMI and the SPC?---Yes. Mr Ozturk's role in the WBOA project was significant. He worked with the general manager responsible for that area, a gentleman by the name of Ron Wilson, from the inception of the idea, right the way through its requirements gathering through design, into testing and finally into implementation. I'm aware of that.

PN1783

Sorry, that was Mr Ozturk in what role?---In the senior project coordinator role.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1784

If the WBOA project was now, would there be any differences?---There will be. In fact we're moving into the second phase, which will be looing at online enrolment rather than online application. The owner of that part of the process for IS&S and is our leadership team and in particular, Farai Savamhu, who is the business analyst.

PN1785

In describing what you said Mr Ozturk did, and you said that was in his role as senior project coordinator at the time?---Yes.

PN1786

Mr Ozturk or the occupant of the position of project manager infrastructure?
---Yes.

PN1787

Will there be any difference between what the occupant of that position does, as compared to what the occupant of the SPC did?---Yes, that's my wish. I really want the project manager infrastructure to come into the process once the solution has been defined. The feedback that I got from the team who were involved in actually developing the solution was that the requirements were not as clear as they could have been. I will want to avoid that in the future by putting the business analyst in charge to ensure that full requirements are defined before we move into the build phase, testing and then later, implementation.

PN1788

I see. You said there was a significant overlap between the responsibilities of the two positions, SPC and PMI?---Yes.

PN1789

You said there were differences of 45 to 60 per cent?---Mm mm.

PN1790

What weight do you give to those differences; in terms of proportion; what weight would you give them?---In my statement I've given a rough breakdown of what I think has been removed from the project manager infrastructure, and when I say removed, I should say it does not exist in the project manager infrastructure; and I've said something like 15 or 20 per cent of the business analysis has been removed and something like 10 per cent, I think from memory, of systems analysis; a similar proportion for solution design; a similar proportion for solutions architecture. Overall, I'd say that about 40 or 50 per cent of the role has been distributed into other roles within the department.

PN1791

What value do you give those differences?---They're very significant.

PN1792

Are they incidental?---They' re not, no. They are significant.

**** TREVOR MICHAEL LANGARISH RXN MR RUSKIN
PN1793

MS GALE: I object, your Honour. My friend is leading the witness here.

PN1794

MR RUSKIN: No further questions, your Honour.

PN1795

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you for your evidence, Mr Langarish. You can step down.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.30PM]

PN1796

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Ruskin, I didn't mark your outline of submissions, which I will.

PN1797

MR RUSKIN: I'm sorry, your Honour?

PN1798

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I didn't mark your outline of submissions.

PN1799

MR RUSKIN: Yes, your Honour, we should do that.

EXHIBIT #R2 OUTLINE OF RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS

PN1800

MR RUSKIN: I would like to call my next witness, your Honour.

PN1801

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1802

MR RUSKIN: Mr Geoffrey Mackay.

<GEOFFREY MACKAY, SWORN [2.32PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR RUSKIN

PN1803

MR RUSKIN: Mr Mackay, have you prepared a witness statement in this matter?---I have.

PN1804

Do you have the witness statement with you?---Yes.

PN1805

Or a copy of it, at least. Is it about 8 pages and dated on the last page 8 June 2007?---That's correct.

PN1806

Do you adopt the statement? Do you want to make any changes to it?---I would like to amend, if I may, number 8, the first sentence.

PN1807

Yes?---And have it deleted.

PN1808

The first sentence in paragraph 8?---Yes.

PN1809

Are there any other changes that you want to make to the document?---No.

PN1810

Do you adopt the document?---Yes.

PN1811

I will have that document marked, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #R3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY MACKAY DATED 08/06/2007

PN1812

MR RUSKIN: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, I have one series of questions, perhaps only one question, of Mr Mackay, that arises from the supplementary witness statement of Mr Ozturk.

PN1813

Do you have, Mr Mackay, something called the supplementary witness statement of Gani Ozturk?---I do.

PN1814

Yes, you will see paragraph 8 of that statement. I will just give you a moment to read it. If I could take the first sentence?---Yes.

PN1815

Do you agree with the first sentence?---I believe there were two positions, where they say, "except one", were properly declared redundant.

PN1816

Okay. Did the union representatives on the consultative committee agree that except one or two positions should be declared redundant?---That was my belief.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XN MR RUSKIN
PN1817

That was all the questions I had, your Honour.

PN1818

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Ruskin.

PN1819

Ms Gale.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE [2.36PM]

PN1820

MS GALE: Thank you, your Honour.

PN1821

Mr Mackay, do you recall that during discussions about the restructure, the union requested that special arrangements such as above award payments would be preserved through the restructure?---I do recall a request of that nature. Yes.

PN1822

But management didn't agree to that request?---That's correct.

PN1823

Do you recall a request from the union that there be a matching process rather than advertising and interviews?---No.

PN1824

You don't recall that? Do you recall any request from the union that positions shouldn't be advertised until a matching and redeployment process was completed?---My understanding is that is the agreement - - -

PN1825

I'm asking whether you recall the union- - - ?---Sorry.

PN1826

- - - putting that proposition forward?---Yes.

PN1827

You do recall that. But management didn't agree to that request either, did they?
---We agreed to follow the redeployment procedure.

PN1828

It's the case, isn't it, that some positions were advertised before a full matching and redeployment process was completed; isn't it?---Not that I'm aware of.

PN1829

Are you aware that the union - do you recall that the union requested a comprehensive joint review of the position descriptions?---I'm not aware of that request. That's what did take place.

PN1830

You're not aware of a request from the union that there should be a comprehensive joint review of the position descriptions?---That - my understanding is that took place with the union through the PFES system.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1831

So you're referring to the meeting of the PFES Committee that assessed the appropriate classification level for the position descriptions?---Yes. In that process there's a representative of the human resource department and the union and they look at all the position descriptions.

PN1832

That's the committee in accordance with clause 16 of the agreement?---If that's the clause with respect to points factoring. Clause 16 is correct.

PN1833

At 16.2.5 it talks about a Points Factor Evaluation System panel?---Yes.

PN1834

Comprised of equal representation of the Institute and the union. So that's the panel that Colin Johansen and, I think, Margaret Balsillie were participating in, in early January?---Yes.

PN1835

Are you aware of any request since that committee concluded its evaluation of the position descriptions, from the union, that there be a comprehensive joint review of the position descriptions?---No.

PN1836

Some of the position descriptions were changed, weren't they, between the time of the internal expression of interest process and advertising positions externally?
---I'm not aware of any.

PN1837

Are you aware that some positions, after the conclusion of the internal expression of interest process, were externally advertised?---Sorry, could you repeat the question?

PN1838

Are you aware that some positions, after the conclusion of the internal expression of interest process, were externally advertised?---Yes.

PN1839

But you are not aware that the position descriptions changed between that first process and the second?---No.

PN1840

Were you involved at all in the developing of the PDs?---No.

PN1841

Were you involved at all in approving of the PDs?---No.

PN1842

Are you able to tell us whether there are any other PDs at Kangan outside IS&S which are based on the Flinders University approach to position descriptions?
---No.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1843

No you can't tell us or no there are none?---If you repeat the question again I'll clarify whether it's yes.

PN1844

To your knowledge- - - ?---Yes.

PN1845

- - - are there any other position descriptions in use at Kangan, outside IS&S, that re based on the Flinders University model?---Not to my knowledge. I’m not aware of any. I'm not aware that that we even - that they were based on any - whether that was, you know, taken into account, I don't know.

PN1846

The position descriptions are quite different in their style and presentation from those generally used at Kangan, aren't they?---I'm not aware of that.

PN1847

Have you read the position descriptions?---Briefly.

PN1848

When did you first become aware of the restructure being in contemplation for IS&S?---Probably during the week prior to Christmas.

PN1849

How did you become aware- - - ?---2006.

PN1850

- - - of that. I'm sorry?---Sorry, about the week before Christmas 2006.

PN1851

How did you become aware of it?---I'm not exactly sure. It may have either been the manager or the general manager of the area handed me a copy of the proposal.

PN1852

Did you have any concern about a proposal of that magnitude being tabled 2 days before staff left for Christmas?---No. I'm never - that's happened in the past. The timing, it's done for other reasons. It's just the way it happens.

PN1853

Did you attend the meeting with staff at IS&S on 21 December?---Yes.

PN1854

Did you advise Kangan about what it needed to do, to comply with the enterprise agreement in relation to the restructure?---Yes.

PN1855

In your witness statement you say that there was consultation with staff and the NTEU in the development of the new structure. That consultation commenced on 21 December 2006; is that right?---Yes, if that was when the all staff briefing and the union were present. Yes.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1856

Then there were consultative meetings involving the union held in late February - late January and early February; is that right?---Yes.

PN1857

May I ask you to have a look at attachment 1 to your witness statement, which is the minutes of the consultative meeting held on 8 February?---Yes.

PN1858

I put it to you that it's evident from those minutes that the NTEU and management differed about how staff, and in what order staff, would be placed into new positions through the redeployment process?---I disagree with that.

PN1859

Paragraph 5 and 6 reflect an area of ongoing disagreement at that stage between the union and the management?---Yes.

PN1860

In paragraph 5 the minutes reflect that the NTEU representatives were talking about, "All staff who are redeployed or directly appointed into positions"; was that not the case?---Yes, "all staff who are redeployed or directly appointed into positions".

PN1861

Well I put it to you that the NTEU representatives were urging that there should be a matching process to find out whether more staff than simply James Hogan could be, as it says there, directly appointed into positions?--- I'm sorry, I don't read it that way.

PN1862

I put it to you that that was the content of the discussion at the meeting?---I disagree. Well, I disagree.

PN1863

I put it to you that the union representatives in the consultative process repeatedly raised the proposition of a matching between existing employees and the proposed positions in the new structure?---I'm not aware of that and if it was, it would have been recorded in the minutes.

PN1864

The minutes record every single thing that was said, do they?---They record the main areas of agreement and disagreement and if it was an issue it would have been in the minutes.

PN1865

Are there any areas of agreement- - - ?---Yes.

PN1866

- - - that are not recorded in the minutes?---No. Not that I'm aware of.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1867

Are you aware of the process that was adopted in relation to Mr Natschuv?---Yes.

PN1868

That Mr Natschuv was directly appointed into a position?---Yes.

PN1869

Was that done by agreement with the union?---Yes.

PN1870

That agreement is not reflected in the minutes, is it?---No, it's not. It was agreed later.

PN1871

It's not reflected in an minutes, is it?---I'd have to check. No, I don't believe so.

PN1872

No. So in fact there are issues of agreement that are not reflected in the minutes?
---Up until that stage everything that was agreed upon was in those minutes.

PN1873

Every single thing that was agreed upon is in those minutes?---Every item that I recall that was raised and discussed. Yes.

PN1874

Yet those minutes do not anywhere record agreement that positions other than the position of James Hogan should be redeployed?---That's correct. At that point in time that was the only exemption from the redeployment process.

PN1875

No, I'm asking you; the minutes do not record agreement that positions other than James Hogan should be redeployed?---The intent, as I understand it, was that all positions would be regarded as no longer required and would form the redeployment process, other than James Hogan's position.

PN1876

There is no positive record of that alleged agreement, is there?---It indicates what the stage approach would be and that’s my understanding of the intent.

PN1877

It records agreement about a staged approach; that's at 4A?---Yes.

PN1878

It records agreement that clause 22 of the agreement should be complied with?
---Yes.

PN1879

That's at clause B. It records agreement in relation to James Hogan being exempt from redeployment, and that's at 4C?---Yes.

PN1880

It records agreement about Colin Johansen being the departmental representative on all interview panels?---Yes.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1881

That's at D?---Yes.

PN1882

It doesn't record agreement about other positions, does it?---Not specifically, no.

PN1883

No. Can I ask you to look at clause 16 of the EBA, which is the position classification procedure?---Yes.

PN1884

At 16.1 the clause provides that:

PN1885

This is the procedure that will be used for the classification of all PACCT staff positions in the following circumstances.

PN1886

There's an exemption for short-term positions, and the circumstances when this clause applies are when a position is created?---Yes.

PN1887

When the duties and responsibilities have changed to the extent that it's considered by the incumbent or the manager that the position is no longer appropriately classified; you'd agree that those are the circumstances in which the position classification procedure comes into effect?---Yes.

PN1888

Is it right, then, that the Institute made a decision in relation to each of the proposed positions in the new classification structure as to whether they were a new position or whether the - in any particular instance, the duties and responsibilities had changed to the extent that it was not properly classified?---My understanding was that they were all new positions under the new structure.

PN1889

But then it was agreed, was it not, that Mr Hogan's position was not a new position?--- Yes.

PN1890

Mr Hogan's position had not changed to the extent that it required to be classified at a different level, or that it was not properly classified?---That's correct. It had not changed significantly.

PN1891

Was a consideration made in relation to each position in the new structure as to whether it was properly characterised as a position that had been created, that is a new position, or a significantly changed position?---I'm not aware of what the points factoring panel took into account.

PN1892

No, well this would be a decision which would have brought the position description to the attention of the points factoring panel. It would presumably have to be made by Kangan in order to decide which position descriptions were referred to the points factoring panel, would it not?---Well, the panel comprises of an NTEU representative and management and they would make that decision.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1893

So you are saying that Kangan actually referred all the position descriptions to the points factoring panel without making a prior assessment of whether they were, in fact, either a new position or a position that had changed to the extent that it required new classification?---It may have been made by a manager. It may have been made by the manager of IS&S. I'm not aware of whether you say Kangan made that decision. I didn't. That's all I can say.

PN1894

Was James Hogan's position referred to the PFES panel?---I’m not aware whether it was or not.

PN1895

Well, you have given evidence, haven't you, that each of the proposed positions went through that points factor evaluation process?---I believe all the position descriptions were given to the panel.

PN1896

You're not sure?---That's my understanding. You asked me was I sure that that - James Hogan's position wasn't given and my belief is that all the position descriptions under the new structure were given to the panel.

PN1897

Did you check the veracity of that view before you put it in your witness statement with someone who might have direct knowledge?---No.

PN1898

In relation to Mr Hogan's position, would you accept that he was effectively matched into the new position or into the position in the new structure?---My understanding is his position had not changed from when it was advertised and he was successful in obtaining that position, around September, October 2006, and both parties acknowledged that that position under the old structure was the same position under the new structure therefore he was exempt. That's my understanding.

PN1899

The position description's quite different, isn't it?---I don't know, to be honest. If management and the union - and we've got NTEU reps. in IS&S and the manager of IS&S, if they all say that it's the same, that's fine by me.

PN1900

Are you a member of the consultative committee?---Yes.

PN1901

On that committee you represent the Institute?---Yes.

PN1902

But in performing that role you don't think it's appropriate to inform yourself of the detail?---It wasn't raised as an issue and I didn't delve into it.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1903

Well, the issue of Mr Hogan's move directly into the new structure and that his position was not significantly different was raised as an issue; wasn't it?---It was raised that there was no problem with it. Not as an issue of disagreement.

PN1904

Subsequently a senior network telecom analyst position was reconfigured and points factor evaluated from five up to six and then the occupant of that position similarly made representation that it was the same or a similar position to the one they had previously occupied under the old structure?---Yes.

PN1905

Management agreed with that proposition?---Yes.

PN1906

What process was undertaken to ascertain whether the old position and the new position were as similar as was suggested?---An assessment was made by the manager, as I understand it, and that was his view and it was also the view of the NTEU.

PN1907

I suggest to you that in fact the NTEU never expressed a view in relation to that position?---I'd disagree.

PN1908

MR RUSKIN: Sorry, is that my question?---I'd disagree.

PN1909

MS GALE: I put it to the witness?---Well, I disagree with that.

PN1910

Why do you disagree with that?---Well, my recollection is Colin Johansen had reviewed it and he was of the view that the position had not significantly changed and he was in agreement with the manager on that point.

PN1911

Colin Johansen had expressed a view about the appropriate PFES'ing of the position?---It came out of the panel that it had been reassessed, as I understand it, at that higher level.

PN1912

Was that ever taken to the consultative committee?---I can't recall exactly, to be honest. It's not in the minutes of any consultative meeting but my understanding was that it was agreed.

PN1913

Is it the case then that Colin Johansen's involvement in that process was sufficient for you to believe that there had been consultation with the NTEU?---The NTEU were advised when we decided to send the letter to John Natschuv and I'd have to check whether we gave the copy, but we normally send a copy to the union as well. There was no problem with us giving John Natschuv a letter which indicated his position had not significantly changed and affirming him in that position.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1914

What criteria were used to assess the position?--- Criteria in terms of what?

PN1915

To assess the - to make the comparison between John Natschuv's old position and the new reconfigured position?--- You'd have to ask, I think, the manager of IS&S on that one.

PN1916

So HR took no interest in the matter?---Not no interest. We consider issues as they're raised and with a thousand employees we're kept fully occupied without, you know, going to what might interest us.

PN1917

Well you have given evidence that the decision was made because it was the same or a similar position to the one that he had previously occupied. You don't have any direct knowledge of that?---Could you refer me to that, please?

PN1918

Okay. Paragraph 9 of your witness statement. In the second sentence you say:

PN1919

The occupant of that position who made the representation was placed directly into it because it was the same or a similar position to the one the staff member previously occupied under the old structure.

PN1920

?---Yes.

PN1921

Now you don't have any direct knowledge that it was the same or a similar position; you are going on what other people may have decided?---He made representation to his manager and that's as I understand it.

PN1922

Did you or your staff ever check that the manager was making the right decision
?---My understanding is that the panel did look at that position description and were of that view, that it hadn't changed significantly.

PN1923

The role of the panel is to do a points factor evaluation to ascertain the appropriate classification level, is it not?---Yes.

PN1924

It's not actually the role of that panel to compare one position to anther and say whether they are the same?---No.

PN1925

No, but you would take their advice on that point?---To some extent, yes.

PN1926

Well in this case to a hundred per cent extent, is it not?---Well, I took also the advice of the manager, as I say, who also looked at it, as I understand.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1927

What did the manager advise you were the criteria that he had brought to bear?
---I'm not sure. No detail on that.

PN1928

So it was just a yes or no, "Do you think this is the right thing"?---Well, I place reliance on his integrity to make that decision, yes.

PN1929

Then at the end of that paragraph you say that, "No other issues about matching people from one position to another - - -

PN1930

MR RUSKIN: Just a minute, your Honour, that isn't what he says.

PN1931

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We are looking at paragraph 9, are we?

PN1932

MR RUSKIN: Are you looking at paragraph 9?

PN1933

MS GALE: Looking at paragraph 9.

PN1934

MR RUSKIN: Could you quote correctly what it says there?

PN1935

MS GALE: At the end of that paragraph you say, "No other issues of that kind were raised by the NTEU or Mr Ozturk". What kind of issues were not raised?
---Representation with regards to other positions that were regarded as identical to the previous structure and therefore should be exempt from the redeployment process.

PN1936

Well that's simply not true, is it?---I'm not - as far as I'm aware it's true.

PN1937

Didn't Mr Ozturk and the NTEU raise precisely that issue in relation to Mr Ozturk himself?---Could you enlighten me on when? I'm not - not prior to the 8th of February, certainly.

PN1938

So no other issues were raised prior to 8 February, is that what you meant to say
?---Well I understand now that Mr Ozturk is saying that his position he held is the same as a position under the new structure. That was some time later.

PN1939

You understood that was a view held by Mr Ozturk at the time you wrote this witness statement, didn't you?---Yes.

PN1940

Yes, so that statement there is simply incorrect, isn't it?---I - I'd have to say yes, it is.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1941

Yes?---Now that I read it. Yes. I was thinking in terms of at that time. I apologise for that.

PN1942

I put it to you that even at that time, that statement is not entirely accurate, is it?
---Well, I'd like to see evidence to suggest that.

PN1943

Isn't it the case that at the meeting on 21 December, and at the consultative committee meetings, the NTEU had proposed a matching process in preference to a spill and fill?---Well, why did they agree to what was in the minutes of the 8th, if that - - -

PN1944

I'm not asking you about that - - - ?---Well, no I don't - - -

PN1945

I'm asking you whether a proposal was ever put forward?---No.

PN1946

Can I draw your attention to your own witness statement attachment 15, which is dated 6 March which is indeed after 8 February. That's an email to your self from Ms Burke of the NTEU?---Yes.

PN1947

The second paragraph of that email notes that:

PN1948

One CSO6 was offered a suitable position in the new structure however other affected staff were not afforded the same process or opportunity.

PN1949

?---Yes.

PN1950

Do you understand that one CSO6 to be a reference to James Hogan?---I'm not sure that it is. I thought his position was CSO5 but I could be -

PN1951

Sorry?---I thought James Hogan's position was programme office coordinator CSO5.

PN1952

So what would you understand that position to refer to?---I'd have to have a look at the structure. Maybe Janet can tell us. She wrote the email. I think there's Michael Girdler was - could have been, but I'm not sure.

PN1953

Had the translation of Mr Natschuv's position from CSO5 to 6 occurred by that time, by 6 March?---Yes, I think so, by then. Yes.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1954

If I could ask you to look at attachment 20, which again is an email from Ms Burke of the NTEU to yourself and others?---Yes.

PN1955

There's a paragraph there with the dot points and immediately underneath it the point is made:

PN1956

No pattern matching of existing staff to positions was openly carried out, yet two positions were agreed to either not be redundant or directly appointed. If pattern matching had been carried out as per the redeployment procedure the whole redeployment process could have been completed by now without the staff dissatisfaction that's occurring.

PN1957

You see that?---Yes.

PN1958

Do you recall receiving that email?---Yes.

PN1959

So you were aware, were you not, that the union had been agitating for a pattern matching process to occur?---On the 22nd of March that says that but, you know, I'm not sure what that all means, to be honest.

PN1960

You're not sure what that means?---No.

PN1961

You have participated in how many restructures at Kangan?---About 20.

PN1962

You have never encountered pattern matching positions before?---No. Heard of pattern bargaining not pattern matching.

PN1963

Have you ever encountered matching of positions before?---I've considered the redeployment process in terms of what that requires, in looking at a persons skills, qualifications and experience for suitable alternative positions. Maybe you can enlighten me.

PN1964

You have never heard the expression matching of positions or matching of staff to positions, in the context of a restructure at Kangan?---I've not used that terminology before.

PN1965

Did you think to ask what it was that the union was asking of you, if you didn't understand the term?---At that point in time, no, I didn't. I knew the process we were going through and it had been agreed on the 8th of February.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1966

You'd had a meeting, hadn't you, on 20 February involving yourself, Richard Turnbull, Mr Ozturk, Ms Burke and Mr Langarish?---Yes.

PN1967

At that meeting there was discussion about whether it was appropriate to match Mr Ozturk to the business analyst position?--- I've got the word match there, that's probably - it was raised, yes.

PN1968

You do, yes. There was, it seems from your notes, a discussion about the concept of matching versus the concept of being considered for a position?--- There wasn't a lot of discussions about it. It was just a little note I wrote and I still don't understand what it means.

PN1969

So when you are negotiating with the union about a specific concern arising in the context of a dispute, you don't actually bother to find out what you are talking about?---Look, I explore things to find out what a real issue is and the real issue at that meeting was that he believed he was - that the position of business analyst professional services coordinator was a position that was about 90 per cent of what he was previously doing. That was that meeting from my recollection.

PN1970

Well, if we accept the proposition that you are unfamiliar with the concept of matching in the context of a restructure, perhaps I should put the proposition to you differently than I put it earlier. I put it to you that the NTEU argued, in the consultative committee meetings, that staff and positions should be compared old to new and an assessment made as to whether people should be moved from positions in the old structure to positions in the new structure, without the need for expressions of interest, advertising or interviews?---Well, when we wrote the letter to the seven people whose positions were no longer required, there was no mention of that prior to or when those people received those letters. As far as I was aware the process was up and running.

PN1971

That issue was raised with you specifically, was it not, in the context of the business analyst position and Mr Ozturk?---Sorry, could you repeat the question?

PN1972

The proposition that a staff member should have their position and their skills prior to the restructure compared with, measured against, if you like, the requirements of a position in the new structure, without having to go through an interview process was raised with you in relation to Mr Ozturk and the business analyst position; was it not?---Look, the - I mean, the redeployment clause is quite clear in terms of what - - -

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1973

No, I'm asking you whether the - I'm not asking you whether the union was right or not to propose such a thing?---Right.

PN1974

I'm asking you whether they did propose such a thing?---I've got the words "matched versus considered" so if that means they raised it, yes.

PN1975

Perhaps while you have got that page there, you could just read it out for us. Perhaps it's the photocopying, some of it's not entirely clear?---The whole lot?

PN1976

Yes, just briefly read through the notes verbatim?---Yes. From the top, "Janet Burke, NTEU. Gani Ozturk" under that and the meeting was held 20/02/07, Tuesday and Richard was there, Richard Turnbull and myself and as I - do you want - do I just read it verbatim as I read it?

PN1977

Yes?---Without adding to? Okay, "Redeployment clause 22(5). Basically business analyst professional services coord.", coordinate, "If no one has expressed an interest in CSO6 fits into the redeployment process. Very reasonable. Does have a bit of challenge. Believe I have met the criteria. Allows for special circumstances to be resolved. I'm here for the long term. Entitled to ask. Approximately 10 to 15 per cent different to what I'm currently doing. Matched to versus considered. Case law - if", it's embarrassing when you can't read your own writing, isn't it? "If ridiculous amount of training then that could be different. (1) breach of the EBA (2) also outside organisations. If majority of duties are the same. Richard, fundamental question, 'When you were a six you chose to go back to the five'. Janet: 'He has been paid at a six'. Richard: 'We are going to have an issue'. Janet: 'The fact is that he has been paid at a CSO6'. From Gani's estimation, 90 per cent. This was one of the roles that have changed by more than 30 per cent. Gani: 'If not ongoing, then I stepped back. Made CSO5. They dropped it down to CSO5 to allow for salary package of car'. Richard: 'You said you did not want the coord. CSO6'. Gani: 'I sat down with Richard and Rodney and you. Said it could not be made ongoing'. Janet: 'Suite of things. Salary classification et cetera'. Richard: 'I'll need to talk to Trevor about the role as to whether the position has changed significantly' ".

PN1978

Thank you, that helps. You did have that discussion with Trevor?---I didn't. I don't recall.

PN1979

You said you need to - I'm sorry, that's Richard - - - ?---That's Richard.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1980

- - - was going to go and talk to Trevor?---Yes.

PN1981

Okay.

PN1982

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Mackay, the early part of that file note, the first half to three-quarters of the page on the first page; do you recall who was speaking, who was expressing those points that were the subject of those notes that you made?---Yes, your Honour. The case was being put by Janet Burke and Gani and I was endeavouring to get down what they were actually saying so I could understand where they were coming from. Quite often I don't necessarily record what I say because I know what I say, but that was a proposition being put by Janet Burke and Gani Ozturk.

PN1983

Right down, perhaps, to the reference to Richard?---Yes.

PN1984

Yes. Thank you.

PN1985

MS GALE: Was it your intention in that meeting to find out what the union's concern was and to attempt to resolve it?---I'm just not sure on the timing of an assessment of Gani for that position. My belief, Gani was CSO5, was his substantive position and the redeployment process is not about promoting people to higher classifications. It's about looking for suitable alternative positions at the CSO5 level. If he was successful in obtaining a higher position through applying for a job and that, good luck to him. But he - our consideration was endeavouring to ensure that he was given every opportunity to be seriously considered for other CSO5 positions in that department. His belief that the position of business analyst professional services coordinator was a position that was 90 per cent close to what he was doing was his view. We recorded that and Richard Turnbull proposed to talk to Trevor to just reassure himself that that wasn't the case.

PN1986

Was it your intention in that meeting to listen to the concerns of the union and attempt to understand them, to find out if they could be resolved?---Yes.

PN1987

Yes, but you didn't try to find out what match meant?---No. Can I - better not. Don't worry. I was going to ask a question.

PN1988

The joint statement that was issued after the meeting on 8 February?---Yes.

PN1989

Was issued indicating the areas of agreement but leaving out the areas of disagreement, wasn't it?---Sorry? The joint statement to the IS&S and staff was basically the first four paragraphs of the minutes.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN1990

That's right?---With the exclusion of paragraphs 5 and 6. The union had asked that those paragraphs be left out, basically I'm not sure - maybe they didn't want all the members to know about their request and the Institute's response.

PN1991

Now that joint statement actually doesn't have any signatories, does it? It's actually just something which the parties agreed to?---Yes.

PN1992

Yes, okay?---It can go on the notice boards, it's - anywhere. The intention is to give a common view from the Institute and management about what the consultative committee has agreed upon.

PN1993

At paragraph 14 of your witness statement you record that the day - you have told us about the meeting on the 20th and helpfully read out your notes from that meeting. At paragraph 14, you record that you received an email from Ms Burke which raised a concern, in fact notified a dispute, based on the fact that Kangan had not afforded Mr Ozturk his proper entitlements by not offering to match him into the similar position of business analyst professional services coordinator. That can be found at attachment 7 to your witness statement?---Yes.

PN1994

So at that stage the union had formally notified you of the existence of a dispute about the application of the agreement?---On the 21st of February?

PN1995

Yes?---From their point of view, yes.

PN1996

Yes, and the subject matter of that dispute related to, "Not offering to match an employee into a similar position"?---Well it says, "Because of the alleged failure to(sic) Kangan to properly apply the redeployment provisions of clause 22 of the Kangan EBA.

PN1997

Yes?---Our belief was we had - - -

PN1998

Yes, I understand there was a difference of opinion as to whether the agreement had been properly applied?---Yes.

PN1999

I'm asking you about the subject matter of that difference of opinion. It related to not matching Mr Ozturk into the business analyst position?--- Yes.

PN2000

Yes. But you still didn't really know what the word match meant. Did you have, you know, a glimmering of an idea?---Well, I was more concerned if I'd have - I was more concerned if I'd have breached clause 22 of the agreement. I'd have been more concerned if I'd have, you know, if we'd have done that. He was a redeployee and he was being given consideration in accordance with the clause 22.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2001

The union was specifically saying that the breach of clause 22 was the failure to match him or to offer to match him in to a similar position. That's the specific breach that's raised there, isn't it?---Yes, and in terms of the letter that he received on the 13th of February, the other CSO5 positions which he was asked to indicate whether he was interested in being considered, were positions that we would consider him for in accordance with clause 22.

PN2002

I'm asking you whether, when you received that email on 21 February?---Yes.

PN2003

You really had no clue what the union might have meant by referring to not offering to match him into a similar position?---No.

PN2004

No. In your reply, however, on 22 February you offer to conduct an assessment to determine whether o not the higher classification is a suitable alternative position?---Yes.

PN2005

Right. I see that offer is on a without prejudice basis. It's to the question of whether the agreement had or had not been properly complied with?---Yes.

PN2006

Who was to conduct that assessment?---The manager.

PN2007

How was the assessment conducted?---From my understanding the manager did a detailed analysis of the requirements of the position and Mr Ozturk's qualifications and experience as he had detailed.

PN2008

Was Mr Ozturk interviewed in that process?---Not that I'm aware of.

PN2009

No?---No, I don't believe so.

PN2010

Are you aware of the difficulty that Mr Ozturk and the union then had in obtaining detail as to why the assessment was negative?---Sorry, what was the question again?

PN2011

Are you aware of the difficulty that Mr Ozturk and the union then had in obtaining detail from Kangan as to why that assessment was negative?---I believe that responses were made upon request and information was given to the union.

PN2012

In fact some of that information came from yourself. If you look at attachment 13 to your witness statement?---Yes.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2013

It's a rather abbreviated way of informing someone of a range of factors, is it not?
---Not really.

PN2014

When you wrote that, were you aware that point 1 in itself encompassed some 20, 22 separate elements?---No.

PN2015

You didn't actually check the meaning of what you were sending?---I knew what I was sending.

PN2016

Do you think that it is appropriate, when someone seeks information as to which - on what points they failed to meet the selection criteria - - - ?---Yes.

PN2017

Do you think it is appropriate to send them a response in this form?---It's appropriate to tell them the points and that's what I did. I can only continue to give them what they want.

PN2018

Well, I put it to you that someone with your extensive experience in HR that telling someone they do not fully comply with point 1, when point 1 is a set of competencies that runs for a whole page, has over 20 sub-points and deals with a range of generic competencies which are required for positions as low as CSO4, but to tell someone they simply - "You don't fully comply with the list', is not giving them what they want, is it?---It's a starting point that gets to recognise where we believe there is a difference of opinion and whether that's satisfied or not, time would tell.

PN2019

Well, it's not really a starting point, is it, because it was sent in response to a request from the union for a written response outlining the areas where he does not meet the requirements of the position; to ensure that he has been fairly assessed for the position. It's not a starting point?---Well, we outlined the areas. One, three, four, six, seven, 10, 11.

PN2020

Yes, and in fact the areas in the position description aren't even numbered, are they? They're a series of unnumbered dot points?---I just thought that might make it easier for both parties, if we, you know, numbered them.

PN2021

Okay. Did you yourself at any time conduct or require to be conducted by any HR staff an assessment of whether any of the positions in the new structure were substantially similar to positions in the old structure, such that people should be moved directly into those positions?--- No.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2022

You didn't do so even after the union had raised that concern through a dispute notification?---Well, I've said before my belief was that they agreed that all the positions had significantly changed, except for two. So why would I want to explore that any more? Why would I want to go to them and say, "You've agreed that these positions no longer exist and the managers are saying that" - why would I want to explore that?

PN2023

Perhaps because the union had raised the issue in a dispute?---What, on the 20 odd of February or something?

PN2024

Yes?---Later on.

PN2025

In March certainly?---Well, in March, yes. By that time, you know, the seven people that we initially gave the letter to had been - been going through the process.

PN2026

So you chose to ignore the fact that there was a dispute?---I didn't choose to ignore the dispute. I acknowledged the dispute but I chose not to agree with it, to agree with the union's point of view.

PN2027

You choose not to establish a disputes committee?---Well, if I don't believe there's a dispute, why should I?

PN2028

Isn't it the case that if the union argues the agreement means one thing and you argue the agreement means another thing, that there's actually a dispute about what the agreement means?---Well, we did - as I understand it we did meet, yes. We did form a disputes committee meeting.

PN2029

What actually happened, isn't it, is that on 8 March you responded to the union saying, "We see no need to establish a disputes committee" and in fact it was the union that formed the disputes committee on 13 March; that's what happened, isn't it?---Well, I mean, they formed it, we were there. That's what happens.

PN2030

But on 22 February and again on 8 March you simply expressed the view that you didn't see any need to establish a disputes committee, despite the fact that the union had formally raised a dispute with you?---Well, I'm looking at my email of 8 March and I didn't just say that. I had seven points leading up to that which gave my reasons why I didn't believe that there was a need to establish a disputes committee, which is the last point. But it was for those seven reasons prior to that, that I didn't believe that it was necessary. Having said that, we did participate in a disputes committee process, understanding that issues need to be resolved.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2031

So is it your view that when a union notifies you of the existence of a dispute, it's up to you to decide whether or not they are right?---No.

PN2032

Aren't you required, if the union notifies you of the existence of a dispute, to proceed to establishing a disputes committee?---After other things. There is a process within the EBA.

PN2033

The disputes committee eventually met, pursuant to that email of Janet Burke's on 13 March, and that's your attachment 17; who attended the disputes committee for the Institute?---If that was one held in the library, Colin Johansen, Brian Hughes, I think Margaret Balsillie and myself. That's as I recall.

PN2034

Well I put to you that in fact you were the only representative of the Institute present at the meeting?---Well, I put to you that if it's the meeting held in the library - sorry.

PN2035

You don't have to put it to me?---Okay.

PN2036

You can simply answer the question according to your recollection?---Sorry. According to my recollection, Margaret Balsillie, Colin Johansen and Brian Hughes were present, if its' the same meeting that I'm thinking of.

PN2037

That meeting failed to resolve the dispute?---Yes.

PN2038

Can I ask you to look at attachment 20. In the first paragraph of that email Ms Burke says:

PN2039

Although no resolution was reached at the disputes committee meeting last Thursday, you asked us to set out what we believe would resolve this dispute about how it's been handled.

PN2040

Is that your recollection of the outcome of the disputes committee meeting; that it was not resolved but you asked the union to set out what they thought might form the basis of a resolution?---Not exactly.

PN2041

In what way not exactly?---Well, my recollection was that I needed for them to tell us what the issues were, not what they believed could resolve it.

PN2042

Do you believe that this email told you what the issues were?---Yes, from their point of view.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2043

Right. Do you see that one of the issues under the subheading Appropriate Redeployment for CSO5 and CSO6 Staff, at the bottom of that first page; that one of the issues was the failure to deal with CSO6 prior to CSO5?---Is that 3 that reads, "Garni should be redeployed -

PN2044

No. At the bottom of the first page?---Right.

PN2045

The first paragraph under the heading Appropriate Redeployment. Do you see that there's a concern there that there was a failure to deal with the CSO6 positions prior to dealing with CSO5?---Where it says, "The joint statement informed staff of the process to be followed indicated clearly that CSO6 positions would be dealt with prior to CSO5"?

PN2046

"And this undertaking was subsequently breached"?---I disagree with that, but that's the recorded issue that they had. Yes.

PN2047

Yes, so you see that that is an issue?---I see that that's an issue.

PN2048

"That PDs have been developed without consultation with existing incumbents", that that is an issue?---Yes.

PN2049

"That staff have been subjected to an interview and selection process", with the union saying that that's inconsistent with the requirements of the EBA?---Yes.

PN2050

"That performance management considerations appear to have intruded"?---Yes.

PN2051

Turning the page there's a heading Withdrawal All External Advertising Positions. Do you se that it was a concern raised by the union that there had been external advertising of positions before all the redeployees at that level were redeployed?
---Yes.

PN2052

Do you see in the next paragraph a concern expressed that the requirements of the process should be fully complied with for the levels below CSO6 and CSO5?
---Yes.

PN2053

Do you see a little further down the page a heading Joint Review of PDs?---Yes.

PN2054

Do you see there that the union calls for - in the second paragraph the union expresses the concern that the PDs are inappropriately structured and should be subject to a comprehensive joint review?---Yes.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2055

You have said in your opening paragraph that your objective through the process was to iron out any issue that may have been in dispute. You haven't actually ironed out all of those issues, have you?---Probably not.

PN2056

At paragraph 7 your final sentence is, "All other positions were to go into the redeployment pool". What is the redeployment pool?---Sorry? Is this on my statement?

PN2057

Yes, sorry?---What paragraph?

PN2058

Seven?---Seven?

PN2059

At the top of page 3?---Right.

PN2060

"All other positions were to go into the redeployment pool"; do you see that?
---Yes.

PN2061

What is the redeployment pool?---All other positions, other than the two that were exempt, were regarded as no longer required and therefore they would be - go through the redeployment process, people who occupied those positions.

PN2062

Is it now the view of Kangan that people who are going through the redeployment process are in the redeployment pool?---Yes.

PN2063

You have said that Mr Ozturk does not need a motor vehicle in his new position; is that right?---Is that in my statement?

PN2064

Yes, it is, at paragraph 22?---Sorry, what sentence is that?

PN2065

Okay, yes it's starting in the fourth line, "A motor vehicle is not needed in the new position"?---Yes, that's different to what you just said, I think, but anyhow.

PN2066

Well, I'm asking you do you think that Mr Ozturk needs a motor vehicle in the position of project manager infrastructure?---Well, the position as such doesn't have a opportunity to salary sacrifice a motor vehicle and the position -

PN2067

That's not right, is it? Isn't salary sacrificing available under the enterprise agreement? Salary packing, I'm sorry. At clause 13 of the enterprise agreement:

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2068

Employees other than casuals may salary package employee benefits in lieu of their salary.

PN2069

It is, I see, at paragraph 1, "Subject to Institute policy". Is there an Institute policy that project managers infrastructure are not able to salary package a car?---My understanding from that policy is that it only applies to management positions.

PN2070

The Institute policy that is referred to in (i) restricts salary packing of cars to management positions?---That's my understanding.

PN2071

What is a management position?---A management position would be any position that is classified in terms of our management levels, which are in excess of the - both the Teachers Award and the PACT Award.

PN2072

So it relates to classification levels?---We have five classification levels for managers.

PN2073

It's only persons in those positions who are entitled to salary package a car at Kangan?---The - that's as I understand it. Yes.

PN2074

Well, are you actually confusing the general concept of salary packaging a car such as through a novated lease arrangement, with the specific arrangement at Kangan for an Institute vehicle? I suggest to you that in fact it's Institute vehicles that are generally restricted to manager positions, but that any employee can enter into a novated lease arrangement to salary package a car?---Yes. You may be right on that, yes. It's a policy not administered by HR but I mean that - that matters(sic).

PN2075

Is it the case that every manager needs a car by virtue of their position?--- Needs a car? Not as such. Not essential.

PN2076

Okay, so it's not linked to the position as such, it's linked to the classification?
---Well, the opportunity to have an Institute vehicle with the arrangements that apply, applies as I understand it only to managers.

PN2077

So the fact that Mr Ozturk's position didn't need, by virtue of the position, a motor vehicle wasn't really the issue, was it? It was that it wasn't a manager position so it wasn't appropriate for him to have a vehicle?---Didn't need it.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2078

You don't know?---Sorry.

PN2079

Okay. On 19 March you sent Mr Ozturk a letter, which is at attachment 18 of your witness statement?---That's correct.

PN2080

You say at paragraph 4 of that offer of appointment to project manager infrastructure:

PN2081

Unfortunately the opportunity to continue to package a car will not be available in this new position.

PN2082

?---That's correct.

PN2083

Now back at paragraph 22 of your witness statement you describe that letter of offer and in that description you are not quoting from the letter, you are describing the letter; you say:

PN2084

The offer did not include the continuation of the motor vehicle subsidy arrangement that he then currently enjoyed as a motor vehicle was not needed in the new position.

PN2085

?---Yes.

PN2086

That was your view?---That was my view.

PN2087

So you did consider the question of whether the vehicle was needed in the position?---Yes, and that was -

PN2088

I put it to you that in fact the vehicle was needed no more or no less as a project manager infrastructure than it would have been as a senior project coordinator?
---Sorry, what was that position again? Senior?

PN2089

Mr Ozturk's position prior to the restructure, senior project coordinator?
---Immediately prior to the restructure?

PN2090

That's right. It was not a management position either, was it?---No.

PN2091

No, so he didn't actually need the position before the restructure according - need the vehicle, I'm sorry, before the restructure, according to that measure?---That's correct.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2092

In fact it's about whether or not someone is a manager, isn't it?---Yes.

PN2093

Yes, so it's not actually about the position at all. It's not about whether someone needs to travel from campus to campus a lot or sits in an office all day. It's actually about the status of the position in the classification structure, rather than the nature of the work required?---Yes.

PN2094

Yes. In that paragraph you also refer to, "Even the CSO6 supervisor position does not require a motor vehicle". That is a reference to the position that Mr Ozturk held for 18 months in 2005 and 6 isn't it?---Yes.

PN2095

That position when he first took it up was a, I think, 12-month appointment; is that right?---That could have been the case and it was probably extended. Yes.

PN2096

At the time that he took up that appointment, Mr Ozturk had an undertaking from the Institute that if he reverted to the CSO5 position he would revert to his vehicle arrangement; didn't he?---I'm not sure that he was given an undertaking but that's what happened when he came back.

PN2097

Why is the Institute concerned to remove access to the motor vehicle arrangement now, when it has not been concerned to do so in the past?---Currently we're applying the redeployment provisions and the salary maintenance provisions of that particular clause 22.

PN2098

In paragraph 26 you say that no response was received by Mr Ozturk to the, if you like, second letter of offer, the 19 March letter - I'm sorry, the first letter of offer. You say, "No response was received by Mr Ozturk". Do you mean from Mr Ozturk?---"No response was received from him". Yes.

PN2099

"To the letter of the 19th of March", which was the first time he was offered appointment to project manager infrastructure and then a further letter was written to him on 19 April?---Yes.

PN2100

Well, it's not right that no response was received, is it?---No satisfactory response probably would have been better.

PN2101

Because Mr Ozturk did respond to that offer, didn't he?---Yes, I've got a feeling he did. Can you point me to it?

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2102

Have you seen Mr Ozturk's statement? I think you said you have?---If you could refer me to it?

PN2103

Do you have a copy with you?---I do. Is it in his original or supplement?

PN2104

It is in his original?---Yes.

PN2105

I think you will find it at attachment 5. At attachment 5 there's a brief message from yourself at the top of the page, but below that on Friday 23 March an email from Mr Ozturk to you acknowledging receipt of the offer?---?Yes.

PN2106

Expressing a concern about the negative impact of that offer on his employment?
---Yes.

PN2107

Advising you that he is considering the offer and referring you to the fact that there is a dispute between the Institute and the union in relation to the restructure and including his circumstances?---Yes.

PN2108

At paragraph 34, it's in a section where you are setting out the history of Mr Ozturk's access to a motor vehicle. At paragraph 34 you say that, "Despite the fact that an entitlement to salary package a car", and by that you are talking about an Institute vehicle arrangement, "was confined to employees in management positions, Mr Ozturk was allowed to continue to salary package a motor vehicle". It was more than just allowing him to wasn't it? There was a formal written contract to that effect?---I don't know about a contract but there was an arrangement. Yes.

PN2109

Is it a signed document that gives effect to that?---Yes.

PN2110

Yes, well, you don't think it's a contract?---Yes, it's a contract if that's what you want to call it. I'd say - I don't know. I'm not legal.

PN2111

Well, I'm asking you. You are the HR specialist?---Well, yes, I'm not a lawyer. It's an arrangement. It's agreed upon.

PN2112

It's signed?---It's signed.

PN2113

Legally enforceable?---Yes.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2114

In paragraph 35 you say that Mr Ozturk was appointed to the position of senior project coordinator. That was actually in a restructure process wasn't it; the 2001 restructure?---I'm not sure, to be honest. It escapes my memory now.

PN2115

That's okay. Paragraph 36?---Yes.

PN2116

You refer to the position of senior manager infrastructure. Do you mean project manager infrastructure?---Yes.

PN2117

Towards the end of that paragraph you explain that while he was the - I'm sorry, that if he had been offered a CSO6 position, and I presume that the conclusion applies whether it was the business analyst or any other CSO6; but if Mr Ozturk had held a CSO6 position through the latest restructure, that the Institute's view is that there would be salary maintenance apply. That salary maintenance in fact would have been an amount of approximately $200 wouldn't it?---Sorry? An amount of what?

PN2118

The difference between Mr Ozturk's current salary and the CSO6 salary would have been about $200; is that right?---I'd have to check but it wasn't a great deal of money. No. Between the top of the CSO6 and 71,474.

PN2119

There's very little indeed?---Sorry.

PN2120

There's very little indeed?---It looks to be higher, 71647.

PN2121

It does. 71647, so in fact had Mr Ozturk moved to a CSO6 position in light of his prior service at CSO6, he would have been a CSO6 Step 2. He would already be ahead of the game so there would have been no salary maintenance to be applied?---It depends whether he was put on 6.1 or 6.2.

PN2122

Yes?---If he was put on 6.1 he would be on 68,990.

PN2123

The last time he held a CSO6 he was put on 6.2, wasn't he?---I'm not sure.

PN2124

On 13 February you sent a letter to Mr Ozturk and I think you said there were seven positions in this group, so presumably to Mr Ozturk and six others. In that letter you advised that the current position, in relation to Mr Ozturk, "The current position of senior project coordinator grade 5 is redundant effective today"?
---Yes. Is that - what attachment is that, sorry?

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2125

Attachment 4?---Yes.

PN2126

Near the bottom of that page there's a list of positions that you have advised were, at that point, vacancies at CSO5?---That's correct.

PN2127

The first one, customer support coordinator, should in fact be computer support coordinator?---Going to have to have a talk to my secretary. Computer support coordinator, yes.

PN2128

You advised Mr Ozturk and, did you say seven staff altogether, on that day?---My belief is that we advised M Lawrence, M Girdler, G Ozturk, C Johansen, Peter Dempsey, Jerry Ioannou and Jo D'Mello. That's seven, yes.

PN2129

Yes. Did you yourself, or did you direct anyone in HR to make an independent assessment of whether those positions were redundant?---It had been agreed back on the 8th of February, my understanding, that those positions were no longer required and for all intents and purposes were redundant; people who held those positions, those seven.

PN2130

With respect, it's a question of law, isn't it, as to whether or not- - - ?---Well, you're the law - - -

PN2131

- - - they are redundant?---A question of - - -

PN2132

Or a question of fact?---Well - - -

PN2133

It's not a question of the opinion of people at the consultative committee?---So we should seek a lawyer every time we have a redundant situation, is that what you're suggesting?

PN2134

Should you not satisfy yourself that the positions are actually in fact redundant?
---We did. We satisfied ourselves and the manager IS&S satisfied himself and surprisingly the union satisfied themselves.

PN2135

Well, I think I've put to you that the union was not satisfied of that and you have heard evidence to that effect in these proceedings. I think we can agree to disagree on that point now?---Let's do that.

PN2136

MR RUSKIN: I'm not sure that is accurate, your Honour?---Let's do that.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2137

MS GALE: But what I'm asking you is not whether the consultative committee had reached an agreement or not. I think we've traversed that territory. It was not whether the manager of IS&S had told you his opinion. What I'm asking you is whether you yourself, or you directed anyone in HR, to make an assessment of whether the positions were actually redundant?---I had read the proposal and I had satisfied myself that they were redundant.

PN2138

You had satisfied yourself of that from reading the proposal?---Partly.

PN2139

Had you examined the position descriptions of the new positions?---Not in detail. No.

PN2140

Had you conducted any matching process or assessment of the staff and the positions prior to the restructure and the proposed positions after the restructure, to satisfy yourself whether in fact people such as James Hogan were redundant or not? I understand you didn't send a letter to James Hogan, but to satisfy yourself as to whether there were any other such circumstances in the group that you did send letters to?---With James Hogan there was agreement and therefore he was exempt.

PN2141

You didn't do that close examination in relation to the people you sent redundancy notices to?---On the basis of the agreement I moved forward in terms of the redeployment process.

PN2142

On the basis of your belief that there was an agreement?---No, on the basis - yes, on the basis of my belief that we had an agreement to move on and issue those letters to those seven people and surprise, surprise, no one complained when they received the letters.

PN2143

Well that's not quite right either, is it? You have put in evidence, in your own witness statement, that on the day he received the letter, Mr Ozturk- - - ?---Well, with the exception of Mr Ozturk.

PN2144

You have got evidence in your own witness statement that the union raised a concern on behalf of the people- - - ?---But that - can I just - sorry, can I just go back to his objection, my understanding was not about the letter - about his position being no longer required, it was about his belief that he should be considered seriously for the CSO6 position. That was his objection. In terms of the letter in essence, he seemed to - he acknowledged that he was in a redeployment process. I had no belief - I had not reason to believe that he was not satisfied with being in the redeployment process.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY XXN MS GALE
PN2145

You told him he was in the redeployment process?---Yes, but he's the sort of person that would object if he wasn't happy with that.

PN2146

He had been told by his employer that his position was redundant and given three days to lodge applications, or expressions of interest?---We're obligated under - - -

PN2147

Is he not entitled - - -

PN2148

MR RUSKIN: Is that a question? Sorry. Was that a question? You made a statement or it's a question?

PN2149

WITNESS: Could you repeat the question?

PN2150

MS GALE: Mr Ozturk had been informed by yourself, had he not, that his position was no longer required?---Yes.

PN2151

On that basis he believed himself to be, as you put it, in the redeployment pool?
---Well, I had no reason to believe that he believed otherwise, if you put it that way.

PN2152

It was in fact, was it not, when Mr Ozturk had exhausted the opportunity to move to the CSO6 position through a matching process, and when he was offered a position of project manager infrastructure, that he raised the concern that that position was in fact his existing position, to all intents and purposes?---Yes, that seems to be the sequence of events.

PN2153

No further questions, your Honour.

PN2154

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr Ruskin.

PN2155

MR RUSKIN: Your Honour, I have a few questions in re-examination.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RUSKIN [4.19PM]

PN2156

MR RUSKIN: Mr Mackay, you answered a question just before and you said it a couple of times. You stated that there was agreement - I will just get the right words, "There was an agreement that the positions were no longer required, as a result of the 8th of February meeting"?---Yes.

PN2157

There was discussion at that meeting? As a result of that meeting - sorry, as a result of that what you call agreement, what did you understand would happen pursuant to clause 22 of the agreement; where were you up to in clause 22 of the agreement?---My understanding was that we had agreed that all the positions other than the two positions that were - or one position that was no longer required at that stage, would fall into the category of receiving a letter from there, acknowledging that their existing position was no longer required and we would start at level 6 and then work down in a cascading effect. It was later agreed that we would send letters to all those in CSO6 positions and CSO5 positions and that's what happened.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY RXN MR RUSKIN
PN2158

You answered a question before and you said that is the sort of person Mr Ozturk is; could you expand what you meant by that?---Well he - he's very pedantic when it comes to the minutes of the meeting. Before they're issued, he's - he has to see the draft and - which his fair enough, but if he has an issue that's not recorded, he would have no qualms about wanting that recorded as an issue. He would be very adamant about that and we would not move forward one bit until that item was addressed.

PN2159

You described, Mr Mackay, what was to happen as a result of the meeting of 8 February?---Yes.

PN2160

You said that you believed you were up to the stage where positions had been declared redundant and no longer required, I think you said. Did the NTEU or Mr Ozturk protest to you to the effect that they were not in the redeployment process after 8 February?---There was no objection that they were in the redeployment process.

PN2161

In the minutes of 5 February - 8 February, which is attachment 5, I think, or is it attachment 1 of your statement? You were asked some questions about the exemption from the redeployment process of James Hogan; do you recall that you were asked a question about that?---Yes.

PN2162

Yes. Now, you were asked some questions about - I think you were asked a question about whether the minutes did not reflect the fact that - - - ?---John Natschuv.

PN2163

Yes, John Matches. You were asked - you said that the minutes of 8 February don't record the fact that Mr Natschuv was exempt from the process. Did the issue of the exemption of Mr Natschuv come before a consultative committee on or after that date, that you can recall?---It certainly didn't come before and whether it went to a consultative committee after, I'm not a hundred per cent sure. But I can honestly say that both the NTEU and the union agreed with the exemption of Mr Natschuv's position and that was after the 8th of February.

PN2164

Did Mr Ozturk approach you or did Mr Ozturk- I'll start again. Did Mr Ozturk or the NTEU approach you or anyone on behalf of the Kangan Batman that you know of, asking to be exempt from the redeployment process like Mr Hogan was exempt from the redeployment process as reflected in the minutes?---No.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY RXN MR RUSKIN
PN2165

In a redeployment process under the agreement, based on your understanding of how the redeployment process under this clause works, can a person after their position is no longer required be placed into a suitable alternative position - are you having a protest?

PN2166

MS GALE: Your Honour, this does not arise from the examination.

PN2167

MR RUSKIN: Well, it certainly does. There's been a lot of discussion about matters to do with matching and matters to do with how someone gets into other positions, so it certainly does arise, and there's been discussion about suitable alternative positions.

PN2168

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I will allow the question.

PN2169

MR RUSKIN: Thank you, your Honour.

PN2170

I will just start again. In a redeployment process, as you understand how it operates under the Kangan agreement, can a person be placed into a position, a new position, into a suitable alternative position, without interview?---Yes.

PN2171

Thank you. Can I take you to paragraph 9 of your statement. I think you said that that last sentence, "No other issues" - well, let's understand the sentence - the paragraph deals with the John Natschuv position being reconfigured and he was placed into it because it was the same or a similar position and you say this occurred a few days after the 8 February meeting. Then you say, "No other issues of that kind were raised by the NTEU or Mr Ozturk" and you have acknowledged that that sentence isn't correct; how would you correct it?---I would say that no other issue relating to an exemption of a position was raised by the NTEU or Mr Ozturk.

PN2172

Can I take you to paragraph 27 of your statement. It says that on that day you received an email that Mr Ozturk's position was the same position as his old position. To the effect that Mr Ozturk's position which had been offered to him on 19 March was the same position; do you see that?---That's what Janet Burke sent?

PN2173

Yes. Yes. Before that date - - - ?---Yes.

PN2174

- - - did Ms Burke, the NTEU or Mr Ozturk raise that issue, that claim, with you or anyone on behalf of Kangan, to your knowledge, before that date?---No. Not between the 13th of February and the 13th of April. Not before that date.

**** GEOFFREY MACKAY RXN MR RUSKIN
PN2175

Thank you. You say, Mr Mackay, that there was an agreement about positions no longer being required as a result of the 8 February meeting; yes?---Yes.

PN2176

You have also said that - well, in relation to that I think you said there was an exemption later for Mr - - -?---Natschuv.

PN2177

Unpronounceable name, Mr Natschuv. Sorry?---The Natschuv's trail in the Mississippi, yes.

PN2178

What would have happened if on or around 8 February there had not been an agreement? What would have happened to the redeployment process if there had not been an agreement?---If there had not been an agreement on 8 February?

PN2179

Yes, perhaps I can re-ask the question. What would you have done if there had not been, in your view, an agreement? Would you proceed with the redeployment process?---No. I would have proceeded - would have continued with the consultative process to get agreement.

PN2180

Thank you.

PN2181

No further questions, your Honour.

PN2182

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Ruskin.

PN2183

Thank you for your evidence, Mr Mackay. You may step down.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.31PM]

PN2184

MR RUSKIN: Just one matter, your Honour.

PN2185

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN2186

MR RUSKIN: I should provide further documentation. Ms Gale provided the shorter Oxford Dictionary definitions. We actually have the Macquarie Dictionary definitions and I thought that I could hand them up now, if your Honour wished?

PN2187

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN2188

MR RUSKIN: There's two of these, two pages.

PN2189

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I assume they are just extracts from the Macquarie Dictionary.

PN2190

MR RUSKIN: Yes, they are just extracts. I think off the computer, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #R4 EXTRACTS OF THE MACQUARIE DICTIONARY

PN2191

MR RUSKIN: Thank you, your Honour.

PN2192

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That is the conclusion of your evidence?

PN2193

MR RUSKIN: Yes, that is the conclusion of our case, your Honour.

PN2194

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we might just go off the record for a moment and look at a date to reconvene.

<OFF THE RECORD

PN2195

THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Commission will now adjourn this matter for final submissions, to 10 am on Friday 29 June. This matter is now adjourned.

<ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY 29 JUNE 2007 [4.53PM]