C2006/3250, Transcript of Proceedings [2007] AIRCTrans 50 (12 February 2007)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 16434-2

COMMISSIONER RAFFAELLI

C2006/3250

AUSTRALIAN LICENCED AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION, THE
AND
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
s.170LW -prereform Act - Appl’n for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)
(C2006/3250)

SYDNEY

9.38AM, TUESDAY, 30 JANUARY 2007

Continued from 29/1/2007

PN940

MS DOUST: ..... produced today, and at this stage we don't have any real expectation that he will be available. Accordingly I wish to take up Ms McKenzie's kind offer. I think from yesterday that we tendered the statement, I think which has been provided to you and the material filed by the ALAEA on the basis that we concede the correctness of the matters put about Mr Burns in, I think it's LR1 of Mr Roelandts' statement, which unfortunately hasn't yet become an exhibit. I think the - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Particularly I note paragraph 21 there was some controversy, paragraph 21 of Mr Burns as compared with Mr Roelandts' comments at paragraph 45, that is the Brisbane promise. It's a bit unclear that the Brisbane offer was a permanent position as opposed to a temporary one. But anyway what you're saying is, where there's conflict you're conceding Mr Roelandts is to be accepted, subject to his evidence and subject to you cross-examining him and being able to wind him back if that's what occurs, is that right?

MS DOUST: Well, from Ms McKenzie's point of view I think the relevant matters she identified yesterday were the matters in LR1, we're still not in a position to concede that.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, okay, what's the other one.

MS MCKENZIE: Perhaps I should clarify that position. What I said or certainly intended to say is we would not object to Mr Burns' statement being tendered on the basis it was clearly conceded that the position as set out in Mr Roelandts' affidavit and attachment LR1 as to the positions that Mr Burns had been offered was accepted. But of course it remains the position that although we don't object to it being tendered, the Commission should give it the appropriate weight having regard to the fact that Mr Burns is not available to be cross-examined and, as the Commission has observed, Mr Roelandts goes into some detail in the body of his affidavit by way of response to Mr Burns' statement, and we would of course, particularly given as Mr Roelandts is here today and will be no doubt cross-examined on his affidavit, we would be submitting in due course that his evidence should be preferred over that of Mr Burns. But we don't object to the statement being tendered notwithstanding he's not available to be cross-examined.

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

EXHIBIT #ALAEA14 STATEMENT OF DAVID ALLAN BURNS

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I raise something with you, Ms Doust, two things? One, I think these were sent but I can't find them, and that is your revised orders.

MS DOUST: Yes, I provided an amended notice in early December.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Were these unsigned and just dated November 2006, is that the ones?

MS DOUST: That's probably the case. I'm not sure whether they reached your chambers through me or ultimately my instructor.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, because it leads me to the next issue, and that is, that in the witness statements of the 6th I think, or some of the 6th, there's reference to their appeals.

MS DOUST: Yes.

THE COMMISSIONER: They launched these appeals and then the company said well, you - well, they launched their objections, and the company says well, you can't appeal it, or something like that.

MS DOUST: Yes.

THE COMMISSIONER: But when I go to your submissions - and I know that you'll probably enhance them - there's no reference to that, and the thrust of the case seems to be Qantas hasn't adequately consulted on 1 August proposals from the association and hasn't taken reasonable steps, and ought do all those four or five things. But there's this issue of, I think it's L, something to do with L.

MS DOUST: Yes, clause L in 1(d).

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Hasn't really - well, they're not really listening to much about that. Do I take it that that's not pressed?

MS DOUST: Well, I apologise if it wasn't addressed in detail in the submissions. It's probably not the most important point of the case, but it is indeed one of them, and it does give some colour to the entire process. It's clearly covered in the evidence of Mr Re, because you can see that appeals were lodged with Qantas, and subsequent correspondence from Qantas says no, not going to hear any appeals. So the evidentiary position I think on the evidence so far, I can't see that it's been varied, is that no appeals were entertained at all. And that's the simple point, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Just hold on, on that. If you're right that - these were appeals that were lodged after 4 August were they?

MS DOUST: Yes, they were. They were lodged - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that's right. And Qantas says - yes, I'm sorry.

MS DOUST: Sorry, the letter of 11 August, Commissioner, and the reference for you is SR9 to the statement of Mr Re which became ALAEA13.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, if Qantas was wrong in that and the appeal should have proceeded, what's the Commission to do, just say that? It doesn't assist their job retention does it?

MS DOUST: Well, first of all, Commissioner, you would make a finding to that effect. Secondly, what flows from that, that I think may depend upon your conclusions about the balance of the issues where it's clear that we asked - sorry, a determination to that effect is sought at order 14 of the amended notice, and in large part the issue of what to do is subsumed I think in the orders sought in 17. Now, that's about consulting and taking further reasonable steps.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MS DOUST: Now, if that succeeds we wouldn't need to be troubling Qantas with any appeal. But it's obviously an alternative position.

THE COMMISSIONER: But if you don't succeed or some of them don't succeed, but you're right about L, then the Commission might - whether this can be - the Commission might make a finding that the appeal should occur, and they would have to be within two weeks. Qantas might do it within a day and it might be, depending on when the decision is issued, it might be before 14 February, but yes.

MS DOUST: Certainly. And it probably really falls as an alternative order to 17.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MS DOUST: And I apologise, it should have been made more clear in the amended orders.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. But they are the amended orders, the ones that end with the word November?

MS DOUST: Yes.

THE COMMISSIONER: There's nothing wrong with that. I think my associate did - - -

MS DOUST: November was a month in 2006.

THE COMMISSIONER: No, that's okay.

MS DOUST: Sorry, the final paragraph before the November has 17 and subparagraphs (a)(b)(c). I'm sure we're ad idem on the document, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. No, we are.

MS DOUST: And I do apologise from the confusion that arises from having the incorrect date.

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And just again, I don't want to trouble you, but in respect of SR9, which is the appeals from the union or the association to Mr Vincent, that letter and the provisions of L, one does not need to identify what the appeal is? I mean, if it's a disciplinary thing then people appeal decisions and they say their manager was wrong and sets out particulars, that's not necessary in this process?

MS DOUST: Well, we would say not. We would say it's clear on the face of that letter and it's clear in the context of everything that was going on around it that Qantas must have been aware that there was an attempt to invoke the appeal rights contained in Part D of the redundancy agreement.

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I don't mean that. What I'm saying is an appeal body would then, if you were right, would be established and then the six individuals each, they would be at large to say look, I shouldn't be dismissed because you can use me to work down the leave, that's what would happen would it, or you can't expect me to go to Brisbane, make a job for me in Sydney? It then becomes a discussion essentially.

MS DOUST: Well, what clause L provides, Commissioner, is this. Employees who wished to continue working for Qantas and who are targeted for redundancy may appeal. It seems to me that the grounds must be at large, that must be enough to comprehend compelling personal circumstances or, alternatively, any operational style argument or any argument as to the merits of the selection of one versus another for redeployment or an alternative opportunity.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. I'm sure we'll come back to it. Yes, okay.

MS DOUST: It certainly is a company grievance procedure. Clause L doesn't directly invoke that procedure, but that's a procedure with which Qantas are familiar and which imposes some obligations on them to take steps that probably seek to - grievance applications and carry out investigations and convene a process and so on.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Ms Doust. Yes, Ms McKenzie?

MS MCKENZIE: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. Qantas has three witnesses who are to give evidence in our case in this matter, Mr Ratcliffe, Mr Roelandts and Mr Harris.

THE COMMISSIONER: In that order?

MS MCKENZIE: No. In fact, Mr Ratcliffe, Mr Harris and Mr Roelandts will be the order we'll call them. Before I call Mr Ratcliffe perhaps if I can just formally hand up the amended outline of submissions. I think it was forwarded to your chambers and to Ms Doust on Friday. And I can say that the only alteration is to paragraph 17. After we filed the original version we discovered that the contents of paragraph 17 were not quite correct so we took the step of the union that - I don't know whether the Commission wishes to mark the outline. I don't think the ALAEAs outline was marked, but it's a matter for the Commission if you wish to mark our outline.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, perhaps if it makes it easier.

EXHIBIT #ALAEA15 ALAEA SUBMISSIONS
EXHIBIT #QF3 QANTAS SUBMISSIONS

MS MCKENZIE: Thank you, Commissioner. I now call Dennis Ratcliffe.

<DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE, SWORN [9.55AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS MCKENZIE

MS MCKENZIE: Your full name is Dennis Michael Ratcliffe?---Yes.

And you are currently employed as group general manager people for Qantas engineering?---Yes.

Mr Ratcliffe, have you prepared an affidavit of the evidence that you wish to give in these proceedings?---I have.

And do you have a copy of that affidavit together with the six annexures to it with you?---I do.

Yes. And do you say that the contents of your affidavit and the annexures are to the best of your knowledge true and correct?---They are.

I tender Mr Ratcliffe's affidavit.

MS DOUST: One objection, Commissioner, and it may be something that goes without saying, it probably goes to weight, but if I could ask you, Commissioner, to look at paragraph 8 of Mr Ratcliffe's statement. He says:

In consultation with other relevant areas within Qantas, including industrial relations, a process was developed that satisfied Qantas' obligations under the relevant industrial agreement including under the EBA4.

Well, it seems to me that's a conclusion on an ultimate matter that really has to be determined either by this Commission or by a court at some stage. It's an expression of legal opinion and shouldn't be accepted by you on that basis, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I don't think - - -

MS MCKENZIE: I'm content for the Commission to take that as the opinion as Mr Ratcliffe, qualified as he is to express it, and give it the appropriate weight.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. Well, with that understanding it will be exhibit QF4.

EXHIBIT #QF4 AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS RATCLIFFE

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XN MS MCKENZIE

MS MCKENZIE: Commissioner, it may be convenient just to ask Mr Ratcliffe a couple of additional questions by way of evidence-in-chief in relation to the point that was just raised by the Commission with Ms Doust, and that will give Ms Doust an opportunity to cross-examine on that.

Mr Ratcliffe, are you aware of the provisions of Part L of clause 49 of the EBA which deals with appeal rights?---I am.

Can I ask you from your position as group general manager people in Qantas engineering, what you understand to be the nature of the obligations on Qantas caused by that provision?---The obligations are, people are targeted, I think is the word that's used in the provision of that particular clause. So where we select one person over another person to be made redundant in a group of people, that person would have a right to appeal to the company on why am I being selected ahead of another person? On this occasion all LAME positions were declared redundant. There was no one targeted for redundancy ahead of anyone else.

Are you aware of the origin of that provision and the time at which it was put into the EBA with the ALAEA?---Yes. The provisions go back some time and were originally in the awards that covered the Aircraft Industry Award, the Licensed Aircraft Engineers Award and the Transport Workers Award, and they went in initially in the late 80s and then were modified in the early 90s, and the provision was put in there for the exact purpose of ensuring that people were not unfairly targeted for a range of factors over other people and had appeal rights, and that was the provision. And there have been cases where people have been selected for redundancy in preference to others, and on those occasions we've had appeals.

Yes, thank you. I've got no further questions in-chief, Mr Ratcliffe.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Doust?

MS DOUST: Just excuse me for a moment, Commissioner, I'm just trying to find my copy of the EBA.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOUST [10.00AM]

MS DOUST: Mr Ratcliffe, the redundancy of the entire heavy maintenance operations workforce at Sydney as a result of the closure of the operation was a very serious matter for Qantas?---Yes, I agree.

Do you agree it gives rise to legal obligations on the part of Qantas?---Yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

They arise from the Workplace Relations Act?---Yes.

And from enterprise agreements to which Qantas is a party?---Yes.

You accept do you that clause 37 of, to use the shorthand, EBA4, applies in the circumstances?---I don't have the clause in front of me but - I have the clause now.

You've got clause 37, that's at Part C though?---Yes, clause 37, redundancy?

Yes. And sorry, just to be clear, when we're talking about EBA4 we're talking about the Licensed Aircraft Engineers (Qantas Airways Limited) Enterprise Agreement 4, 1998-2001, certified on 22 September 1998?---Yes, that's the document I have.

Now, do you agree that 37.2, clause 37.2 of that document obliges Qantas, where retrenchments are inevitable, to give regard to the principles of last on first off?

MS MCKENZIE: I object to that question. I mean, the agreement says what it says. If the answer is to be taken on the same basis on which Ms Doust objected a moment ago to a paragraph in Mr Ratcliffe's evidence, I would contend, ie, it's just his opinion. But if it's intended to amount to evidence of a legal nature of the legal obligations then I don't see that Mr Ratcliffe can really assist the Commission.

MS DOUST: Well, there's a couple of different things, Commissioner. There's obviously evidence that is designed to, as was the case with paragraph 8, satisfy you as a final matter of the fact of Qantas' compliance with it's obligations. That's in one category. In another category is the quite legitimate attempt to investigate with the witness Qantas' understanding of its obligations and how it took steps to carry out those obligations.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I'll allow the question. I think you're on your way somewhere and you're setting the - - -

MS DOUST: Hopefully, Commissioner.

Sorry, Mr Ratcliffe, you agree that clause 37.2 imposes on Qantas some obligations to have regard to a number of principles, among them last on first off, and consideration of employees who are approaching normal retirement age?
---Yes, it imposes an obligation to have regard for those factors.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Okay. And you agree that that obligation applied in the circumstances of the closure of heavy maintenance at Sydney Airport?---I do.

And there's also an obligation in clause 37.3 there - sorry, 37.4, to take reasonable steps to arrange or assist in obtaining suitable alternative employment for employees who would otherwise be retrenched?---Yes.

And that applies in relation to the closure of heavy maintenance at Sydney Airport doesn't it?---It does.

Now, they fall into the category of legal obligations don't they?---Yes.

In addition to those the closure gives rise to a number of moral obligations on the part of Qantas Airways doesn't it?

MS MCKENZIE: I object to that. What does that mean?

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think you should identify those, what you say are moral obligations.

MS DOUST: Well, can I ask the witness first, does he accepts there's any moral obligations on Qantas in these circumstances?

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think the objection is, well, what does moral obligation mean, being nice, being fair, being generous? I'm not critical - - -

MS DOUST: Well, with respect, I am entitled to some latitude here, and it's a matter that - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but the word moral, I'm not quite sure - Mr Ratcliffe might take a different view of moral obligations than you or Ms McKenzie or I.

MS DOUST: Well, that might well be correct, and those are matters that have to be explored, but I don't ask the question in an idle fashion and I trust that it will shortly become clear, the point for asking the question.

THE COMMISSIONER: The trouble is that if he says yes, there are moral obligations, in one way Qantas are stuck with that evidence. I'm not sure Mr Ratcliffe's in a position to say Qantas has got - I mean, one would think that Qantas acts morally, but it need not do - - -

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

MS DOUST: Well, I can assure you that it will become clear to you.

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, I'll allow the question, but I say when we get into that position we are hearing the evidence of Mr Ratcliffe largely, well, at least initially as an individual, as an employee of Qantas, not necessarily speaking for Qantas.

MS DOUST: No, that's not the area that I intend to traverse with - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, well, go ahead.

MS DOUST: Do you agree, Mr Ratcliffe, that the circumstances give rise to moral obligations on the part of Qantas?---Could you please define what you mean as moral?

Well, do you not have an understanding of what's involved in morality?---In what context?

Well, for example, the Qantas Code of Ethics exhorts its managers in performing their duties to comply with quite the highest moral standards. Do you recall that?
---Yes, I do.

Well, you take steps as a senior manager to ensure that you're familiar with Qantas policy don't you?---I do.

And you'd make sure that you understand any Qantas policy that's circulated?
---Yes.

So you have an understanding from that document don't you of what moral standards are?---In a particular context. But what is the context of, what are the morals around a redundancy situation?

Well, that's something that I wish to explore with you, Mr Ratcliffe, and I'm asking you to answer my questions, not to - your role is not to ask me questions in this, so if you just answer the questions?---Well, I don't understand your question.

Do you not understand the Qantas policy when it talks about application of the highest legal and moral and ethical standards?---I understand the policy, but the question you're asking me is a moral obligation in relation to an EBA.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

No, I didn't ask you about moral obligation in relation to an EBA, Mr Ratcliffe. Can I just ask you, can I hand you a copy of the Code of Ethics. This is the document that I asked you about before, Mr Ratcliffe?---Yes.

Do you identify it?---I've got a copy in front of me, yes.

Do you recognise it?---Yes, I do.

Did you contribute in part to the drafting of the document?---No.

You accept don't you, Qantas makes this Code of Ethics public?---Yes.

Do you accept that by doing so it invites the public to judge it according to its compliance with these standards?---Yes.

Those standards apply in relation to Qantas' dealings with it's own employees?
---Yes.

And it isn't an empty document is it? It's a document where you are accountable to the company as part of performance of your role to demonstrate Qantas' ethics to the public at large?---Yes, all employees are. All employees are.

Yes. So do I understand you to say that you have some difficulty in understanding what your obligations are under this document?---Under this document, no.

Under the Code of Conduct and Ethics?---No, no.

Do you accept that it's in the nature of moral obligations that they are of a nature that overrides for example the self interest of a party who has the obligation?
---Could you phrase that a bit - - -

If I can put it like this. If it is moral to do something it shouldn't matter that you may wish to do something else because it assists you financially for example?
---Yes, I accept that.

Equally, if it is moral to do something you should do that thing regardless of the fact that it is inconvenient to you or inexpedient?---Well, I think there are a range of factors that come into account when people are making decisions. I don't know that, you know, provided people are behaving fairly and treating people fairly I don't know that whatever you define as moral issues overrides anything else.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Well, you had a clear understanding of the moral obligations that arose out of the closure of the Sydney heavy maintenance department didn't you?

MS MCKENZIE: Well, I object to that question. Moral obligations on whom? Mr Ratcliffe personally or on Qantas, the organisation? And in any event how can any of this be possibly relevant to the case? The orders that the ALAEA are seeking are orders which go to the legal obligations imposed on Qantas under EBA. That's certainly how we've taken the draft orders. When the draft orders refer to Qantas being obliged by Part D or clause 37, we've taken it to be obliged legally, not morally.

o I don't see how this line of questioning can be relevant to the case. It's also not been any part of the ALAEAs own evidence that there has been some breach of ethics or breach of Qantas policy in the way in which the redundancy process has been conducted. So to be raising it in cross-examination when it's not been part of their case also highlights the irrelevance of the line of questioning to the matter before the Commission.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Ms Doust?

MS DOUST: Commissioner, first of all, cross-examination is at large. I'm entitled if I wish to attempt to extract parts of my case either from my own witnesses or from witnesses of my opponent who come and give evidence. Second, there's no obligation on me to foreshadow the matters about which I intend to cross-examine any witness. Thirdly, the matters that you will be considering are the reasonableness of the steps taken by Qantas, and also the approach that you should take to construing the terms of clause 37 of the EBA4 and also the terms of the agreement reached as between Qantas and the ALAEA.

Now, Qantas' own stated, publicly stated Code of Ethics and Morality is a matter that should be relevant to the consideration of how they should be construed and how their conduct should be viewed in light of those obligations. We don't say the AIRC is a moral arbiter with the force of the pontiff, but that these are matters relevant to your consideration of the conduct of Qantas along the way. I'll shortly turn to another area of the Code of Ethics which makes that even more plain.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

THE COMMISSIONER: But the focus on that word reasonable steps is reasonable in the, I think in the view of the ordinary man or woman in the street, and it really doesn't matter. We're not looking at reasonable for Qantas and therefore let's look at its policies. We don't care about Qantas' policies and we don't care about the ALAEAs policies. It's whether or not they're reasonable steps.

MS DOUST: Well, with respect, Commissioner - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Has Qantas taken reasonable steps? And I'm not sure that if you're saying, well, the reasonable steps can only be matched against its own Code of Ethics - well, you might say that - or the reasonable steps, the ones that the Commission would think is reasonable?

MS DOUST: Well, with respect, Commissioner, it is ultimately the ones that the Commission considers reasonable, but its judgment as to what is reasonable doesn't take place in a vacuum, it takes place giving consideration to a whole number of matters that we'll draw to your attention ultimately. What we say is, at the very least the publicly stated position of Qantas has got to be one factor that you are entitled to take into account to determining what's reasonable in the circumstances.

Their resources for example is one factor that you're entitled to take into account. The history of the matter is something you're entitled to take into account in determining what are reasonable steps. It's a very broad discretion that you have in considering what steps are reasonable, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I'll allow the question, but I'm a bit sceptical about how it will assist us in the end. But anyway just proceed. Continue with the questions, Ms Doust.

MS DOUST: Mr Ratcliffe, would you agree that one example of a moral obligation that Qantas might have arising out of a process of retrenchment and redeployment would be to stand by the promises that it makes to members of its staff?---Promises in what context?

Well, do you say that if Qantas makes promises in some context it's not bound to comply with them but that it is in others?---If understandings are given to people then there would be an obligation I believe, yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

And you accept that comes under this category of moral obligations doesn't it?
---I mean, you're asking me to really comment about moral obligations. My personal view is that if people have been given an understanding on an issue then that should be honoured.

Yes. So if for example an employee had received a letter saying that you will be offered a position in Sydney ACS and we'll be in contact with you in the next couple of days to speak to you about that, that's something that Qantas should follow through on?---If the offer was a genuine offer, yes, I believe so, yes.

In what circumstances are you aware that any Qantas manager would communicate with an employee in those terms and not be genuine?---Well, there could be a mistake in that the person was never intended to get an offer and it could be an administrative error that was made, that would be one example.

Are you aware of any of those sorts of instances in this particular matter?
---Nothing that comes to mind but, you know, we were dealing with a lot of people and there were a lot of offers that were going out to various people at various times.

Do you think it's likely that someone in Qantas might make a mistake in communicating with an employee the result of their grievance?---It could be possible.

That they might mistakenly say this is the outcome of your grievance, and that would be wrong?---Yes, that could happen.

Now, in terms of the Qantas Code of Conduct and Ethics, that obliges you as a manager to meet Qantas' legal obligations does it, it requires more than that?---I think if you're referring to 2.1 of the Code of Conduct it says employees and a whole lot of people must conduct Qantas operations in keeping with the highest legal, moral and ethical standards.

So it's the highest legal standards?---Yes.

And that connotes something more than just making sure that you meet your legal obligations doesn't it?---I'm not sure what that question means.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I don't think that's right. I don't know what the word highest legal means. It's either legal or it's not, but anyway, I didn't know there was a grade.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

MS DOUST: Well, what does that mean, Mr Ratcliffe, what does compliance with the highest legal standards mean?---I didn't draft the policy and I couldn't comment on what he person who drafted the policy meant by that.

Well, when did it become apparent to you that you didn't understand this part of Qantas' policy?---Well, I understand that - - -

MS MCKENZIE: I object to that. The question was not what does he understand? The question was what does it mean? And he said he didn't draft the policy, he doesn't know what it means.

MS DOUST: What do you understand by that term, the highest legal standards, Mr Ratcliffe?---It means, in my view, meeting in full obligations imposed upon one.

And does that give any operation to the word highest in that context, do you know?---I don't understand that.

You don't understand the word highest in that context?---Well, I don't understand the context of what the question is.

Well, does it assist you just to go down to clause 2.3.2 to read what's written there, talking about acting in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the law?---Yes.

Does that assist you to understand highest in the context above?---Yes. As I said previously, meeting the obligations in full is what I understand that to be, but that's my understanding.

Well, all right. Do you agree with me that by that obligation in 2.3.2 about compliance with the spirit of the law, that it's something additional to your obligations?---I don't know that it adds any additional obligations. I think my personal view is that it means that you meet in full the obligations.

As opposed to meeting them in part do you mean?---What I've said it means, meeting them in full.

So just going to clause 37.2 of the agreement, do you have any understanding about what the spirit of that particular provision is?---That we would have regard for the principles outlined in 37.2.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

And that's all?---That we would have regard - I mean, I'm reading what's in front of me, and it says regard will be given to the principles, and then there are a number of principles.

And I asked you about the spirit of that provision. There's not something more that you understand to be the spirit?---I don't understand that question.

About the spirit of the provision?---Well, can you tell me what the spirit of the provision is?

Well, I'm asking you, having regard to your obligation to act in compliance with the spirit of the law?---Look, I'm just a simple soul and I can only read what's in front of me, and I abide with what's written in front of me.

Well, Mr Ratcliffe, I applaud your humility, but as group general manager people you are one of the most senior positions in Qantas aren't you?---Some people might think that.

And Code of Conduct stuff is absolutely central to that role of people management?---The difficulty I have understanding this is that you're asking me to define the spirit in the context of a particular set of principles, and I just don't understand what you're seeking from me.

I'm just saying to you, in response to your suggestion, Mr Ratcliffe, about being a simple soul, that in fact this particular stuff, Code of Conduct, is absolutely central to that area of people management?---Well, in my hierarchy there are policy issues that the company has and there are documents such as an EBA which has some legal standing, and in interpreting the obligations upon the company I'm looking at the principles that are laid out in 37.2, and I believe my - - -

Sorry, Mr Ratcliffe, can I just stop you there. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to shorten the process. Now, look, this Code of Conduct, that's central to people, which is the area you manage, or human resources, that's effectively what it is isn't it?---It's a policy that applies across the company and, as it's stated in the policy, to be observed when conducting all operations of the company, not just people.

But as a person who has got senior management responsibilities in this area of people, this is one of the key parts of your role isn't it?---It's a part of my role, yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

And so what I'd suggest to you, I suggest to you that you might be a little bit better than you let on about understanding what's meant by the spirit of the law in this Code of Conduct?---In what context?

Well, the context is, I'm suggesting to you now that you might be better at understanding what is meant by this reference to the spirit of the law than you indicated previously?---I understand what last on, first off means, Commissioner, I understand what the second point is, although there is no such thing as a normal retirement age these days, but I do understand that, and I do understand about preference of re-employment to retrenched employees. Now, something to do with spirit, with all of that, I'm not understanding the question.

Well, does it assist you to understand the spirit of clause 37 if I direct your attention up to clause 37.1.1?---Yes.

It does assist you?---I'd direct you to 37.1.1, and I understand that there's a provision there relating to job security.

And that's that Qantas recognises the association's concerns about job security and will seek to ensure job security is maintained?---Yes, wherever possible.

Do you accept that we might, say, look at that and say that that's the spirit of clause 37?

MS MCKENZIE: Well, I object to this line of questioning on the grounds of relevance. The agreement means - it says what it says, and at the end of the day it's a matter for the Commission. To the extent that interpreting the agreement is relevant to the determination of the issues which are in dispute, that's a matter for the Commission ultimately and not for any of the witnesses. In any event, as I said before, grounds of relevance, how any of this line of questioning can be relevant to the orders which are being sought by the ALAEA and the issues which they have themselves put in dispute in this matter. And whilst Ms Doust is entitled to cross-examine on whatever she likes, it is subject to a requirement that it be relevant to the issues in the proceedings. And it's difficult to see how this line of questioning can be relevant to the issues in the proceedings.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MS DOUST: I'm happy to move on to the next question.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Mr Ratcliffe, would you agree that if no regard was had to the principles of last on, first off, or consideration of employees approaching normal retirement age, that that would not be consistent with the letter of clause 37.2?---Yes.

And nor would it be consistent with the spirit of clause 37.7 to the extent that you can understand the spirit of that clause?---Well, I don't know the context of spirit so I can't give an answer to that.

All right. Now, clause 37.3 just below that, says "Where practicable retraining opportunities will be provided to employees declared redundant." Now, in your view it's correct isn't it that that imposes obligations on Qantas in these circumstances?---Correct.

And again do you have any sense of the spirit of that clause?---My understanding of that clause is that where a position is redundant and there are alternative positions for which a person had no skills or competency then there was, where practicable, an obligation to retrain people for another role different to the role that they'd been made redundant from.

Can I ask you this? Would you agree that complying with the spirit of that clause would oblige Qantas to give real and substantial consideration to the training to be offered to redundant employees?---I'm struggling with this spirit. My understanding is that wherever it is practicable and possible and people have moved to different roles as a result of redundancy we would give retraining to people.

Sorry, can I just put my question again because you seem to be answering something else. Would you agree that compliance with the spirit of this clause would oblige Qantas to give real and substantial consideration to the training that could be offered to redundant employees?---Retraining opportunities, yes.

And that might include further licence training?---Not in my view. That is additional training. In my view that is not retraining.

Sorry, when you use this distinction between additional training and retraining does that distinction derive from the enterprise agreement?---That derives from my understanding of what was meant when that provision was put into what used to be the award and now the EBA.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Can I just ask you to follow that up, Mr Ratcliffe. Can you give an example in the circumstances of the closure of Sydney heavy maintenance as to what might constitute retraining as opposed to the licence training?---If a person was to apply for a position in, say, cabin crew for instance, and take up a position as a flight attendant, then retraining in the skills and competencies of being a flight attendant would be given to that person.

So you're saying that clause 37.3 is intended to impose obligations on Qantas to consider training people into a different trade or stream, but wouldn't involve a top up of their skills in their own area?---Where positions are redundant and there are no opportunities for people within their own particular trade stream, and they had applied for other positions for which they were currently not fully skilled, then there will be an obligation on the company where practicable to give additional training to meet the required standard for another position.

So for example, what, being a pilot, would that come into retraining?---I think it would be highly unlikely that people who have not got the basic qualifications for a pilot could be retrained to be a pilot.

Well, you see, it just strikes me, Mr Ratcliffe - - -?---It would not be practicable.

Right. It just strikes me that the most practicable retraining opportunities in the event of redundancy would be to provide people with skills that might allow them to move into a different area within their own expertise, wouldn't you agree?---If there were vacancies, yes.

So do you accept then that 37.3 might cover that sort of training?---It could, yes.

So doesn't that then - doesn't your answer then really mean that your answer before about further licence training should perhaps be reviewed now?---No. Where people are seeking additional training and there are no job opportunities at the end of that training, I don't think that is practicable.

Yes. Now, just going to, I think it's DR4 to your agreement - sorry, to your affidavit, Mr Ratcliffe?---Yes.

Do you have that annexure there?---DR4, that's the agreement with the ALAEA, is that one?

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Yes?---Yes.

Were you involved in negotiating that document?---I was involved in the negotiations, yes.

Do you accept that this document imposes legal obligations on Qantas?---To the extent that the document is an agreed position between Qantas and the ALAEA, yes.

Well, could I just ask you to clarify, when you say to the extent, do you mean that there is some qualifications to the nature of the legal obligation?---Well, it's an agreement freely entered into by the parties, and there are obligations on the parties to abide by the agreement.

And you accept they're legal obligations?---I'm not a lawyer so I'm not qualified to comment about the legality.

Now, see at 4(a) which talks about training in accordance with the redundancy agreement may be offered to redeployees to address skills deficits?---Yes.

Now, does the letter of that clause in your view impose any obligations on Qantas?---Yes, in the context that I outlined earlier in my evidence.

Sorry, which context is that?---That if people are applying for positions for which they have a deficit then there is an obligation on the company to provide training in that context.

And if it was the case that Qantas officers responsible for assessing any person's application for a redeployment position gave no consideration at all to offering retraining for any employee, do you agree that that would be in breach of this clause?---If that happened, yes.

Just taking you further down that agreement, Mr Ratcliffe, to clause 7, do you accept that that clause imposes any legal obligations on Qantas?

MS MCKENZIE: I object to the question. He's already answered in relation to the clause. It's either a legal - if either imposes legal obligations or it doesn't, and Mr Ratcliffe is not a lawyer, he's not able to determine the legal effect of it.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

MS DOUST: He's a very senior person in Qantas and he's their flagship witness.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you might ask him what he thinks 7 means, but I don't know, but I don't know the word legal obligations is correct. But proceed, Ms Doust.

MS DOUST: You accept I think that Qantas has obligations arising from that clause, Mr Ratcliffe?---Yes.

Now, would you agree that compliance with that clause obliges Qantas to give sympathetic consideration to the extreme personal circumstances of any employee affected by the closure of Sydney heavy maintenance?---The context of that clause is in the operation of this agreement which is about the waiving of the 90 day rule, and the context in my view of point 7 related to, should there be people who have circumstances which arose as a result of them taking a transfer, then we would on a case by case basis look at those individuals.

And that means doesn't it - I'm just not sure that there's any difference between what I put to you and what you accepted, Mr Ratcliffe. That means doesn't it that Qantas have an obligation under this agreement to give sympathetic consideration to the extreme personal circumstances of any employee affected by the closure?
---No.

No?---No.

Well, what do you say clause 7 means then, Mr Ratcliffe?---It means that if a person took a position interstate under the provisions of the EBA, within 90 days they could say this is not working out, I want to move back to Sydney. This agreement was entered into to waive that rule. Point 7 was a provision that said if an individual had extreme circumstances they could bring them forward and the company and the ALAEA would review those particular circumstances.

And did that occur in any case to your knowledge?---Of people transferring interstate, not to my knowledge.

So is it correct then to say that you say that in clause 7 the reference to this arrangement refers only to the issues of the waiver of the 90 day deal, as it were?
---Yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

You see, what I want to suggest to you is that in the negotiations for this agreement there were some pivotal elements or terms of the deal.

MS MCKENZIE: Well, I object to that question. There's been absolutely no evidence in-chief from the ALAEA about the negotiation of this agreement.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MS DOUST: Sorry, you were involved in the negotiations, Mr Ratcliffe?---To some degree. I wasn't directly involved but I was involved in a management discussion about the document.

Were you the person who had the yay or nay as to whether or not this agreement would be entered into?---No.

Who had that call to that?---It was senior management.

And who would that be?---At an executive general management level.

And was that someone that you were answerable to?---Yes.

And so you were the person that conveyed this agreement to them?---No.

Who was?---It would have been the industrial relations department.

Who was the executive manager who made the final decision on this?---It would have been I think probably Mr Brown and Mr Cox. They would have been consulted on the agreement.

You had a responsibility after - do you recognise that signature at the bottom of the document?---No, I don't.

Now, you were responsible after this agreement was entered into for ultimate oversight of the retrenchment and redeployment process weren't you?---I was.

You understood didn't you from the terms of this document that there were some key concessions by Qantas, some key concessions by the ALAEA in it, didn't you?---Are you referring to this one page agreement?

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Yes?---Yes, that's correct.

And this is correct isn't it; the key concession by Qantas was the promise to invite expressions of interest from LAMEs in line maintenance all around Australia and then open up those positions for Sydney heavy maintenance employees?---The obligation on the company I believe is contained in point 2.

And the trade off was the waiver by the ALAEA of that, the 90 day, if I can call it an opt out provision? Do you accept that characterisation of that particular clause?---Yes.

Now, when the closure of Sydney heavy maintenance was announced, is it right that some funding decisions were made by Qantas?---I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

Did Qantas not have to make some decisions about the money that it dedicated to dealing with the process of retrenchment and redeployment?---Yes, there was a - obviously there was the obligations that Qantas had under the redundancy provisions for employees had to be funded.

And so a budget was set?---There were provisions put aside for ensuring that all obligations that Qantas had under the EBA were met.

One of the decisions that was made I suggest was, I think there was the allocation of $94 million to deal with any industrial issues arising from the closure?---I have no knowledge of that.

Well, if I can take you to the document that you have annexed at DR5, just taking you to page 3 of that document. Sorry, just remind me, are these your notes?
---No, they're not.

They're someone else's notes?---Yes.

There is a reference at the first page - sorry, just remind me, did you attend this meeting?---Yes. Are we on page 3?

Well, no. I'm just taking you to the first page. The DR on the first page, that's you isn't it?---Yes.

Okay. Taking you to the third page, do you see there's a reference there under PC, 94 million budget for IR trouble?---Yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Now, does that assist you to recall that comment being made in that meeting?
---Well, I don't specifically recall Mr Cousins making that comment, but if he did it was recorded.

And it's the case isn't it that no one from Qantas came back at that stage and disputed that?---I'm not sure, I can't recall Mr Cousins and the context in which that was - that statement was made.

So you don't recall that statement having been made by Mr Cousins?---I can't recollect that particular. I mean, we had a lot of meetings and I don't recall every particular statement that was made in all the meetings. I'm not - - -

Mr Ratcliffe, do you deny that Qantas allocated $94 million towards - - -?---I have no knowledge of a figure of $94 million.

Do you deny that Qantas allocated money for dealing with any industrial trouble that arose out of the closure of Sydney heavy maintenance?---There was a budget to meet the obligations under the award and EBA.

What was that budget?---That was for redundancy payments.

And for what amount?---It would depend upon who took redundancy and at what stage they took redundancy, but it was fully provisioned.

Well, Mr Ratcliffe, I'm asking about figures, about numbers. I suggested 94 million. Are you saying that 94 million is wrong?---I'm saying that I have no knowledge of that 94 million.

Mr Ratcliffe, what was the amount of the budget allocated by Qantas to deal with industrial issues arising out of the closure of Sydney heavy maintenance?---I don't have knowledge of that.

MS MCKENZIE: I object to the question, he's already answered it, and how can it be possibly relevant in any event?

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, he said he doesn't know doesn't he?

MS DOUST: Well, with respect, that's not what I'm instructed.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

THE COMMISSIONER: What, you're instructed that he does know?

MS DOUST: Yes.

MS MCKENZIE: Well, there's been no evidence called about this, and this is the difficulty. You can't make your case through cross-examination when there's been no evidentiary foundation in your own case which I could deal with.

MS DOUST: I am entitled to put propositions to a witness and - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: And he's entitled to say no, and he says he doesn't know the amount. He says there was provision, it was for redundancy payments.

MS DOUST: Well, with respect, Commissioner, his responses were not quite attending to my question. He said he had no knowledge of the 94 million, and then he said an amount was allocated.

THE COMMISSIONER: But anyhow what's the point of all of this?

MS DOUST: Well, it's something that, with respect, I'm entitled to explore.

THE COMMISSIONER: But how does it go to whether they were treated fairly or whether Qantas consulted or whether Qantas allowed an appeal, what does it matter how much they allocated?

MS DOUST: Well, reasonable steps. You might have regard to the amount of money budgeted and expended in relation to - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't think that can be answer. An employer would then just not allocate anything and say, well, it's not reasonable for me to do anything for these people. No Commission would accept that.

MS DOUST: In our response that wouldn't be - sorry, in our submission that wouldn't be a final answer to any matter before the Commission. But the fact of allocation of a budget and available funds might be a relevant consideration.

THE COMMISSIONER: But Qantas is not saying it can't afford the payments, to the question of reasonableness that can't go anywhere. Unless Qantas was bankrupt, in which case reasonableness could be read down or restricted, but absent that what does that matter, whether they've allocated money or not?

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

MS DOUST: Well, with respect, Qantas appears to dispute that they should expend further funds, say, for example, say that they shouldn't have to have supernumeries to acquit - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: What, you say they should? Is the association saying they should have supernumeries?

MS DOUST: Well, we've put a proposal about the acquittal of annual leave, Commissioner, and we've put a proposal as to how that should be dealt with. Now, the use of the term supernumery in the circumstances is extremely coloured in our view because it's our submission that there's clearly an excess of leave which needs to be acquitted. That can only be acquitted by the application of staff in order to perform the hours worked. Now, if one is going to characterise that as supernumery, well, you know, one might well characterise black as white as well. But that's the sort of issue that we have with Qantas.

THE COMMISSIONER: But if Qantas answers that, whether it is reasonable or not, Mr Harris says something about that, I'm not sure that he says we can't have these people drag down the leave, to assist in dragging down the leave because we can't afford it. I think he just says it's not practicable for a range of reasons.

MS DOUST: Yes. I'll move on if it please, Commissioner.

Mr Ratcliffe, Qantas doesn't say does it that it couldn't afford to place the six ALAEA employees who were affected by this process?---We do not say that we can't afford to place six employees. We say it would be grossly unfair to other people.

Now, you refer in your statement to a grievance committee, and I suggest to you that you do so because the availability of a grievance process is something that might lend an element of fairness and transparency to a selection process wouldn't it?---There is a grievance policy within Qantas policies, and if a person is aggrieved by a decision of a manger they can lodge a grievance.

Now, did you give instructions about that grievance process and how it was to be carried out?---I think I set out in my statement at point 26 that the role of the committee was to ascertain whether there was any procedural unfairness or errors in the process which might constitute grounds for overturning a decision, and whether in general the employee was given a fair go in the consideration of their application.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Can I ask in particular, I assume from that that it's not the case that you instructed the grievance committee to give particular regard to issues such as last on, first off, did you?---We looked at the issues that the person brought forward as a grievance. We asked the person to set out their grievance, we recorded the grievance, we read that back to them to ensure that we captured it in full, and then we gave them a copy of the notes that we made, and then we reviewed the grievance.

So am I right then in saying that you didn't give the grievance committee any instructions about giving any particular consideration to that last on, first off principle?---If an individual had raised that as a grievance we would have given consideration to it.

But you didn't give any particular instructions to the grievance committee, is that correct?---No. We were dealing with individual grievances. We were not interpreting the EBA.

And you didn't give any particular instructions to the grievance committee to give any regard to consideration for employees approaching retirement age?---We don't have a retirement age in Qantas so I wasn't able to give that guidance.

Whilst an employee might not be obliged to retire at a particular age, you might give consideration to that matter if an employee was approaching the usual ages of 60 or 65 couldn't you?---I believe it would be illegal for me to do that under the anti-discrimination provisions in the state of New South Wales.

So you have a legal opinion about that matter, Mr Ratcliffe?---No, I don't have a legal opinion, I have my own opinion, which is that I should not discriminate or take into account a person's age.

I wasn't asking about whether or not you were giving instructions about discriminating. I was asking about giving instructions about consideration for those issues?---In what context? The context - - -

In the context of your communications with the grievance committee that you convened, Mr Ratcliffe?---Well, I don't think it was relevant because my understanding of the provisions in the award when they were enacted were that if people were approaching what used to be at the time when the provisions were put in 60 years of age, then we would give - we would have regard for that and we would not, if you like, or the company would not hold that against them, that they were about to retire anyway. We would have regard for that and we would allow people to take redundancy and leave the business.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

So do I take it from that, that at no stage did you - sorry, that prior to the convening of the grievance committee when the redeployment process was first settled upon, that at no stage did you give anyone instructions about giving consideration to employees approaching normal retirement age?---Well, I didn't think it was relevant. My understanding of the provision was around people taking redundancy.

And is it the case that you also at that stage that I identified gave instructions to no person about having regard to the principle of last on, first off?---We were dealing with individual grievances. If people brought forward - - -

No, I'm talking about before that time, Mr Ratcliffe. Do you recall that I just asked you a question, at the point that the redeployment process was being settled upon I asked you about giving instructions about consideration for employees approaching normal retirement age?---Yes.

Did you understand, sorry, when I asked you that question I was talking about instructions given at the time of the redeployment process?---I'm sorry, are we on the grievance committee? I'm getting a bit sort of confused with your line of questioning. Where am I in this process?

Mr Ratcliffe, I'm asking you about the stage at which the redeployment process was settled upon?---Okay. I set out at point 21 of my affidavit the selection criteria, and there were a number of criteria that we took into account, including a person's length of service.

Yes. Mr Ratcliffe, I'll just cut you off there. We can read your affidavit. It is the case that at that stage you didn't give anyone any instructions about having regard to last on, first off, or consideration of employees approaching normal retirement age did you?---I had regard for the last on, first off principle, and that was contained within people's work background. The normal retirement age, we do not have a retirement age and I did not give any instructions about retirement age because people are free to retire when they choose to retire.

So do you say that you gave instructions to those who were to carry out the redeployment process, that they were to have regard to last on, first off?---As part of the criteria - - -

As part of work background?---Yes, that's correct.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Well, did you take any steps to ensure that that became a consideration in the way that they carried out their assessment on that criteria?---When we reviewed grievances that were brought forward we took into account those factors and to ensure that appropriate consideration was given.

Well, I understood your evidence before, Mr Ratcliffe, was to the effect that there was no particular instruction about last on, first off to the grievance committee?
---That was correct, in relation to the grievance committee, but I understand you were asking me a question in relation to the selection criteria.

Yes. And what I'm saying is, did you take any steps to ensure that that last on, first off consideration became incorporated into the selection criteria that were applied by those people in the redeployment process?---Yes, because I looked at the interview guides and I looked at the waiting that was given to factors such as those you raise.

Such as what?---The last on, first off, so length of service.

All right. Well, if the witness might be shown Mr Lalic's statement, which is ALAEA12. Sorry, if you can just take Mr Lalic's statement open to NKL3. Do you have that annexure, Mr Ratcliffe?---No, I don't believe I do.

Sorry, just if you - perhaps the witness might hand it back and I can find that?
---Sorry, it's in this document is it?

Yes. It's an annexure NKL3. If you leap past the numbered paragraphs to the point of the documents?---Yes, right.

And take your time if you wish, but I'd like to just ask you how in that interview form there is an incorporation of the consideration of the last on, first off principle?

MS MCKENZIE: Well, I object to that question, and it just perhaps needs to be clarified. Consideration by whom? Is the question asking Mr Ratcliffe to put himself in the shoes of the interviewers, or is the question to ask whether on the face of the document that is NKL3 if there is any reference to last on, first off? Just so he understands the question.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

MS DOUST: Well, I think, Mr Ratcliffe, your evidence before was that you gave consideration to last on, first off, and that that should be incorporated as part of the work background criteria?---Yes.

And you said I think that you took some care to ensure in the criteria that we used or in the systems that we used that it was considered?---Yes.

Now, did you check back and see that when the process was being implemented that the documents that were prepared as the guide for assessing employees reflected that, Mr Ratcliffe?---Yes. If you go to page 3 of that document, Commissioner, you will see at point 8 there is a question regarding the date of joining Qantas, which indicates the length of service of a person.

And just to take you to another example, Mr Ratcliffe, you might be able to explain. I'll just show you another document. Sorry, just for everyone's records, it's the ALAEA9, the witness statement of John Edward Field, and I'm showing the witness page 3. I think it's JEF3 in this document as well. Sorry, Commissioner, do you have that document? It's a page in very similar form to NKL3 for Mr Field.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MS DOUST: Thank you. I'm just showing that to the witness.

Sorry, do you see that now, Mr Ratcliffe?---Yes.

So that's the work background page in Mr Field's assessment?---Yes.

Now, are you able to explain how these two gentlemen could have got scores like that having regard to their relative lengths of service?---I'm not across the detail. I didn't interview Mr Field, I couldn't comment on the persons that rate Mr Field.

Well, the position is isn't it, that Mr Lalic was scored on work background out of 25?---Yes.

And he was given 18 out of 25?---Yes.

With coming - sorry, about 14½ years service at that time?---Is this Mr Lalic?

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Yes?---Yes.

Mr Field on the other hand has coming up on 40 years service?---Yes.

And he gets 35 out of 50?---Yes.

So in fact Mr Field has a lower score on that than Mr Lalic if you're comparing apples with apples, because Mr Lalic would have got 36 out of 50 to even up the score.

MS MCKENZIE: I object to the question, unless it's being put hypothetically. If the question is to ask Mr Ratcliffe to assume for the purposes of answering the question that you are comparing apples and apples, then I don't have any objection. But if it's being put to him that there is in fact apples and apples, then I object to it because it's misleading, because it's clear from the face of the two competing documents that it's not apples and apples. They're different positions.

MS DOUST: I'll see if I can correct that. Mr Ratcliffe, was it consistent with your instructions that in the redeployment process different scales should be used?---There was, in relation to the maintenance supervisor there were not only applicants who were seeking redeployment, there were applicants from within ACS who were seeking promotional opportunities. So the criteria around this particular position was somewhat different to a straight redeployment position in other instances.

So does that mean that you were aware of different scoring systems being used in this redeployment process?---For this particular position, and we had discussions with the ALAEA on this issue around the fairness to existing ACS employees who wished to apply for a promotional position, and we discussed with the ALAEA that we wanted to ensure that people who had aspirations to go to a higher position in ACS had an opportunity to apply for this position. And it became sort of a hybrid process because on the one hand you had people who were redundant seeking redeployment, and on the other hand you had applicants who were not faced with redundancy but were seeking a promotional opportunity. So the process that was put together had regard for all those factors.

You didn't yourself have regard to those factors in any assessment of any employee did you?---I didn't participate in assessments or interviews.

And you didn't give any specific instructions, I think you accepted, to any particular person about the consideration of that matter, that's correct isn't it?
---Which matter.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Consideration of last on, first off?---In putting together the selection criteria regard was given to that, and the date of joining was certainly a factor that was taken into consideration.

Well, to the extent you say it was taken into consideration, you don't say do you that it was taken into consideration by the people who carried out these assessments, because that's someone separate to you isn't it, Mr Ratcliffe?---It was taken into account as part of the selection criteria, and there was an understanding of the team that did the interviews of what the selection criteria was around, and certainly length of service was one of the factors that they had regard for.

Mr Ratcliffe, you don't say that you gave specific instructions to those people to give consideration to that factor do you?---I say that part of the briefing that they had was to understand the obligations the company had to have regard for length of service and other factors that are contained within other EBA documents.

And do you say that you delivered that briefing?---Yes.

And to whom and when?---I delivered it to the senior people that were conducting those interviews prior to the process commencing.

Sorry, which persons were they?---They would have been, I think I said earlier in my statement, Commissioner, the people - - -

Can I just ask you, before you refer back to your statement, Mr Ratcliffe, can I just ask you, Mr Ratcliffe, can I just ask you before you refer back to your statement to just attend to this question. Do you not have any - - -

MS MCKENZIE: Can he answer the last question please, or is the question withdrawn?

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, go on, Ms Doust.

MS DOUST: I withdraw that question. I'm asking first of all, Mr Ratcliffe, for your recollection. And before you go back to any document, do you say to me that you had a discussion with Qantas staff who were involved in the redeployment process in which you specifically instructed them to give regard to last on, first off in the assessment of employees for redeployment?---I spoke to the senior persons, my people who work for me, of the obligations that the company had in regard to the EBA, and the person I think I spoke to was probably Peter Stiles and probably Vicki Collins I think, but certainly Peter Stiles.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Well, did you speak to Mr Harris?---No, I didn't. Mr Stiles would have been briefing the line managers who participated in the interview.

So you specifically didn't pass on that instruction to Mr Harris?---No.

Did you specifically pass on that instruction to Mr Roelandts?---No.

You say that you mentioned it to Vicki Collins?---I spoke to the people who reported to me who were responsible for carrying out the interviews, and I briefed them on the factors they needed to have regard for.

Well, in terms of the documents that were produced were you the person who ultimately had the final say on these assessment documents that were used in the interview process?---Yes.

So when these documents were drafted they came back to you for your approval did they?---They came to me for my review and I reviewed them and found them in my opinion to be suitable.

And there's no specific instruction on this document is there for giving consideration to last on, first off?---Part of the work background criteria is a question to ascertain the person's joining date so we clearly understood their length of service.

And there's no instruction at all as to how that matter is to be weighed in the mix in determining that employee's score is there?---It was taken into consideration as part of the overall allocation of points to that particular part of the interview.

Well, I'll just take you back to my question. There was no instruction at all as to how that matter was to be given regard to in the mix of matters was there?---In the document, no.

Yes. And I think you've got Mr Lalic's document there?---Yes.

I'll just hand up another document if I might, and that's Mr Walker's statement, which is ALAEA10, just going to GSW3, the third page?---Yes.

So you see Mr Walker, whose service commences in 1990?---Yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

And his score in work background is 11 out of 25?---Yes.

Mr Lalic's commencement date, '92, and his score is 18 out of 25?---Yes.

You agree we're comparing like with like here?---In what respect?

Well, that these were both people applying for similar positions in ACS?---Yes.

Now, you agree there's a major variation between their scores?---Yes.

In the work background area?---Yes.

And you agree that the more senior employee scores a great deal less?---Yes. But that could be for other factors, that the other person held more licences and more skills.

So there was no specific protocol for giving consideration to last on, first off was there?---Yes, there was. In a mix of issues such as skills and experience, which are part of other EBA documents.

You see, what I suggest in all of this is that it was skills which was the final factor wasn't it, Mr Ratcliffe?---It was a combination of skills, experience and length of service and other factors which were taken into account in the interview, suitability.

Now, in paragraph 29 - sorry, just going back briefly to the question of the grievance committee, would you agree with me that there's no use in having a grievance committee unless they have the power to rectify any problems they identify in a process?---If a grievance committee had no powers to rectify issues there would have been no point in establishing it in the first place.

And equally, if they had made a decision in relation to an employee that Qantas declined to follow it through, then equally there's no value in having that grievance committee?---No. I'm not sure of the context of the question.

Well, it's analogous to the first example I gave you isn't it, Mr Ratcliffe, that having a grievance committee that makes a decision and doesn't follow it through is really the same as having a grievance committee that doesn't have the power to do anything about the grievance?---If the grievance committee found that there had been a grievance established and it failed to take steps to rectify that grievance then it wouldn't have done its job.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

In paragraph 29 of your statement you say that once the initial process of redeployment into Sydney ACS, members of your team met with unattached employees to determine whether there were other suitable positions?---Yes.

Now, you didn't go through the process of assessing people for all of the potentially suitable positions at the same time did you?---The process was that people were asked to nominate their preference for a position, and based upon interviews and the outcomes of the interviews offers were then made. We then went back and discussed with people what other opportunities were there for them to consider.

Now, one of the things that you say is that it was not considered necessary or appropriate to facilitate job swaps from Sydney heavy maintenance to Brisbane ACS?---That's correct.

And why was that?---Because we have a shortage of people in Brisbane heavy maintenance and it was good business practice to fill those positions ahead of offering positions in Brisbane ACS.

Sorry, when did you make that decision about that not being either necessary or appropriate?---At about the time that the whole process was taking place.

Are you able to put a month or a date on it?---It would have probably been around about the April timeframe I think.

So concurrent with the offering of positions or the opening up of applications for positions in Sydney ACS?---Probably about that time, yes.

And this was based on - sorry, is it right for me to characterise your comments earlier as relating to the operational desirability of opening up the ACS opportunities to Sydney heavy maintenance employees?---We had positions in Brisbane heavy maintenance for which persons in Sydney heavy maintenance were suited and there were vacancies, and there still are vacancies.

And so logically it follows that that decision was taken at a time prior to the making of applications by Sydney heavy maintenance employees for the Sydney ACS jobs?---I think it was about that time, yes.

Well, you say it was April don't you?---About that time, yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Yes. And that's before the applications came in for the Sydney ACS jobs wasn't it?---Yes. I mean, my view was that we needed to fill the vacant positions the business had prior to opening up additional positions. We have vacancies and we still have vacancies for LAMEs in both Brisbane and Avalon, and it was good business sense to fill those positions ahead of going to another part of the business to start redundancies in another part of the business.

Yes. And just what I was asking you about was the timing of that decision. That was a decision that was totally about the business' desirability from Qantas' point of view wasn't it, Mr Ratcliffe?---Yes.

And secondly, it was a decision that was taken early on in the redeployment process?---Yes, there were redeployment opportunities into Brisbane heavy maintenance.

And it was a decision that was taken prior to the making of applications for Sydney ACS positions?---I can't say exactly on what date. I think there was an overriding view that at the outset we wanted to fill the Brisbane heavy maintenance positions, and there weren't only vacancies for LAMEs, there were vacancies for other trades as well, as a matter of priority.

Mr Ratcliffe, I'm just asking you about timing at the moment. But I think it probably flows from what you accept about the business desirability, that the decision about opening up or not opening up Brisbane ACS to Sydney heavy maintenance employees wasn't made after you'd gone through the process of assessing the Sydney ACS applications?---No. I think it was made at the point where we were starting the process.

So you at that stage determined that you wouldn't - - -Sorry.

Sorry?---And we made that known to the ALAEA right from the start, that we wanted to fill the positions in Brisbane heavy maintenance.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

In Brisbane heavy maintenance. So whenabouts in April do you think that you made this decision about not opening up Brisbane ACS?---It would have been at about the point that we made the decision to open up ACS for expressions of EOI, and at that point our view was that given that there were vacancies in Brisbane heavy maintenance there was no need for employees from Sydney heavy maintenance to go to job swaps, if you like, with persons in Brisbane ACS as there were already vacancies for which they were suitably qualified. It was work that they'd previously done in Sydney. The only difference was that the location had changed.

All right. Now, can I take you to DR4, Mr Ratcliffe?---Yes.

Can you see that document, point 1 says that you will invite expressions of interest in redundancy from all LAMEs in line maintenance across Australia?
---Yes.

And you say that the company embarked on that process don't you?---Yes.

Second of all, the company would review the EOIs received from outside Sydney as well as the EOIs from Sydney heavy maintenance employees who indicated they were prepared to relocate interstate where an appropriate match between skills and experience of the two employees is able to be identified, the heavy maintenance employee will be offered the position subject to the line maintenance employee taking a redundancy?---Yes.

Do you see that clause?---I do.

What I want to suggest to you is that the decision of Qantas not to consider any Sydney heavy maintenance employee for any position in Brisbane ACS is entirely contrary to the obligation imposed by that clause?---No, I don't agree.

And it's not made clear in this agreement is it that Qantas' view is that it won't open up Brisbane ACS positions for Sydney heavy maintenance employees?
---I've explained previously why we took that decision.

You took a business decision about what you would do with Brisbane ACS?---It seemed to me quite ridiculous that if we had positions in Brisbane for which these employees were readily skilled then they could transfer into those positions.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Mr Ratcliffe, if it was ridiculous - well, can I just clarify. You're about to suggest that it would be ridiculous to move Sydney heavy maintenance employees into a Brisbane ACS position if there's Brisbane heavy maintenance positions that are crying out to be filled?---Well, from a business point of view it would be.

Certainly. If that's the case why would Qantas enter into a document that undertakes for it to embark on a different process?---Well, what we said was that we would review the EOIs received from outside of Sydney. Now, there were - I think Brisbane was probably unique in the fact that we had an - sorry, there was two situations where we did not take EOIs. There was Brisbane and there was Melbourne. And the reason we did that was because we had vacancies in heavy maintenance facilities in both Brisbane and Melbourne, and we were struggling to fill those vacancies. And what was being put to us was just to have more redundancies, don't worry about filling the vacancies in Brisbane and Melbourne - sorry, Brisbane and Avalon, and that is not good business sense.

Mr Ratcliffe, if it wasn't good business sense why did Qantas sign up to an agreement on 5 April - sorry, 7 April undertaking to open up those ACS opportunities for Sydney heavy maintenance employees?

MS MCKENZIE: I object to this line of questioning on the ground of relevance. It is not part of the ALAEAs case that any one of the employees who are the subject of these proceedings wished to go to Brisbane or Melbourne. How can it be possibly relevant to the issues?

MS DOUST: That's actually not correct because it was Mr Gant's evidence that he indicated an interest in Brisbane.

THE COMMISSIONER: But he's not a complainant now.

MS DOUST: No, he's not. But it goes to a number of issues, Commissioner, and substantially to credit and to the nature of Qantas' conduct along the way.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, yes.

MS DOUST: Qantas has entered into an agreement with the ALAEA whereby it has gained valuable concessions, a valuable concession under clause 37.13.2, and it has, at about the time it's entered into the agreement, decided for itself by reference to business reasons that it won't come forward on the offer of opening up ACS.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think Mr Ratcliffe's evidence was that the circle round Melbourne or Avalon, or no swaps to Melbourne ACS while Avalon was empty, and the similar situation in Brisbane, was known to the ALAEA. Now, you're saying, well, that's not reflected in the agreement of April. Maybe that's the case and maybe you could say, well, Qantas seems to have avoided its obligation. But it ultimately gets back to the point, well, yes, so what? The six aggrieved are not saying if ACS was Brisbane was opened we'd go for it. We're just not prepared to go to - - -

MS DOUST: No. But what it does raise is the prospect that employees who might have been accommodated in either Brisbane or Melbourne, if a proper skills comparison was done, as clause 2 holds out, that they might have been accommodated rather than getting jobs in ACS. And you will recall, Commissioner, that that was the very thrust of the material that we were seeking in relation to the summons, that that was what we attempted to interrogate this entire process. So, with respect, this is something we should be allowed to pursue.

THE COMMISSIONER: The trouble I have with some of your questioning of Mr Ratcliffe - I'm about to adjourn, but I'll just make this comment - particularly in relation to the obligations under 37.2, one, the dangers of extracting evidence from persons who say they're not experts and aren't there to legally interpret, and then you still proceed. I'm not sure, irrespective of what Mr Ratcliffe might say, I'm not sure if 37.2 necessarily applies to that grievance committee operation. But anyway perhaps you'll both agree that I'm wrong on that, good and well.

MS DOUST: Well, we'll ultimately have to make submissions on the precise way that - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I'm not sure that that does work there. But the only overriding thing is, that it's all very well for you to - in some ways the association in my view is arguing against itself, and that is that you're not seriously suggesting that last on, first off is something that Qantas should have regard to when we all know that what the association has sought and what all the other unions have sought is that VR, that voluntary separation by LAMEs in heavy maintenance, but voluntary separation by everybody, not only in engineering, but if clerks wanted to go all that should be - everyone should be able to go. That's not written in the agreement, but that is of course the underlying desire to minimise dislocation and discomfort and unhappiness, of course, is to allow volunteers to go and for them to be back filled.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

MS DOUST: Well, certainly, in - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay, we can criticise. Let's say Qantas says no, we didn't do last on, first off, we are trying to get volunteers and we try to limit it to Sydney first, and then later on we extended it. Well, what's wrong with that.

MS DOUST: Well, we don't cavil at all with calling for volunteers.

THE COMMISSIONER: No. But what you're saying is, we're happy with the volunteers, and now that we're at the end of the process we want to find out where you didn't use last on, first off. Are you saying that what should occur is that the engineers that have moved to ACS in Sydney that might have only had five or six years service they should be tipped out and made retrenched because someone has got more service? You're not suggesting that?

MS DOUST: Well, with respect, we do suggest that those issues that should - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: But that's not what you wrote on 1 August. You didn't say the five items that the association wrote on 1 August to Qantas, did not say, and we want last on, first off. I think it said something else. I think it said seek volunteers elsewhere.

MS DOUST: And with respect, Commissioner, there's a reason that particular positions are put at particular times. And at that stage there was an identifiable quite small group of employees, and the association at that stage had some very concrete proposals about to accommodate them. And that would have resulted in the position of no employees having to be forcibly retrenched. Now, getting back to the issue of last on, first off, we don't cavil at all with the process that involves volunteers. That's obviously got factors that recommend it and make it desirable. But what we do say is that last on, first off might come into play where you're talking about forcible retrenchment, deciding who will go and who will stay.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I must say, if this was a court a judge might take the view, particularly if there was a complainant who had been there a long time, might take the view, which neither party might be very happy with, and that is that if the instrument makes a reference to regards for specific things, that should be the first point. And if the parties want to look at voluntariness which is not referred to in the instrument, then that must be a secondary consideration. So that the person who has been there the longest, they decide whether they go or they stay. But that's not the view of the association, that's what I'm trying to say, because that's not the thrust. All of these things are about volunteers, that's the basic thing, you're trying to make everybody happy. But I'm saying the instrument doesn't talk about volunteers, it talks about last on, first off.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

MS DOUST: No, that's absolutely right. And to an extent, look, no instrument can ever prevent an employee from voting with their feet and electing to leave employment. And if the employer - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that's right, with no redundancy pay in that instance.

MS DOUST: But I'm saying if the employer offers that on terms where there's an attractive package then it might be in the employee's interest to do so. And of course no agreement could ever prevent an employer from making such an offer, nor could it prevent an employee from accepting such an offer.

THE COMMISSIONER: No. But what I'm suggesting is that if you want to focus on Qantas' obligations then it may very well be that, no, they didn't put to the forefront 37.2. But that's because if they had I think the unions would have had something to say about it, because they would have said, no, don't worry about regarding last on, first off. Let's first of all see how big a pool of unhappy people there are because there's quite a few people that are prepared to go. And there's nothing unreasonable about that, but I'm just saying you can't take that view and then say but they didn't follow this. Anyway, I could be wrong in all of that, and I'm sure you will correct me in due course. I'm not saying that you're not wrong in pursuing the question, but it does just - I make that comment because we might be going off onto a tangent, and ultimately we're focusing on the six.

I know you say, well, look, Qantas hasn't done this correctly. But the orders focus on the six. I mean, the orders don't say stop everything, unscramble all the eggs because we want to do it again. You're saying, look, really these six, there might have been problems, but these six ultimately need to be corrected, and fairness is they should be allowed to assist in drawing down leave or allowing people to go to Brisbane or whatever.

MS DOUST: I certainly understand your views and I appreciate your assistance, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. Well, we'll adjourn for 10 or 15 minutes.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.43AM]
<RESUMED [11.57AM]

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

MS DOUST: Commissioner, just before I resume, I handed up a copy of the Qantas Code of Conduct and Ethics earlier on, I tender that.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I thought you might.

EXHIBIT #ALAEA16 QANTAS CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICS

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MS DOUST: Mr Ratcliffe, just prior to the break you discussed the need for LAMEs in heavy maintenance in Brisbane?---Yes.

Do you recall that evidence?---Yes.

So can I ask you - well, I'll show you a document first. Might the witness be shown the affidavit of Les Roelandts? Sorry, Mr Ratcliffe. Can you please have a look at annexure LR2 to that document. Do you see that's the employee preference sheet that was used in the retrenchment redeployment process?---Yes, yes.

Now, where it talks about roles in Brisbane there's no reference to any LAME roles there?---Yes, I can see that.

Why were they not included there if that was one of your areas where you really needed LAMEs?---The only reason I can think of is that's an oversight but quite clearly people knew that there were roles in Brisbane for LAMEs and that was made known to people.

Which people are you talking about?---LAMEs.

Which LAMEs did you make aware of that matter?---Those LAMEs who were seeking redeployment and the Association.

No, which LAMEs did you specifically tell that to?---I didn't specifically tell anyone that.

Which person from the Association do you say you told at that stage there were positions available in Brisbane?---The people who were present during the meetings that we had with the Association.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

At that stage?---Yes.

Mr Ratcliffe, just to be clear about this, you're sure that at that stage you told the ALAEA that there were LAME positions in Brisbane. Do you say you're sure, do you?---I'm sure that at the outset of - at the point where the announcements were made and immediately following those announcements and the redeployment process we identified that there were positions available in Brisbane heavy maintenance.

Going back to your paragraph 30 that we touched on before the break,
Mr Ratcliffe - sorry, yes, your affidavit?---Yes.

You say you facilitated the creation of a number of additional Sydney ACS vacancies by allowing some Sydney ACS employees to job swap into Brisbane ACS positions?---Yes.

There was no great barrier in terms of philosophical or operational objections to that process, was there?---No, because that was moving people around within the Sydney ACS business and backfilling people into Sydney positions.

And the backfill positions in Sydney were backfilled with Sydney heavy maintenance employees, weren't they?---Yes.

Who had become retrenched as part of the closure?---That's correct.

Sorry, that had really been identified for redundancy as a result of the announcement of the closure at that stage?---Yes.

And in relation to that, that's really effectively what the ALAEA seeks in these proceedings, isn't it?---No, what I understand the ALAEA to be seeking are orders in regard to acquitting annual leave and some training.

That's one element of the case but you understand, don't you, that the ALAEA has a proposal for Qantas to allow Sydney ACS employees who have indicated a desire to move to Brisbane to do so, do you understand that that's part of the ALAEA case?---I do, yes.

And for those positions made vacant thereby to be backfilled by Sydney heavy maintenance employees?---Yes, yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

And indeed the final six who are the subject of these proceedings?---Yes, if that was to occur, yes.

And what I would suggest to you is that given that you've undertaken that process previously there can't be any philosophical or operational reason why you wouldn't do that again?---Well, coming back to your earlier point, I would have a real moral problem with changing this whole process right at the end when other people who at the outset made difficult decisions to move outside of Sydney suddenly found themselves in the position where right at the end we flicked and adopted a different process. That would not sit well with me.

I'm just a little bit confused, Mr Ratcliffe. Earlier on I think you expressed some difficulty in understanding what was involved in moral issues but you seem to have a very clear view on this one, is that right?---Yes, because I think it's glaringly obvious that it would not be a fair go to those people who have been through this process and have made difficult decisions, who've moved themselves and their families to other states when quite clearly their preference was to stay in Sydney. It would not be in my view fair to those people. It would be grossly unfair to those people for the company at the end to flip and say it's all too hard now so here's six slots for six people who didn't move. I mean that would really sit, you know, to use a colloquial expression, Commissioner, that would stick in my craw real bad.

Does Qantas make serious decisions based on what sits in your craw,
Mr Ratcliffe?---I'm talking about me personally.

Well, just focusing on Qantas' conduct in the matter, it wasn't unfair to facilitate the process earlier on, was it?---We facilitated what the operation could withstand to the extent that it was operationally practicable.

So are you saying that earlier on that what was practicable defined the limits of what Qantas would do?---Operationally, yes.

If it was practicable to do so now Qantas should equally take the same course, shouldn't it?---No, it should have regard for a process that has been in place for the best part now of 10 months that a whole number of people have been through and there were people who made decisions to leave Qantas and to move on to other jobs and in my view, and this is purely a personal view, would not be a fair go right at the end to suddenly say we're now changing the rules.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Mr Ratcliffe, you accept, don't you, that it would be one of Qantas' obligations to facilitate these employees into ACS to provide them with retraining, don't you, I think you accepted that earlier?---To the extent that they needed retraining to move into ACS, yes.

So you don't see that as the barrier to accommodating the ALAEAs proposal, do you?---Which proposal?

The proposal that I indicated to you previously about allowing Sydney ACS employees who have volunteered to take up positions in Brisbane ACS and to allow the remaining ALAEA employees to take up those available positions?
---Training would not be a barrier for that if we wanted to do that.

Yes. The real barrier to that is the fact that it's issues like your opinion that it would be unfair to allow this at this stage?---Well, it's not only my opinion, Commissioner. I've been approached by employees for instance who took up redeployment opportunities in technical services to indicate very strongly to me that should there be a change in the whole, if you like, rules of the game then they wanted to come back into the mix.

Well, you're the person that makes the decisions about this process, aren't you,
Mr Ratcliffe?---Yes.

Ultimately you're accountable for the decisions?---Yes.

It rests with you?---Yes.

If you took a different view you could accommodate the ALAEAs proposal, couldn't you?---If I wished to destroy whatever credibility I have in the eyes of those people who were displaced as part of the Sydney heavy maintenance closure then right at the end of this process I'd say to those people I'm sorry, mate, I've changed the rules at the end, tough luck, and I'm not prepared to do that.

Well, Mr Ratcliffe, you'd accept that some of the rules were as set out in the agreement that was entered into with the ALAEA, weren't they?---The rules that were set out in the agreement with the ALAEA were in relation to predominantly the 90 day rule.

Well, the commitment on the part of Qantas that was associated with that agreement involved opening up positions in ACS around the country, didn't it?
---Yes, but - - -

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

And in that instance Qantas made a decision that it would apply different rules, didn't it?---No, it didn't. It applied - - -

Well, Qantas made a business based decision that it wasn't going to open the positions in Brisbane ACS for any Sydney heavy maintenance employee, didn't it?---Yes.

And that was contrary to the terms of the agreement?---I don't believe so.

Well, I put it to you that Qantas has regarded itself throughout as at liberty to make decisions different to the terms of this agreement, hasn't it?

MS MCKENZIE: I object to that question. Something is being put to
Mr Ratcliffe which was not the subject of evidence by the ALAEA at all and it's not appropriate for Ms Doust to now put to Mr Ratcliffe in cross-examination something which has not been the subject of their evidentiary case at all. It has not been part of their case that Qantas has not complied with the agreement which is DR4. And in any event as probably was covered in my earlier objection, there's the general objection on the ground of relevance. How can it be relevant to the case today as to whether or not people in heavy maintenance were or were not able to go to Brisbane ACS? None of the six individuals want to go to Brisbane.

MS DOUST: Well, Commissioner, it works like this, Mr Ratcliffe's objection to our proposal is that's not in accordance with the rules that were established and Qantas' conduct has been to see itself as at liberty to depart from the rules. What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander and I'm not sure which is which in this situation. But surely it must be an answer to Qantas' objection to our proposal that they've regarded they can depart from the rules in the past. Where this arises from is Qantas' own evidence about the way in which clause 2 operated. Mr Ratcliffe's own evidence establishes that there was no opening up of ACS positions and matching with the Sydney employees as Qantas held out was going to happen.

MS MCKENZIE: That's not his evidence and I take issue with that.

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, I missed that?

MS DOUST: Commissioner, I'll take you briefly to DR4 if I might.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MS DOUST: Sorry. Do you see paragraph 2?

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MS DOUST:

The company is to review the EOIs received from outside Sydney, as well as the EOIs from Sydney heavy maintenance employees.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MS DOUST:

Where an appropriate match between the skills and experience is able to be identified the HM employee will be offered the position subject to the line maintenance employee taking a redundancy.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MS DOUST: There is an obligation inherent in clause 2 for Qantas to have made decisions about the move between Sydney heavy maintenance and Brisbane ACS based on skills matching. No such process was entered into. Qantas made an executive decision based on other operational reasons that it wasn't going to undertake that process in relation to Brisbane ACS?---Yes.

We say that fact as something quite extraordinary particularly given the coincidence of time between the decision that Mr Ratcliffe says was taken about Brisbane ACS and the entry into the agreement with the ALAEA.

THE COMMISSIONER: You're saying that they haven't complied with 2?

MS DOUST: Yes, certainly not.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. And what's the damage?

MS DOUST: Well, where that takes us can only be hypothetical because we haven't been provided by Qantas with all of the information about who went where. So we can't make out an evidential case about the particular numbers of Sydney heavy maintenance employees who might have been moved to Brisbane, who might have been successfully cross matched and who thereby might have left open jobs in Sydney ACS. So we can't make out the case. That's the case that we've sought to make out. What we do make out in this scenario is an answer to Qantas' objection to our proposals. It goes to reasonable steps. Reasonable steps involve reasonable steps in compliance with agreements entered into and it goes to the credit of Qantas. What it does leave us with, Commissioner, is a process that might have accommodated our members has not been entered into contrary to Qantas' obligations. In those circumstances we propose an alternative method which we say wouldn't result in any inconvenience to Qantas and in fact - - -

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, if there is an inconvenience it just feel from the witness's mouth and that is that some current employees of Qantas may very well express some unhappiness with Qantas. In fact it's not, it won't be unhappy with Qantas, it might be unhappy with the Commission but that's a consideration I need to take on board. Isn't that - - -

MS DOUST: Well, the first point to be made about that is whoever those employees are they're unidentified. The second point - - -

MS MCKENZIE: Perhaps Mr Ratcliffe ought to leave if we're going to have a debate about this. I don't think it's appropriate to have this debate while he's still in the witness box. It's a matter for submission but if we're going to go into these sorts of matters, I mean it's a matter for Ms Doust and the Commission but it seems to me it's at least potentially compromising having Mr Ratcliffe still in the room.

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, do you have a view on that?

MS DOUST: Well, it's probably appropriate for Mr Ratcliffe not to be heard although a great deal of the world has been poisoned already.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I have nothing further to say about that point unless you were going to.

MS DOUST: No, I only seek to assist you, Commissioner, with any qualms that you have about the way that we put our case.

THE COMMISSIONER: I've now forgotten where we were before I interrupted you.

MS DOUST: You're probably a little bit ahead of me then because I was just trying to recall where I was with that exchange. I'll see if Mr Norris can assist.

Mr Ratcliffe, just going to the conclusion of paragraph 30?---Yes.

At what stage did that process conclude?---The process of job swaps?

Yes?---I think it was - I mean it went right through and we approached the - you know, in our regular discussions with the ALAEA we indicated that we'd continue to go around and around and around and try and exhaust as many positions as we could and I think it went through because some people were considering roles and all that sort of stuff. It went through for quite some time. I think it went through probably till about July and some people did not move to new roles until quite later last year. I think some people, for instance, who opted to move to Perth had to wrap up their affairs in Sydney and find accommodation and all those sort of things in Perth and I think that probably went through till September, October last year.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

And some offers became available after the initial ACS offers were made, didn't they?---I'm not sure what you mean by some offers.

Well, offers about positions in different ports?---Yes, there was - yes, but there was a process of offering positions available to individuals. Individuals would then consider that offer and decide whether they wanted to accept it or not. If they didn't accept it then we would go to the next person who is eligible and make that offer to that person.

So individuals that were given a week to accept ACS positions for example?
---Yes.

Did themselves out of the running for later positions which became available in different ports, didn't they?---Well, our view was once you were offered a position you'd had an offer of a position, if you chose not to take it then we work through other people who'd not had an offer of a position and we made those guys an offer and then started the sort of process again. So we were trying to be fair to everyone rather than stopping at a particular point and, you know, giving the person an offer until they finally said yes, that's good enough, that will do me.

So once you had accepted an offer you were no longer in that certain pool of people who might be able to take up the later offers that came along?---That's right.

And I suggest to you that the position between these employees and the employees who have already taken positions is exactly the same?---No. The employees who remain have the option of taking a position outside of Sydney or outside of ACS, the same as other employees have done.

If you were to make available other positions in Sydney ACS that would be no more unfair on the employees who elected to accept previous offers than it was to make offers to some of the retrenched employees after employees have elected to take up ACS offers in the beginning?---Well, it would be unfair to change the rules if you like right at the end and having allowed people to make decisions under a given set of rules, to then change those set of rules at the end in my view that would be fair.

But which rule has been changed, Mr Ratcliffe?---Well, the rules are that there are no positions in ACS.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

So you describe that as the rule in the process?---No, there are no positions in ACS. What you're putting to me is that we accommodate six people by putting them into ACS and ignoring everything else that's previously happened over the last 10 months and I'm saying that's unfair.

Mr Ratcliffe, you know, don't you, that's it no more unfair and the position of those employees who had to elect right at the beginning whether to take a role in ACS or whether to keep their options open in the hope of a more preferred role?
---No, I disagree. In my view it is unfair.

And these employees are in exactly the same situation?---No, they're not.

They remain in the pool of employees who haven't been allocated?---They've been offered position.

That position is one - being in that pool of employees who haven't taken up offers, that leaves them in a position of uncertainty, doesn’t it?---I'm not sure what the question is, it was quite a long one.

Well, they have been since 9 March 2006 in a position where they haven't known their future?---They've been in a position where they've had the opportunity to take up positions in Brisbane or Avalon. They've chosen not to.

And it's only when they actually accept an offer that they secure their future, isn't it?---That's correct.

And some employees obtained the considerable advantage of securing their future at an early stage in the piece?---Some people had offers given to them. I mean, you know, you have 200 people applying for 82 positions, Commissioner, but some people got offers early in the piece based on, you know, such things as length of service.

And by accepting those positions early on they eliminated the uncertainty, didn't they?---They took an offer that was put to them.

And so they secured their future in a sense, didn't they?---Well, they took the option of a job that was put to them. There were a number of people who took opportunities outside of Sydney who were very reluctant to move out of Sydney.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

And indeed they made a difficult position but the quit pro for the difficulty was that they obtained some security about their future, didn't they?---Yes.

But they also did themselves out of continuing to be in the pool and potentially able to apply for other positions?---Once they had accepted a position they were out of the pool and into a new role.

Now, just in relation to annual leave, you're aware, aren't you, that records about accrued annual leave held by LAMEs in Sydney ACS have been produced by Qantas in these proceedings?---Yes.

Now, you understand, don't you, that the records show an average of about 40 days in accrued - sorry, annual leave on average?---I believe so, yes.

And then there's an additional about 80 to 90 days accrued long service leave?
---That could be the case.

For those LAMEs?---Yes.

That's expected to go up in around February, isn't it?---I'm not sure.

But the people who commenced as apprentices will get their anniversary date around about this time of the year, won't they, Mr Ratcliffe?---Generally, yes, I agree.

And they'll pick up an extra 35 days?---If that's their entitlement, yes.

And do you agree with me this, that that is not an acceptable state of affairs for an employer to have that much accrued annual leave for employees?---The position of annual leave is one which is within the business and is therefore, you know, there could be a whole lot of historical factors as to why people have accrued annual leave. I mean I could enter into a long discourse if you like about my views on why that occurs but, you know, the facts are the facts and it's up to the business to ensure that people take annual leave.

You agree, don't you, that the position regarding the accrued leave of Sydney LAMEs is not an acceptable state of affairs for an employer?---It will be a better position if those leave balances were reduced, I agree, yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

And they need to be reduced substantially, don't they?---They need to be managed to a point where the leave balances are at a reasonable level.

And I think someone makes the comment in their evidence that even bringing in six new employees is hardly likely to make a dent on the amount of accrued leave that's so considerable, do you agree with that?---Well, I'm not in a position to comment on what would happen in ACS. I have no knowledge of the operational running of that business.

As group general manager people?---Yes.

Qantas engineering?---Yes.

I'm sorry, doesn't ACS fit underneath your - - -?---Yes, but the granting of leave is a decision that's made at a local level for reasons that the manager or the supervisor in that part of the business makes. Those applications for leave do not come to me.

Are you not ultimately responsible to the board for the performance across the business in terms of acquitting leave?---No, I'm not.

No?---No, I'm not.

Who is?---The person who runs the business.

Who is that?---The heads of the business, the group general manager ACS. It's his responsibility to run his business, it's not mine.

So you're not responsible for implementing systems across Qantas engineering to ensure that leave is taken, monitored and so on?---No, it's not part of my responsible to run Murray Harris's business or anyone else's business.

Let me just clarify, this term people, that's the equivalent of the old sort of human resources title, isn't it?---Yes, yes.

And isn't it an essential part of human resources that you look at things like employee entitlements and the like?---But applications for leave are made - - -

I'm not talking about specific applications for leave, Mr Ratcliffe. Do you not have some sort of overall responsibility for monitoring the performance of the businesses under you in that area?---No, I don't have the responsibility of that. There is a monitoring of leave that is taken and that is brought to the attention of the business and the business is asked to ensure that leave levels that are reasonable are made. But it's not my responsibility.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

And so it wouldn't be any purpose in me asking you what plans Qantas has in place to reduce those levels of accrued leave?---No.

So is it right then that to the extent that the ALAEA puts anything to this Commission about the issue of leave you're really not in a position to make any comment?---I'm not in a position to comment on why there are historical high levels of accrued leave in ACS. The business runs its own affairs in terms of granting people annual leave, long service leave and so forth. If individuals within the business were aggrieved that they were being unreasonably treated and were not being afforded the opportunity to access the entitlements, then I certainly would get involved.

You're not involved in any leave reduction program that's in place at Qantas?

MS MCKENZIE: I think he's answered the question several times now.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, no, that's slightly in more general terms. Yes, allow the question.

MS DOUST: It might just be a quick answer to this one?---Generally, as I said earlier, there is a monitoring of leave that is done and the businesses are tasked with ensuring that they have the level of leave at a manageable amount.

All right. Just to test your knowledge even further, is it right that there's a directive about reducing everyone down to a maximum of 25 days accrued leave? I was about to say 25 weeks, that would be a very - - -?---Yes. There is a guidance given to management generally that leave levels should be taken down to a manageable level and around that 25 day mark.

So 25 days is identified. Is that 25 simply an annual leave or all in all forms of accrued leave?---It's in annual leave.

Right. Now, and again tell me if this transgresses your particular area of operation and expertise, but as a people manager I thought that you might be able to comment, one method for addressing the surplus of leave would be by drawing on additional staff, wouldn't it?---If the business had a budget and could reasonably do that within the constraints of its operation one way would be to do that.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

Well, you don't consider, do you, or you've got no reason to think that the demand for the work of Sydney ACS is decreasing, do you?---I'm not able to comment on what the workload is in ACS.

But it appears that they have accrued fairly disturbing levels of leave?---Yes. I don't know about if it's disturbing, but they've accrued leave.

Well, you'd agree, wouldn’t you, that it's only by the application of some further work is that you can work out that time, isn't it?---That may not be the case. There may be other ways in which work can be arranged to facilitate people taking leave.

Would that be overtime, would it?---Work could be arranged in ways that it is today and, you know, that really is a question for the business to answer and how it runs its operations. I'm not in a position to comment on that.

Well, can I suggest that if employees have accrued that much leave over the past little while doesn't it appear necessarily logical that you could introduce some sort of greater efficiency in the way that they work to accommodate the leave, does it, Mr Ratcliffe?---Well, I mean - - -

MS MCKENZIE: I object to that question. I object to that question. The question of leave in ACS, Mr Ratcliffe has already said he's not responsible for it. Mr Harris deals with it in his affidavit. We're calling the manager of the ACS business. These matters are more sensibly and efficiently put to Mr Harris rather than Mr Ratcliffe.

THE COMMISSIONER: There's a certain attraction there, isn't there, Ms Doust?

MS DOUST: Well, it depends on who you are, Commissioner, really as to whether or not you find that - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Well - - -

MS DOUST: He certainly is a person who has vast experience in human resources issues and the proposal that I put to him wasn't about anything to do with ACS. It was simply, you know, I would have thought a matter so obvious that it scarcely needs mentioning, but simply a matter of logic as to how one might go about acquitting excess leave.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE XXN MS DOUST

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but the relevant manager is to be called and whatever evidence Mr Ratcliffe gives, assuming you'll ask the same question, one would think that what Mr Harris says will really be persuasive, particularly given that Mr Ratcliffe says look, it's not an area I'm involved in, if you want to ask me general questions I can tell you. So I think there's a limit to the assistance we can get.

MS DOUST: Thank you, Commissioner. If I might just confer briefly then with the people who instruct me just to see whether there's any other matters that we need to traverse.

Sorry, just one matter, Mr Ratcliffe, I think you've referred recently an email correspondence with the ALAEA about AME positions in Sydney?---Yes.

Where are those positions?---They're in component maintenance.

Sorry, in?---Component maintenance.

Component maintenance. And there's just one more thing that I need to address with you. You say at paragraph 31 of your affidavit, Mr Ratcliffe, there were 81 LAMEs who job swapped into ACS Sydney?---Yes.

Are you certain about those figures?---Well, that was the number that I was advised, yes.

Sorry, by whom?---By people working for me.

And who are they?---My HR staff.

Sorry, and who are they?---I think that would probably come from Deborah Lewis who currently does not - has left Qantas but Deborah was involved in the transition process.

Thank you. Nothing further.

MS MCKENZIE: Yes, thank you, just a few matters by way of re-examination.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE [12.38PM]

MS MCKENZIE: Mr Ratcliffe, you were taken to the interview guides for
Mr Lalic and Mr Walker, do you remember those?---Yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE RXN MS MCKENZIE

And you were asked some questions in relation to the reasons for the different scores in the work experience section of the interview, do you remember those questions?---Yes.

And I think it was put to you that the difference in the score was perhaps problematic given that Mr Lalic had less length of service than Mr Walker?---Yes.

And I think your answer was that there may have been other factors relevant such as licences?---Yes.

Do you remember your answer?---Yes.

Can I ask you to explain why the licences held by LAMEs may have been relevant to the score that was given in relation to work experience, that section?
---The licences held indicate the level of certification that LAMEs can apply and would generally indicate that they have achieved a level of experience on a particular aircraft type, so if a person held a licence on a 747 and say a 747/400 and 767 aircraft then that person would be quite an experienced person across both those aircraft and a person who just say for instance held a licence on a 767, that person's skill band would be narrow because their skill was related only to one aircraft type.

Yes. Does it follow from that answer, Mr Ratcliffe, that a LAME who had a greater number of licences, that that would be given greater weight or higher in this process?---Yes, yes, that was the case.

Now, you were asked some questions in relation to the agreement DR4, do you recall - perhaps if you could have a look at that or have that agreement in front of you, and you were asked a number of questions in relation to the position in relation to ACS in Brisbane, do you remember those questions?---Yes.

Can I ask you, did Qantas invite and receive expressions of interest in voluntary redundancy from ACS employees in Brisbane?---Yes, they did.

Did Qantas allow any employees in ACS Brisbane to leave the business and take a redundancy package?---Yes.

Do you know roughly how many employees in ACS Brisbane were allowed to take redundancy?---Not off the top of my head. I mean the numbers are there but I can't - - -

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE RXN MS MCKENZIE

All right. Are you able to say how the vacancies left those by those people leaving the business were filled?---There were people transferred from Sydney ACS to Brisbane.

And were those people the people who had applied from within ACS Sydney to transfer to ACS in Brisbane?---Yes.

And are you able to say what happened to the vacancies in Sydney ACS created as a result of that transfer to Brisbane?---Yes, they were backfilled by heavy maintenance employees.

Yes, thank you. Are there vacancies currently in ACS Sydney?---Not to my knowledge.

Are there vacancies currently in ACS Brisbane?---Not to my knowledge.

You were asked some questions in relation to the overall fairness of the process and I think you attested or Ms Doust explored with you the evidence you gave about it not being fair to change the rules at this stage, do you remember those questions?---I do.

And you were asked questions in relation to people who had accepted roles other than - or people who had accepted some roles having some certainty?---Yes.

Are you able to say what was generally the first preference of heavy maintenance LAMEs in Sydney for alternative positions?---Overwhelmingly the preference was for a position in ACS Sydney.

Yes. And do you know how many people initially applied for vacancies in ACS Sydney?---I think there was 200.

And I think you said there were 81 vacancies?---Yes.

Did those 81 vacancies include the vacancies created as a result of employees in Brisbane ACS taking redundancy or were they additional positions?---I think they were in the 81.

And does it follow from that that some 120 LAMEs in heavy maintenance were unsuccessful in obtaining their first preference in Sydney ACS?---Yes.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE RXN MS MCKENZIE

You were asked some questions in relation to annual leave and I think you said that the only circumstance in which the question of management of leave in ACS would come to you is if a particular employee made a grievance about their particular leave arrangements, do you remember that?---Yes.

Are you aware of any grievance brought by any LAME in ACS in relation to their not being able to or being permitted to take their leave?---I'm not aware of any.

I've got no further questions for Mr Ratcliffe, he might be excused?

THE COMMISSIONER: Just one quick one. I don't know if you're the person who would know this, Mr Ratcliffe. The Association wrote to Qantas on
1 August with that proposal, do you remember that?---Yes.

And then there was a meeting at Rockdale or Bexley?---Bexley.

Were you at that meeting?---I think that was the 3 August meeting, Commissioner.

Yes?---Yes, I was at that.

And I know what Qantas said, but Qantas never wrote back. I'm trying to look for correspondence. There isn't any Qantas letter back, is there?

MS MCKENZIE: ALAEA5, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: ALAEA?

MS MCKENZIE: 5. I'm sorry, a response, that may not be. It refers to the
8 August letter I think after the meeting. I think it is generally responsive to those matters. I'm sorry, Commissioner, I might have misled you. I think that was responsive to the question about the appeals.

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry?

MS MCKENZIE: I think ALAEA was a letter responsive to an earlier letter on 11 August about the appeals process and not to - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, it doesn't seem to - yes, Qantas' position seems to have been an oral, a verbal one?---Yes, Commissioner, and that was conveyed at the meeting on the 3rd.

**** DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE RXN MS MCKENZIE

Okay. And then subsequently, yes. Yes, thank you, Mr Ratcliffe, you're excused?---Thank you, Commissioner.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.46PM]

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, we might adjourn and resume at 2 o'clock.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.46PM]
<RESUMED [2.10PM]

THE COMMISSIONER: Just one second, Ms McKenzie. Ms Doust, I'm still troubled by your proposed order so we can go to that document again, the amended notice.

MS DOUST: Yes, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: I just want to ask, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but in this, on point 17 which is the last page, it refers to clause 37.2 and 37.3.

MS DOUST: Yes.

THE COMMISSIONER: But there's no reference - I thought that some of those things were to 37.4 type matters or am I miss - - -

MS DOUST: Sorry, that should include 37.4 as well, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. And in 15:

A determination or finding that clause 37.2 obliges Qantas to offer access to training at Avalon under clause 37.2.

MS DOUST: Well, that's really otiose now, Commissioner, so we needn't trouble you about that particular request.

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. That's happened, has it? Well, it's gone.

MS DOUST: Yes, well, it certainly - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that training slot is gone, sorry. And what about 16?

MS DOUST: Well, that's nearly past but, Commissioner, you no doubt will have noted some evidence that came from Mr Ratcliffe this morning about the retraining obligations and when I reflect upon the tenor of that evidence it maybe that that concession needs to be reflected in some way in the terms of any orders that you might make, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't understand that. What do you mean by that?

MS DOUST: Well, I'm conscious, I think that both Mr Harris and Mr Ratcliffe are in the room and I guess for Mr Ratcliffe the time has past, but in any case it's a matter about which I propose to address you ultimately, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, yes. But in any case the reference to 37.2 should be at least 37.3, shouldn't it, or 3 and 4?

MS DOUST: Sorry, do you mean in paragraph 16?

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.

MS DOUST: Yes, that will be correct.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. Yes, thank you.

MS DOUST: Thank you, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Ms McKenzie.

MS MCKENZIE: Yes, thank you. I call Murray Atwell-Harris.

<MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS, SWORN [2.15PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS MCKENZIE

MS MCKENZIE: Yes, your name is Murray Atwell-Harris?---That's right.

And you're employed currently as group general manager, aircraft customer services, Qantas engineering?---That's right.

Is that correct?---That's correct.

Mr Harris, have you prepared an affidavit of the evidence that you wish to give in these proceedings?---I did.

Do you have a copy of that affidavit with you?---I do.

Do you say that the contents of that affidavit together with the annexures MH1 through to MH4 are to the best of your knowledge and belief true and correct?---I do.

I tender Mr Harris's affidavit.

EXHIBIT #QF5 AFFIDAVIT OF MR ATWELL-HARRIS

MS MCKENZIE: Mr Harris, if I can deal with one matter that arose in evidence from the ALAEA witnesses yesterday, there was some evidence given from the witnesses in relation to a belief that there were some vacancies still open for ACS employees in Perth. Are you able to say whether there are currently any vacancies in Perth ACS for LAMEs?---Yes, I can. There's no vacancies in Perth for LAMEs.

Are all positions currently filled and occupied in Perth?---No, there's two to be filled. There's a recruitment process that's been underway and two people still to come in to take those jobs up.

When you say to be filled, do I take it that the positions have already been offered and accepted?---Offered and accepted.

But the individuals have not physically commenced in those positions yet?
---That's correct.

Yes, thank you. Nothing further for Mr Harris.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XN MS MCKENZIE

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOUST [2.17PM]

MS DOUST: Mr Harris, I take it from your statement or am I correct in assuming that before you prepared your statement you were provided with the statements that have been made by the ALAEA members who are the subject of these proceedings?---I've read some of the statements but the specifics you'd have to advise me of.

Well, do you recall for example reading the statement of Mr Re?---I do.

And am I right in assuming that if there was anything to contradict in that statement you would have said it in your statement?---Correct.

Can I just ask you first about the issue of annual leave which you deal with I think towards the conclusion of your statement?---Yes.

You annexe as MH4 a summary of outstanding annual leave and long service leave entitlements?---I do.

That's accrued as at 30 November 2006?---That's right.

Just to clarify, those figures under the headings AL Balance and LSL Balance are in days, aren't they?---They are.

I don't know whether you've done the calculations but my rough assessment for the areas in Sydney ACS has an average of about 40 days annual leave accrued per employee?---I haven't done that calculation.

Have you done the calculation for long service leave?---No.

Is it the case that Qantas has any particular targets in place for maximum amounts of annual leave that might be accrued?---Targets are set from time to time, usually at financial year.

What's the current target that Qantas has in place?---I'd have to go and check it. I don't carry that sort of detail around.

You don't have a rough idea of how much annual leave you should have?---Well, I mean we would normally target 20 to 25 days per employee.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

So am I to assume that from the fact that you don't have a sense of the average days arising out of MH4 that you haven't done any assessment as to whether or not your people are beyond the targets?---It's fairly clear that they're beyond the targets.

And what plan do you have in place to reduce those numbers?---The plans to reduce the numbers are really to make sure as people leave the business their leave is paid out and going forward any new roster deals with acquittal of leave for the year that's currently in process.

I'm sorry, new roster deals with acquittal of leave
?---So any new roster in any ACS business, any one of the ACS businesses is designed to make sure that leave can be acquitted, can be taken.

Okay, and so if you don't know the actual amounts of leave that's been accrued, can I suggest you wouldn't necessarily be in a position to make an assessment as to how any new roster could assist in acquitting that leave?---Re-pose the question. I'm not sure I understand you.

I think you accepted a little while ago that you didn't know the exact figures for your particulars areas per person?---I said I hadn't made the calculation.

So did you have a rough idea in your mind as to what the sorts of averages were?
---No.

It would be very difficult in that case to try and make an assessment of how any particular roster might assist in acquitting leave, wouldn't it?---Well, the people that are designing the rosters have that accountability.

They're accountable to you?---Of course they are.

But you would need to go through and conduct an assessment of what they were proposing, to see whether that would enable them to acquit that leave, wouldn't you?---No, not at that detail. I'd simply trust that they've done that analysis and assure that the rosters will do what they're designed to do. I certainly wouldn't do that myself.

Do you ask them to provide you anything in the way of particular figures as to how much leave would be able to be acquitted in that circumstance?---They don't provide those sorts of details to me personally, but there's a group of people employed in the ACS business to make sure that that scrutiny is in place and I simply trust - - -

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

Who are they?---It's called the lighthouse group.

Is that a special group that Qantas has put together to oversee this issue of annual leave accrual?---Not specifically. It deals with rosters in general. It's a group of people that are put in place to make sure that rosters are designed so that they meet operational need going forward, including things like annual leave.

Excessive annual leave accruals was one of the main areas of their concern, isn't it?---It's an area of interest. It's more concerning that we deal with the leave that's been accrued in the current situation, so they're more interested in making sure that the rosters deal with the leave that's being accrued rather than the historical leave that was accrued.

There's an interest as well, is there not, in ensuring that accrued long service leave is acquitted?---Yes, there is an interest in making sure that happens.

Have you done any assessment on these figures as to what sort of numbers of accrued long service leave days your employees have?---No.

I think you reject in your statement any suggestion that there might be some occ health and safety ramifications that arise from excessive amounts of accrued leave?---I do.

Have you done any risk assessment on this subject area to see whether these issues might give rise to - - -?---The project lighthouse has as one of its accountabilities an assessment of how fatigue and safety issues are managed through rosters. I don't do that personally.

So you yourself haven't done the assessment on the risk?---No.

So the lighthouse group, have they produced a report to Qantas about the issues that said that this is not an occupational health and safety risk?---No, not specifically.

Well, not specifically? Is that also not generally, that they haven't - - -?---They haven't produced a report that details that sort of information.

So your conclusion that there's no occupational health and safety risk isn't assisted by any report from the experts within Qantas, is it?---No, it's not.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

And it's not assisted by any particular knowledge of the amounts of leave that have been accrued?---It's certainly not assisted by leave information. It's assisted by safety information and certainly by reference to the amount of leave that people take in other ways that gives them relief from fatigue.

Have you done figures about the amount of leave that people take in other ways?
---Certainly again lighthouse has detail of the number of days that people are able to use as part of their roster for recreation and relief from fatigue.

Have you looked at that yourself, though? Are you able to say what particular numbers of days are available to people?---No. Again, that's not the sort of detail that I would carry around.

So the lighthouse group hasn't actually reported back to you in that area yet, have they?---They simply would tell me that the fatigue analysis of a particular roster is satisfactory or unsatisfactory and I trust that they tell me the right thing.

You understand as well that Qantas has obligations under the enterprise agreement about the acquittal of leave?---I do.

You do? And what are those obligations?---To allow people to take leave.

Within any particular period?---I'd have to refer to the EBA specifically.

Any ideas roughly, ball park?---No. I'd have to go and - I wouldn't guess that. I'd go and refer to the EBA or seek guidance from one of the IR managers.

Is that something you've had occasion to do, having produced these figures for the purpose of this proceedings?---We've certainly discussed in general, but I've not had any specific conversation about that, other than having EBA obligations.

Let me just put it this way. For the purpose of these proceedings, I think at about 30 November 2006, did you organise for this print-out to be generated?---I to be honest can't recollect who asked for that print-out to be generated.

Sorry, you asked for it or organised to get it?---I don't recall that I did. Again, I can't tell you who organised for it to be produced or why.

Who gave you this document, then, Mr Harris?---To be honest, my recollection is probably Peter Styles, who is the manager of people for the ACS business.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

So you think Mr Styles gave this to you?

MS MCKENZIE: I object to the question. It's not really a memory test. Ms Doust should be aware that the document and her memory may not be as good as Mr Harris's, but the document was created by Qantas in response to the summons and there was some debate before you about whether we would produce the whole lot or whether we would voluntarily take it upon ourselves to create a document by way of a summary of annual leave and it was an agreement reached before the Commission. I don't know that there's any point in testing Mr Harris's memory about it.

THE COMMISSIONER: That's right, isn't it? Isn't that correct?

MS DOUST: Well, no. It might assist. It's always of assistance, Commissioner, to understand the degree of care exercised by a witness in the preparation of a witness statement and their degree to which they have adverted to issues themselves.

Can I just clarify this, Mr Harris? As manager - sorry, what's your correct title? Group general manager ACS?---That's correct.

That's across all of Australia?---It's internationally.

You prepare the budget for that particular group?---I'm accountable for the budget. I don't prepare it.

Is annual leave included in the budget? You have to include figures about annual leave, if that's going to be taken and what cost that will be to the business?---We do.

So including the cost of replacement employees to provide relief on rosters and so on?---We certainly budget for head count, if that's what you mean.

For the purpose of these proceedings, Mr Harris, you understand, don't you, the proposal that the ALAEA has made?---Which proposal?

The proposal as to how the remaining six retrenches heavy maintenance LAMEs might be accommodated?---I do.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

That involves allowing LAMEs in Sydney ACS to either take voluntary redundancy or move to Brisbane ACS?---I'm listening.

That's right, isn't it? That's your understanding?---That's part of the proposal, as I understand it.

The second part of the proposal is to allow those remaining Sydney heavy maintenance LAMEs to back-fill the vacant positions that are created?---As I understand it.

So we're ad idem on that issue, then?---Yes.

You don't understand it to be any different to how I've put it?---Yes.

That's one element of the proposal?---Mm.

The other element is to allow the remaining retrenched employees to provide annual leave relief?---Yes.

Is that your understanding of how ALAEA puts its case in the Commission?
---Yes.

Going then to paragraph 22 of your affidavit, am I right in saying that, really, that summarises your opposition to the ALAEA proposal so far as it concerns shall we call it the double shuffle?---It's certainly a summary of it.

You talk there about it not meeting the ongoing operational requirements of the business?---Yes.

Can you just tell me - perhaps you might tell me in point form what are those operational requirements?---In each of the ACS ports that we have adequate licence coverage and experience to make sure that the operational needs of the business are met.

In Sydney ACS, do you have licence coverage problems?---Yes, we do.

Which licences do you have a problem with?---A330 is probably the main one at the moment.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

Any secondary?---No. That's the main one that we have issues with.

Can I just clarify so that we're absolutely clear about it? Are you saying that you have problems with licence coverage in any area other than A330s?---Look, we always have licence coverage issues and again project lighthouse is designed to make sure that we optimise the licence coverage in each of the ACS ports going forward, so there's always peaks and troughs in licence coverage and issues with licence coverage that need to be carefully managed.

You currently have training programs in place to extend your licence coverage in Sydney ACS?---Yes, we do.

What are those training programs?---I'd have to refer back to the training programs themselves. I again don't carry that sort of information around with me.

You say the A330 - sorry, I'll just go back a little bit. I asked you what the operational requirements were referred to in paragraph 22. Now, I think you said that that really refers to licence coverage and were there any other issues contained within that?---Well, licence coverage and experience are the main ones and obviously as you move through the teams and the way the business is structured, leadership is obviously an issue, to make sure that we have the right people running the business at the various levels of leadership, but certainly licence coverage, experience and leadership capability.

In terms of I think you annex lists to your document, MH2. Now, that's the list of Sydney ACS LAMEs who've been identified by the ALAEA as being interested in either some sort of voluntary redundancy or transfer elsewhere?---That's my understanding.

It's the case, isn't it, that none of those group I think are A330 qualified?---I'd have to read through. Most of those people have multiple licences and I don't see any A330 on there, unless you can correct me.

So you wouldn't lose any A330s by allowing any of those gentlemen to move off to ACS say in Brisbane or take voluntary redundancy?---I wouldn't, but certainly to lose those other licences would need to be carefully considered and it clearly has been.

Which licences do you say would be a problem losing?---Well, I mean, where people have multiple licences, obviously the effect is much greater. If people carry single licences, then obviously there's more ability to interchange, but where you've got people who are - especially where they're senior LAME or acting senior LAME and have multiple licences, then clearly we'd need to consider carefully how we replace those licences.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

It's the case, isn't it, in ACS Sydney, at least in base maintenance, I think, that they work in teams of 20?---They're certainly large teams. Whether they're all 20 or not, again I'd have to check.

Sorry, in that region?---I'd have to check that. The managers run those crews, not me, but certainly they're large crews with senior LAMEs working amongst the crews.

Just so that I can understand you, do you have any reason to disbelieve the figure of 20?---No, no reason to disbelieve it. Whether they're all 20 or not, I can't tell you.

Can I just ask you this, then? Based on your understanding, is it sort of in that region or are you in a position where you couldn't really say, but you know that it's big?---I know they're large crews. I certainly don't know whether they're all at 20 or 12 or 15. I certainly don't have that level of detail.

But you accept they're large crews?---They're large crews.

Do you accept that there's a number of LAMEs in each crew?---I do.

Do you accept this proposition? You'd really need to have an understanding of the numbers of crews and the spread of licences across the workforce generally to have a sense whether you would be able to deliver licence coverage in accordance with the ALAEA proposal?---You certainly need to understand the full licence mix by crew and the managers that have put these summaries together have made sure that they have done just that. That's what they've been held accountable for doing.

Which summary are you talking about?---Well, the reason to deny EOI on the far right-hand side, where there's been some sort of reference made to rejection, the managers that are responsible for making those decisions have given those reasons, so they have made the assessment that you talk about.

This was an assessment that was made some time ago, wasn't it?---Well, it's in response to Mr Gant's statement, so I don't know exactly when he made that request and how it was actually documented. It's not a date I have readily available to me.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

Just let me understand that, then. Sorry, you were talking about MH2?---I'm talking about what I see in my affidavit as MG1. I don't know when that was produced.

Sorry, MG1 is not in your affidavit. Are you looking at Mr Gant's statement?
---No, I'm looking at mine, MH2.

MH2, yes, and are you saying that - did you prepare that spreadsheet?---No. Again, I don't prepare that sort of information. Someone would have prepared it for me.

Who would that be?---Again, through Peter Styles.

When did you ask Mr Styles to prepare that?---I don't recall that date, sorry. I don't have that level of detail. It would have been for these proceedings.

Sorry, what's Mr Styles' role?---He's manager of people for the ACS business, so he reports into Mr Ratcliffe, but he's assigned to the ACS business.

Is he a LAME?---No, he's not. He's a human resources professional.

Did he make any of the decisions about the rejection of any of these gentlemen's applications for transfer or voluntary redundancy?---No.

You're not able to say where he got the information from?---He would have got the information about rejection from the managers of the areas where the expression of interest was coming from and where the redeployment was sought.

But that's based largely upon your surmise that that's the way that he went about it?---I know that's the way he went about it. I held the managers of the areas accountable for that process.

How did you hold them accountable? Did you go and do any sort of spot checks to make sure that they were giving you the right story?---I did.

Did you? With which manager?---Kevin McDermott, Douglas Mills, Rodney Hess.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

You went and spoke to them after Mr Styles gave you this document, did you?
---Not specifically that document, but throughout the process of assessment, EOI and redeployment, there was a number of occasions where I spoke to the managers to make sure that I was comfortable with the process that they were using.

No, but I'm just talking about this document, to ensure that this document is accurate, Mr Harris?---This specific document, mostly I think it entirely relates to Sydney-based maintenance, so Kevin McDermott would have been accountable for producing the reasons for rejection.

But again you never had a discussion with Mr McDermott about any of these matters?

MS MCKENZIE: I object to this line of questioning. No issue has been taken in the ALAEA evidence that takes issue with the facts as contained in this document. There's no evidence that conflicts with this so I don't know where the line of questioning is going which is testing - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, they could hardly come up with any evidence, could they?

MS MCKENZIE: Well, it's not even been asserted that the assessment is wrong. There is no issue raised by the ALAEA that the information contained in this document is inaccurate. There's no conflict, factual conflict which you're going to be asked to decide.

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not sure that you're right, Ms McKenzie.

MS MCKENZIE: Well, there's been no evidence given by any of the six employees - sorry, I withdraw that. There's been no evidence called from any member of the ALAEA who applied for EOI and was rejected. There's been no evidence called from anyone other than the six employees, none of whom applied for redundancy, so the basis upon which people were denied EOI is not the subject of any evidence on the part of the ALAEA in their case and that's what the questioning is about. It seems to be directed at testing the accuracy of the reasons why these particular individuals were denied EOI. No evidence has been called by the ALAEA that goes to that question, either from these people or anyone else who may have been denied a voluntary redundancy, so it's difficult to see how the questions can be relevant to any of the issues in the proceedings.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Ms Doust has already asked the witness what are the critical - - -

MS DOUST: Can I just ask, Commissioner, whether perhaps this discussion might take place and Mr Harris might be relieved of the need to sit through this sort of discussion?

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. Can you go outside, Mr Harris?

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.44PM]

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Doust already asked the witness what is one of the critical needs in Sydney and he said we don't have enough skills on I think it's the little airbus, the 330.

MS DOUST: A330.

THE COMMISSIONER: And then legitimately she says there doesn't seem to be any 330s mentioned on these people who are not allowed to go. Well, she's entitled to continue with that, because it might look as if - well, she's entitled to look and see how - when people say extensive experience and licence coverage, that's the reason given, she's entitled to explore that, isn't she?

MS MCKENZIE: She's entitled - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: And part of the exploration is is this document something that someone wrote up on a Friday afternoon or is it - - -

MS MCKENZIE: That's the point at which - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: And there's limits to - I mean, Mr Harris says I don't know and maybe that's the answer to you, Ms Doust, but she's entitled to press - - -

MS MCKENZIE: Well, Mr Harris has already said firstly that it's not just - there's an issue - he was asked is there an issue with licences, he says, yes, A330. She says, well, there's no-one there that has A330, although I notice that Mr Brimmer seems to be trained for A330 and it's recorded on the document. Mr Harris then said it's the mix and all of these people have extensive licence mix. She then is asking questions about the experience or not. He said he didn't prepare the document. He said it was prepared by his managers and they're accountable to him. I was objecting to the further line of questioning which then seemed to be exploring, well, who actually did do it and who do you report to, because it doesn't seem to me to be in any way relevant to the point at which - the point she's trying to make through the document. He didn't prepare it. He can't give evidence about the content of it and I can't see where the questions can take it beyond that.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

THE COMMISSIONER: No, but he does rely on it, because he relies on it to say I can't let anyone in Sydney go any more, so he relies on the reasons set out. She's entitled to find out why does he believe that, that reason.

MS MCKENZIE: He gives the evidence himself and he says in paragraph 18 and MH2 is responsive to MG1. MG1 was the attachment to Mr Gant's statement that attached the names of people when Mr Gant said, well, here's some people who are willing to go. MH2 responds to that and he has asked for someone to put together a document which refers to those individuals and sets out their licence coverage and sets out the reason why, so MH2 is clearly a document which was prepared by way of response to MG1.

Mr Harris has given his own evidence as to the reasons why in his view as the manager people can't - he needs to retain a mix and he said it's licence coverage and it's experience and it's leadership capability and obviously Ms Doust can explore any or all of those matters with Mr Harris. The basis of my objection was simply as it appeared to be pursuing a fruitless line in relation to the authorship and bringing into existence of MH2 when it seems to be pretty clear from his evidence already where that document came from. That was the basis of the objection. It was the relevance of the line of questioning about who Mr McDermott - who he spoke to and when he spoke to Mr McDermott because
Mr McDermott wasn't the author of the document either.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms McKenzie. I will allow Ms Doust to continue. Understand, Ms Doust, that the answer may - he may just persist and say, look, I really don't know, but I trust these people and you might just have to be stuck with that, so there's a limit to how far you go, but I certainly will allow you to continue to press on this aspect, because it seems to me there's two - Qantas relies on two issues, two bases, one as Mr Ratcliffe says, he thinks it would be unfair to people to change the rules for the Brisbane mix and match now. That's one argument.

MS DOUST: Yes, the rule being there are no ACS positions, that's the rule.

THE COMMISSIONER: The second aspect is in any case, we can't do any more in Brisbane because we need those 11 or 10 I think and in Sydney we need these people, so I think you're entitled to continue with that.

MS DOUST: Commissioner, that's precisely how we understand the case and these matters are put, we would submit, on the basis of an assertion and we need to engage with that assertion in order to put our case back in response and I just find it an extraordinary state of affairs that a witness would annex a document and have absolutely no idea of the generation of - - -

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

THE COMMISSIONER: He doesn't have an absolute no idea, but he's been given this document which, as Ms McKenzie has said, was prepared by others. I don't think you can quite go that far, but, anyway - - -

MS DOUST: When it's been put as containing the rationale - it's one thing I think to annex a document which might be a business document of the business, but when it's said to be the basis of the reasoning, then the witness probably bears a higher obligation to be able to explain that. That's what we would submit, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay, we'll continue with Mr Harris.

MS DOUST: Thank you.

<MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS, ON FORMER OATH [2.50PM]
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOUST, CONTINUING

MS DOUST: Mr Harris, I think I was asking you about MH2 and I think you were indicating you believe Mr Styles had put that together for you?---I said that's possible. I don't know exactly who put that together.

Who ultimately gave it to you before you attached it to your witness statement?
---It was provided with my witness statement.

So someone provided you with your witness statement?---I prepared my witness statement with our counsel.

They provided you with the document, did they?---Correct.

Is this right, then? You didn't actually confer with any of your managers underneath you about the reasons that are set out in the final column of that document?---I did do that.

For the purpose of preparing this particular document?---Again, through the process of EOIs and redeployment, I conferred with my managers, including the one accountable for that area, on several occasions about the reasons we were rejecting people.

So in relation to these particular individuals, you conferred with them at each point?---I've certainly conferred with the manager responsible for this area about these people and the reason that we couldn't let them go, if that's what you're driving at.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

When do you say you did that?---On several occasions. The exact dates I can't tell you, but we did that regularly through the process, not only for this area, but for all areas.

And you say for each of these individuals, you conferred with your manager about each one?---Correct.

At the time?---Well, as the process unfolded, correct.

And about what period was that during? I think you can't recall the dates of the particular discussions, but - - -?---During the period of the process. Again, it was regularly done as the process unfolded.

Has any training taken place in ACS during the course of 2006?---Yes.

What sort of training has been going on?---I'd have to go and look at the records, sorry. Again, I don't keep that sort of information.

You referred, when I asked you about the issues that were comprehended by your general term of ongoing operational requirements, I think you said licence coverage, experience and leadership?---Leadership competency.

Sorry, leadership competency?---Competency, yes.

Do you mean that you were looking for employees who had achieved that competency, had you? Is there some sort of training?---For leadership are you talking about or for the others?

Yes. When you use the term competency in that context, do you mean the attainment of a particular - - -?---Well, some sort of assessment of skill in providing leadership and that could either be done by assessment of people's performance on the job or completion of some sort of training or education, sure, all of those things.

Well, in terms of those employees who are assessed to have this leadership competency, what was it that you were looking for?---The leadership criteria was set out as we went through that process again. Those people that were recruited into senior LAME, maintenance supervisor and duty maintenance manager roles, there was a set of criteria and position descriptions that obviously set out the sorts of leadership capabilities we were looking for.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

You say that those are the sorts of things that you were considering in relation to these individuals?---Which individuals are you talking about?

In MH2?---I didn't say that specifically, no.

Is that in fact what happened?---I said if I look at the list in MH2, those people, you'll see a number of those are either senior LAMEs or acting senior LAMEs and then obviously there's others that are experienced LAMEs and all have certain licence coverage. What we do again, whether it's this group of people or any other, is to make sure that we've got people that can carry out the senior LAME role and any of the other more senior leadership roles and also the licence roles adequately, to meet the operational needs of the business.

Am I correct in assuming that you couldn't say - make an assessment, taking, you know, someone from this particular pool of people in MH2 and couldn't say whether they had any more experience than any of the six ALAEA gentlemen who are caught in this process?---Put that again so I understand.

Well, you're not able to say in relation to any of the gentlemen in MH2 whether their experience is in excess of that of the six fellows from ALAEA who are the subject of these proceedings?---I think there's been a process that's actually determined that very point. There's been a process to see if the six employees were able to replace any other employee from a skills and experience viewpoint, so that process has been conducted.

Who conducted that process?---That process was conducted through the EOI and redeployment process, so assuming for any of the people who sought to be redeployed, they've been through an assessment process.

It wasn't the case that anyone sat down and gave consideration to these gentlemen who are in MH2 and compared them as against the six ALAEA members, was it?
---That process has been conducted.

By whom?---By the assessment process, by the people that conducted the assessment process.

Who are they?---Well, there's a series of managers and HR people who were involved in - - -

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

Who precisely? Names, please, Mr Harris?---I'd have to go and get that information. I don't carry that sort of information around.

But you're certain that one of those people conducted a process where they measured these six fellows as against the people on this list in MH2? Is that the evidence you give under oath?---That's my understanding.

No, is that the evidence you give? You're certain that - - -?---I just said to you that is my understanding. To the best of my recollection, that's my understanding.

Well, did you participate in that process yourself?---No.

You can't identify who did it?---Well, again, in my business, Peter Styles ran that process for me.

When did you instruct Peter Styles to go and undertake a comparison of these six fellows and the people who remain on that MH2 list?---Again, to go back through the process, we had a number of people seeking redeployment to come into
the - - -

Mr Harris, when did you instruct - - -

MS MCKENZIE: Let him answer the question?---I can't recall when specifically.

MS DOUST: No, he's not answering my question?---I can't recall specifically when.

Was that your initiative, to decide to go and carry out this further assessment process?---No. I didn't say there was a further assessment process. I said there was an assessment process to look at the individuals who were potentially able to come into the ACS business and what we did was we made sure that we had a criteria to assess whether people could come over and replace anybody who expressed interest in taking redundancy and we did that with due regard to skills and experience. Now, that was conducted for all of the people who expressed interest to come into ACS and there was many more of those than we had positions for, so the thing that I stipulated and made sure I drove pretty firmly was a process that followed Qantas procedure, to make sure that it was a fair and equitable outcome for everybody, so anyone who wished to come over and work in the ACS business had that assessment carried out.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

Mr Harris, what you're talking about is the process whereby offers were or the advertisement was put out for positions in ACS?---Correct.

That was done in about April?---Yes.

You then had a process of calling for applications?---Correct.

Applications were submitted?---Correct.

There were some interviews and a number of offers were made?---Correct. There was a process conducted.

And that process was all closed by about June/July, was it?---Again, don't have that date directly in my head, but around that time.

Yes, and you're aware, aren't you, of when the ALAEA made this proposal about putting some people into ACS, letting the ACS volunteers go? Do you remember when that - - -?---Well, again, I don't have the exact dates, but I know the sequence of events was to progressively open up more options to try and attempt to keep more heavy maintenance people in the business and at a point there
was - - -

Sorry, just to stop you there, you accept that's a desirable outcome, to open up as many options as possible, to keep as many people in the business as you possibly can?---Yes, I do, and I wouldn't have made the decisions that I made if I didn't believe that.

Just in relation to the ALAEA proposal about shifting some people through, I think I referred to it earlier as a double shuffle proposal and you understand what I mean by double shuffle?---Yes.

When did you first start giving some consideration to that proposal?---Well, my recollection is about a month after that first process started. Again, it's broadly recorded in the affidavit, so after the initial step of the proposal, then we opened up the potential of Sydney ACS people leaving the business to allow Sydney heavy maintenance people to be retained.

Just to clarify, it's not the case, is it, that after that date you went through and carried out any further review of the outstanding volunteers in ACS, is it?---We have always used that original comparison, to see where people ranked against the criteria that we established.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

You understand the question I'm asking just then, Mr Harris?---That's the process I'm referring to.

You didn't carry out any further review after the ALAEAs proposal of the outstanding volunteers in ACS?---No. That's correct. We've always relied on the single set of - the ranking list. We've always relied on the single process and the outcome of that process.

Do you say that there was a ranking list generated in this process, was there?
---There has to be. There was more people applying to stay in the jobs than we had, so clearly we had to know which people would go in and which ones would not go in.

So did you rank people from 1 through to - - -?---I'm not using ranking in that term. I'm simply saying here's the acceptable group and here's the people that miss out.

Did you generate this list?---Did I personally?

Yes?---No.

Did you ever see it, this list numbered from best to worst?---For the ports that were in contention, yes.

There were lists of employees ranked in order of preference?---Well, no. Again, you're taking rank to mean something that I didn't imply. I meant that there's a list of people who are acceptable to take redundancy and a list of people who clearly would miss out on redundancy and how then the number of people that came in to back-fill the positions would occur.

I do apologise. I had taken ranking list really to mean a list of people ranked in accordance with - - -?---Well, the context is that clearly we have to know if we've got more people than jobs, we have to know, somehow know which ones are acceptable for the number of jobs and which ones aren't. That's the context under which I use the term rank.

So just to clarify, the upshot is that at no stage after ALAEA made their proposal did you go back and undertake any further review of the people in MH2 as against the six ALAEA gentlemen?---No.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

Is this right, then, and I don't mean to be unkind about it, that you and others in Qantas have taken the view we've conducted a process, we're not going to revisit that?---I certainly hold that view based on a fair amount of input and a fair amount of consideration and my view is based on the process that was undertaken, what the business can bear and the fairness in respect to the people who've been through some other redeployment process, so I've considered all of that and, yes, that's my view.

Let me just nail them down. Three issues, the process that was undertaken, I think the fairness to the decisions that other people have taken and what the business can bear?---Yes.

They're the reasons for your opposition, as it were, to the ALAEA proposal?
---Correct.

And when you talk about what the business can bear, really, you're talking about those operational reasons that you identified to me before?---I am.

Licence coverage, experience, leadership competency?---Yes.

And in that context, you haven't undertaken any review of the six guys as against the volunteers that could potentially go?---I've relied on the assessment criteria and process to determine whether they were acceptable in the first place or not.

You haven't undertaken any analysis and sort of thought, look, these guys have got these licences, they've been here these many years, they could slot into this crew and the like?---My understanding is that was done as part of that first process.

Not with these six gentlemen?---With everybody who sought to be redeployed and I'm assuming they sought to be redeployed.

Yes, they did, but we're talking about a different process, Mr Harris, here. You're not trying to suggest, are you, that someone sat down with the MH2 people and compared them with the ALAEA six, are you?---The MH2 people were compared with anybody in that cohort to see if they could be released or not.

And I think you would concede that during the course of the year there's been some further training in the section?---There's certainly been some training.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

What steps did you take, if any, to facilitate additional training for the heavy maintenance employees?---Again, I'd have to go and check the records.

Sorry?---I'd have to get somebody to check the records. I don't have that data retained.

Well, you were the person that had the oversight of the redeployment process?
---Yes.

And you made the general calls about what strategies were taken, didn't you?---I did. General is the right word.

You've been in this area 18 months?---I have.

Previously from a non-engineering area?---No, not correct.

Which area were you in beforehand?---The engine maintenance area, still with Qantas Engineering.

You're not a qualified LAME yourself?---No, I'm not.

No disrespect, many of us aren't. I, for example, am not, but is it possible in that process, it's fair to describe you as fairly new to this job, Mr Harris?---That's your description, certainly not mine.

You don't regard 18 months in this area as fairly new?---In this particular role,
18 months. I've certainly been in Qantas Engineering for an extensive period of time. I've had two Qantas careers.

Well, your LAMEs by and large have very lengthy periods of service under their belts, don't they?---Many do.

The vast bulk of them do?---Mm.

In fact, we've got a couple in this matter, John Field has been there for 40 years?
---Again, I have to take your word for that. I again don't track the individuals and certainly don't know their length of service for those six.

Have you ever looked at the position of Mr Field in this matter?---No, I haven't.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

Because he is a gentleman as I was saying with 40 years' service and a senior LAME. Not familiar with him?---Look, I hear the names, but again don't delve into the detail of the individuals.

Just on your list of individuals there, you've got Keith Moses and he's got 747?
---Where am I looking now?

Sorry, on MH2?---Yes.

So John Field has got 40 years' experience and his skills are 747-400, the Classic, 747?---Not quite, that's - - -

And 767. Now, he's a senior LAME as well. He stacks up pretty well with Keith Moses, doesn't he?---I can't comment. I don't know John. I don't know the detail of his licence coverage. I'm not being disrespectful to him, but I don't have that level of information.

Just comparing him, just simply on licence coverage issues, he could slot in for Keith Moses, Damian Cudmore, Kent Aston, Patrick Hildebrand?---Look, there's people far more learned on this topic than I am, but if I look through that list, there's a number of extra qualifications that each of those people you've named carry that you haven't said John carries, so again not being disrespectful to him, but you've not articulated the same licences that I see on that list.

All right. If you just bear with me very briefly, can I hand the witness the statement of John Field which is ALAEA9 and I'm referring the witness to JEF1. Do you see those qualifications?---I do.

The description is voluminous?---There's a big list.

Yes. Anything you can see about those sorts of qualifications and the fact of 40 years' service with Qantas that would make that man a problem slotting into ACS?---Again, there's been a process of assessing where these people fit into against the criteria and all I can tell you, again not having gone into John's particular circumstances, is that he has ended up in the list where there's no job offer. That's all I can tell you. I can't tell you from that list whether those qualifications are the sort that we need going forward and many of those - the way those qualifications are actually worded means nothing to me, to be honest.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

There's a couple of issues. First of all, can I assume from that that your answer would be the same if I took you to the details of every particular one of these guys?---It would be. I'd rely on the process that was carried out.

You'd say the process is enough to tell you that these guys aren't suitable for my business?---Correct.

And that's the case, isn't it, even though there are only 80 positions, but there were 200-odd applicants?---We had to fit a smaller number of people - sorry, there was a smaller number of jobs than the number of people applied.

Than applicants?---Absolutely.

And you don't say as a result of that that it meant that there are only 81 people who are actually suitable for a job in ACS, do you?---No, I don't say that.

Because it stands to reason, doesn't it, that other people with LAME qualifications might well have been suited to jobs in ACS. It's just that 200 into 81 won't go?
---Correct, and I think of it as more suitable as opposed to not suitable. There's some that were more suitable than others.

You accept generally that the issue is in terms of the people who are offered ACS jobs, it's a question of being more suitable as opposed to not suitable for the people that missed out?---Correct.

And, sorry, I think I just asked you, if I took you to the details of any individual, you'd have the same answer as Mr Field, that you wouldn't be able to say specifically in relation to them that there was any reason why they
couldn't - - -?---I haven't looked. I don't go into that level of detail.

I think you also ventured to say to me that there was some reason why Mr Field wasn't offered a job?---I don't recall saying that to you, sorry.

So you don't have anything to say to me about the position of Mr Field in this process?---I again don't know the detail of the individuals.

Thank you. Now, just going to ACS Sydney, is there 600 to 800 LAMEs in that area?---Yes, roughly.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

ACS as opposed to heavy maintenance does minor maintenance on planes between trips to and from wherever they're going?---That's broadly right.

Incidentally, can I ask you what is the status of the volume of traffic going into Sydney Airport from Qantas? Is that going up or down at the moment?---The volume of traffic? You mean the number of flights?

Yes?---Stable.

What is the work load for ACS at the moment? Is that stable as well?---Yes.

Is it correct, you deal with all the same types of planes that heavy maintenance always did?---For the Qantas fleet, that's true. ACS also deals with third party customer aircraft which may not have been worked on by heavy maintenance.

And what sort of aircraft are they?---The Boeing 777s, Airbus A340s, those sorts of aircraft that Qantas doesn't fly.

The bulk of your work, though, is for Qantas, is it?---Qantas and Jetstar the bulk of it is, yes.

Sorry, Qantas and Jetstar and just to clarify, the LAME qualification held by the LAMEs employed in ACS is the same as the LAME qualification held by the heavy maintenance guys?---Correct.

It's the same legal requirements in relation to certifying for the safety of aircraft?
---Correct.

And, in fact, they actually perform the same heavy maintenance - sorry, they perform the same tasks as people performed in heavy maintenance?---Generally, yes, but there's more detail work at a line maintenance level, ACS level, than there may be at heavy maintenance level and vice versa, in heavy maintenance they might be doing far more detailed work than an ACS guy might ever see, so different type of work, but same licence.

Can you give me an example of this very detailed work as opposed to the deeper work?---Sure. Heavy maintenance traditionally does deeper maintenance, so it's a term that's actually referred to in the industry and it entails fully overhauling an aircraft, stripping it right down pretty well to bare bones and inspecting, rectifying and rebuilding. In the ACS environment, there's more rectification at a systems level, to keep the aircraft flying and there's not a huge amount of ACS work at that deeper maintenance level. There's an interim stage which we call base maintenance which is, if you like, a step between the two, so people at terminals would traditionally do a relatively minor level of maintenance, but a fair bit of transit work and a heavy maintenance person would be working on the one aircraft for a number of weeks, if not months, at a much deeper level.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

So when you talk about the ACS work, does that tally up with what you said about the transit work?---Correct.

So ACS people are doing a lot more transit work?---Some. Base maintenance people sit between the two and they are doing a deeper level of maintenance, but not as deep as the heavy maintenance.

Not as deep as heavy maintenance?---Correct.

Some heavy maintenance LAMEs would probably suggest that in fact they are the ones that have to be the most vigilant in all of this process?---In fairness to all LAMEs, they would all argue that they have the pointy end of the process.

So a LAME is a LAME is a LAME?---Yes, certainly from a qualifications viewpoint. From a skills viewpoint, quite significantly different.

What skills do you think that the ACS LAMEs have that heavy maintenance LAMEs don't?---They're dealing in mainly different time frame, so from an ACS viewpoint, it's the time sensitive nature of the rectification and again not saying that a heavy maintenance person is doing it any slower. They're doing a different type of work over a longer period, so it's simply a matter of making sure that the application of the skills is appropriate for those two different time periods, if you like.

And not meaning any disrespect to anything in your affidavit, but it's really this time frame issue which is what you're talking about when you talk about cultural differences?---Correct. It's about making sure that you can assimilate into a different style of business. Certainly the carry the same level of qualifications and are capable of adapting either way, not that too many line maintenance LAMEs go back to being heavy maintenance LAMEs, but they're certainly capable of doing that, provided there's a careful process to assimilate people.

In terms of your turn-around times, how have they been going since your heavy maintenance guys have come over?---Fine.

They're actually doing better than they were before, aren't they?---Are you talking about release times of aircraft? From which environment?

Ensuring that in ACS that your aircraft are being turned around in time?---Yes.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

You're meeting on time targets better than you were previously?---You'd have to be a bit more specific and tell me which area you're talking about. In general, we've got the different fleets doing different things, so you'd have to give me more detail, if you want a more detailed answer.

When you asked me to be a little bit more specific, were you asking whether I could be more specific about the areas in base maintenance as to which
areas - - -?---You asked me a fairly broad question about isn't our performance better now that heavy maintenance employees have joined ACS.

On turn-around times?---I’d say no. If you want an answer to the general question the answer is no.

On turn around times specifically?---That’s not necessarily to do with heavy maintenance employees generally, but in that period of time turn around times have got worse.

For what area?---747 400 is the most notable concern.

For the other aircraft what are your turn around times like?---Okay.

Okay?---Yes, acceptable.

Any better or worse than they were prior to this?---Much the same.

Much the same? Any slight variation either way, Mr Harris?---I don’t have the fine detailing stored in my head, but I know 747 400’s worse.

All right. So sorry, just taking you back for a second. I think you accepted my proposition that - sorry. The nub of your concern, if any, about any heavy maintenance employees comes down to skills?---That’s one of my concerns.

That’s in terms of culture?---It’s one of the concerns.

Skills. And that’s mainly time frame skills?---Yes. It’s assimilating into a different work environment.

Anything else?---Well, I’ve got significant concern over the people who’ve voluntarily moved to other businesses and how they might feel about redeployment of the people that you were discussing or that we’re discussing.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

No, I’m talking specifically about the heavy maintenance employees, about their particular suitability or unsuitability. I think you said to me before that they went to the category of less suitable rather than not suitable and I’m just trying to tease out why your objections might be to those individuals and you say they’re not as attuned to time sensitive work, they don’t have that time sensitive skills?
---That's correct.

Anything else?---That’s the main - that’s the main area of cultural difference.

Yes, but you haven’t experienced thus far any problems with any of the heavy maintenance LAMEs moving into ACS, being able to meet your time frames?
---We’ve obviously had minor transitionary issues, but the leadership teams work pretty actively to make sure that they’re dealt with.

In fact a couple of heavy maintenance LAMEs moved into senior LAME positions in ACS, didn’t they?---They did that. We ensured that was part of the process. That’s that leadership competency I talk about.

And manage some of the crews?---Yes. In actual fact there’s some moving to more senior leadership roles as well.

I think that’s - is that Greg Hyatt, has he become a supervisor?---Correct.

You know him?---Yes.

And Craig Welsh, you’re familiar with him?---Yes.

And what’s his role now?---Craig’s in a maintenance supervisor role from memory, maybe duty maintenance management. I'll have to check, but one of those two higher leadership roles.

He’s an acting manager, isn’t he?---Craig Welsh has just been sitting in for Kevin McDermott, correct.

And so in that case is the case that the heavy maintenance LAMEs actually exceeded expectations?---Those employees applied for those roles through that process I was discussing, met the criteria and were either appointed into senior LAME maintenance supervisor or duty maintenance managers roles from those roles, but in some cases there were promotions.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

Quality performance and auditing is an important part of Qantas’s work, isn’t it?
---It is.

And you’re aware of Mr Re having a quality audit role?---Steve Re in the list?

Yes?---I didn’t know that specifically. I knew he’d been on secondment to the quality systems and risk department, but not that detail.

Well, I suggest that if someone’s capable of carrying out quality audits they must have a very high degree of familiarity with the various processes employed by Qantas throughout its maintenance?---In general that’s true. I don’t know in Steve’s particular case. I don’t know his circumstances.

You’re not suggesting Qantas would appoint someone to that sort of position unless they were capable of actually overseeing how other people perform their work and whether it’s up to standard?---All I can say is there’s those sorts of roles available. There’s a process for selection and they’re usually fairly well contested and if people are capable of doing them then they’re appointed.

Have you had any other blow ups in the workplace because of heavy maintenance LAMEs?---We’ve had some minor what I call people issues, integration issues, but again it’s been dealt with quite effectively and there’s nothing that concerns me at the moment.

And those issues you’ve had as a result of 81 going in, is that right? 81 LAMEs?
---Yes, I think that’s the number, correct.

I think you refer to 150 heavy maintenance personnel in your statement?---Yes, as the result of the close down of heavy maintenance. There’s around of 150 people that have transitioned with the ACS business from all cohorts.

All right. And now all this time having past you wouldn’t expect the six now going into a workforce of 600 or 800 is going to have any cultural impact on the workforce, would you?---I guess the counter argument is that we’ve done so well because we’ve managed it appropriately and took the right number of people. So at the end of the day the business has to be able to settle down and get back to normality.

Yes, but Mr Harris I’m not asking you for counter arguments and so on. Your counsel gets to make them at the end of the day. What I’m saying is you don’t seriously expect from six fellows moving into 600 or 800 that there’s going to be any sort of cultural destabilisation, do you?---What I do expect is there’s another process of assimilation to conduct and the business has borne enough.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

Well, the process of assimilation that occurred with the other heavy maintenance LAMEs involved a brief period of familiarisation, didn’t it, and then they got stuck into the job?---I consider it was a substantial effort.

And you say that’s happened completely successfully?---I do.

It seems to me that a man of your capacity would be capable of integrating six LAMEs into 600 with a much less effort than was required to integrate 81?
---Thanks for the compliment.

You’d agree with it, wouldn’t you?---Again there’s a process that we follow that allowed us to be successful.

I’m not saying that there wasn’t a process, but what I’m saying is if you’ve integrated 81 the task of integrating six is a great deal less, isn’t it?---Yes, but at the end of the day enough’s enough. We have to be able to run the business for normality and not have to plan to continue a process of reintegrating people. At some stage we have to settle down and do what we’re there to do and what I did was make a decision at that point in time. Whether it’s six or any other number enough was enough. We had assimilated enough people and we’d done well at it and that was good reason for it.

Do you think perhaps you’ve become unduly wedded to the line that’s been drawn because it’s yours?---No.

Are you able to say specifically what’s involved in this reintegration process?
---Well, I mean certainly from a leadership viewpoint we made sure that people were briefed, that they understood the change management process that we were taking them through, we did a lot of work to make sure that the leadership team was capable of actually dealing with the change process itself. And again they deserve the right to settle down and run the business without continual change.

Well, you will always have continual change in Qantas, won’t you?---There will be, but we can limit what we do and the nature of this particular role of this particular activity, as I say enough was enough. We had to draw the line and we did so.

Well, let me just nail that down then. The reintegration efforts involved briefing? So the briefing of your managers?---Crew selection. Managing through the leadership team a change management process making sure that they were okay with the process and able to - - -

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

I’m talking about actual tasks that have to be performed to carry out the integration. So there’s initially a briefing and what other steps need to be taken, Mr Harris?---Well, again the detail of it I can go and get but I don’t have that on me now. What I did with my managers to make sure from a leadership viewpoint they knew that they had to integrate people carefully with - - -

But Mr Harris, you’ve given us an affidavit all about this process. You’re saying that you can’t run me through sort of step by step - - - ?---No, I can’t.

What things needed to be done to integrate the heavy maintenance LAMEs?
---We had to make sure that they were put into crews that were appropriate for their skills, that they could integrate into those crews, that those people who went into new senior LAME roles knew what standards of expectation we had, what their roles were, to the people in maintenance supervisor and duty maintenance manager roles we put them through a leadership education program all designed to make sure at that period of time we could actually deal with the change process.

How long did the leadership education program go?---For about six weeks.

How long did it take you to carry out the assessment of which crews the individuals should go into?---Again you’d have to ask the managers that level of detail.

Okay. If you’d just bear with me for a moment, Commissioner. I think you’ve got up coming as well a Sydney precinct review?---We have. That’s not upcoming, it’s underway.

Underway. Likely to be any changes you’d have to deal with out of that?---I can’t tell you yet, but the review is designed to look at ways of optimising the three Sydney businesses so that they work more efficiently.

I put this to you. It’s fairly evident, isn’t it, that compared to all of these issues that you have to deal with the closure of Sydney heavy maintenance, the movement of the 81, the continual change in Qantas accommodating six LAMEs is by far the smallest impost on your department?---It is still an impost that has to be dealt with.

Thank you, Commissioner. Nothing further.

**** MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS XXN MS DOUST

MS MCKENZIE: I’ve got nothing by re-examination. If Mr Harris could be excused.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you, Mr Harris. You’re excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.32PM]

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms McKenzie, can I just ask you this. Over the break would it be possible for someone from your gang, Qantas people, I’m looking at that leave MH 4.

MS MCKENZIE: Yes.

THE COMMISSIONER: Would it be possible in the areas that are Sydney which is base maintenance, the asterisks areas, but I think yesterday we discovered something else, I think it might have been maintenance Syd on term?

MS MCKENZIE: Yes, I don’t think we’d take issue with that. That should have been asterisks too.

MS DOUST: That’s maintenance Syd on term, yes.

THE COMMISSIONER: In respect of those six items or six areas together with that thing that says grand total would someone be able to do the divisions as to what it means per person, per head? For annual leave balance and long service leave balance. Because I’m just thinking there was something suggested, there was a suggestion of a hundred and .....

MS DOUST: I think I’ve probably got to take responsibility here, Commissioner. I suggested 40 in annual leave is about the average and about 80 plus for long service leave and that’s with some rough work on the calculator. But I think it would be interesting actually, Commissioner, to see an update of that given Mr Ratcliffe’s evidence this morning about the apprentices.

THE COMMISSIONER: The what?

MS DOUST: About the apprentices, the apprentices reaching their anniversary about this time of the year and further days accruing at this stage.

MS MCKENZIE: I can say if anything’s going to be made of it, but the fact
is - and I don’t think this will be factually in issue - leave accrue is pro rata. It doesn’t all accrue in a big lump on an anniversary. Leave is accruing on a pro rata basis. I’m instructed - we can sort that out if there’s any issue about that, but my instructions are the leave accrued is pro rata. So it’s not only the case that there’ll be a huge spike in those numbers come February.

THE COMMISSIONER: I didn’t want this to be a major operation.

MS MCKENZIE: No, certainly.

THE COMMISSIONER: And the other thing too is where it says LSL balance, these are people who’ve got past their either 10 or - I don’t know what your cut off is - your 10 or 15 years. You’re not talking about people who’ve got seven years and there’s no entitlement as yet?

MS MCKENZIE: I'll confirm that, but I think it’s leave actually accrued because they got to the point they’ll be able to take it.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Sorry, I interrupted you, Ms McKenzie.

MS MCKENZIE: I now call Mr Les Roelandts.

<LESLEY ROELANDTS, SWORN [3.35PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS MCKENZIE

MS MCKENZIE: Your name is Lesley Roelandts?---Yes.

Mr Roelandts, are you currently employed as production manager for Sydney heavy maintenance operations of Qantas Engineering?---I am.

Mr Roelandts, have you prepared an affidavit of the evidence that you wish to give in these proceedings?---Yes.

Do you have a copy of that affidavit with you together with the annexures?---Yes.

And do you say that the contents of your affidavit together with the 29 annexures is to the best of your knowledge and belief true and correct?---Yes.

I tender Mr Roelandt’s affidavit.

EXHIBIT #QF 6 AFFIDAVIT OF LESLEY ROELANDTS

MS MCKENZIE: Yes, thank you, Commissioner.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOUST [3.37PM]

MS DOUST: Mr Roelandts, I think you accept at paragraph 2 that you had management of the redeployment process for all Sydney heavy maintenance employees?---Yes.

And do I take it have you read the witness statements for the ALAEA witnesses in these proceedings?---Yes.

Am I right in assuming that you’ve attempted in your statement to respond to the issues raised in their statements to the best you’re able to?---Yes.

And am I right in assuming that if there’d been something in one of those statements you thought to be incorrect or inaccurate you would have identified it in giving your response?---Yes.

So in a case where you have not contradicted something it’s fair for me to assume that you don’t have anything to say to contradict that particular statement?---No.

Sorry, it is?---No sorry.

**** LESLEY ROELANDTS XXN MS DOUST

Are you saying no it is fair for me to assume that or - - - ?---Sorry, yes.

Yes it is fair for me to assume that. Can I just ask you quickly first are you aware of a contingency budget for the redeployment?---Could you repeat the question?

Was there a contingency budget of about 94 million dollars allocated to this redeployment process in the event of any industrial issues coming up?---I’m not aware of that.

Just taking you to the individuals that are affected in these proceedings, are you familiar with Michael Lalic?---Yes.

And he’s currently on secondment down to Avalon as a senior LAME?---Yes was seconded to Avalon as a LAME.

That’s a senior role, isn’t it?---That’s the secondment offered to Michael as a LAME.

And you’d accept, wouldn’t you, that with his qualifications he’d be suitable for a role in ACS?---ACS isn’t my business and I don’t decide on the suitability of the applicants to those positions.

Just to clarify the terms of your paragraph 15, if you could just review that. You don’t suggest in that paragraph that Mr Lalic received an offer of redeployment with Qantas as part of the process and I don’t mind if you wish to refer back to LR 1, Mr Roelandts?---Could you just repeat the question please?

You don’t suggest from your paragraph 15 that Mr Lalic actually received an offer of redeployment with Qantas as part of the redeployment process?---No.

And just going to your paragraph 16 when Mr Lalic attended the meeting with you and Deborah Lewis to discuss his situation a part of the situation he discussed was the difficult situation with his wife. Do you recall that?---I don’t recall him discussing his situation with his wife. I do recall him discussing the situation around his length of service with Qantas.

Do you recall him discussing family issues with you at all in that meeting?---Not at that, I don’t recall.

**** LESLEY ROELANDTS XXN MS DOUST

But you’d accept that he discussed that with you at another time?---He discussed it at a later date.

So at a later date you became aware that there was some serious difficulties with his wife?---My recollection was that he discussed the situation had changed in relation to his options of positions at other ports.

And that was explained by reference to the situation with his wife, wasn’t it?---It wasn’t actually. My recollection is that it was that he was now unable to be considered for other locations.

Now, you make a comment about Mr Lalic undertaking the schedule of experience training. You don’t dispute here that that was a case where Mr Lalic had himself undertaken the theoretical training for the particular licence?---That was brought to my attention by Mr Lalic about an agreement with a previous manager that he was conducting the theory part of the licence and that there would be a requirement for the experience component of that licence as well.

And you understood, didn’t you, that he had undertaken on his own time in addition to his work hours wrapping up the schedule of experience hours that he needed to complete the training?---I had been made aware that he had carried out some of that experience training previously.

And do you agree that Qantas basically released Mr Lalic to be able to do I think between 35 and 40 hours of schedule of experience training in Melbourne?---I wouldn’t have known the hours, but I knew that some of that training had been conducted with the approval of the Melbourne manager.

And he paid for his own transport and accommodation?---I was unaware of how financially that was.

Okay. Just in relation to Mr Ortega you suggest that he was flown to Avalon with his wife. Mr Ortega denies that. Are you sure? Is that something that you might be mistaken about?---Generally any person that was considering Avalon as an option had offered them and their partner the opportunity to have a look at the site. My recollection was that in a discussion with Mr Ortega we went very detailed into the fact that he had discussed it with his partner who had actually started talking with her employer about work in Melbourne and my thoughts were that he had actually gone down there.

**** LESLEY ROELANDTS XXN MS DOUST

Right. But you didn’t have any sort of role in arranging any trips so that you’d have a degree of certainty?---I would ask that to be done by support persons because there was a lot of action happening at the time.

So sorry, just to be clear on this. It’s possible that you’re mistaken about that trip to Avalon?---Possibly.

Now, you were given a budget, I think, to manage the redeployment process?---I wasn’t personally. Can you just, in relation to what part of the redeployment process?

Any part of the process. Did you have particular funds that you were able to equip in carrying out the process?---In carrying out the process there was funds available for training and other support services, but not managed by myself. There was a Qantas manager that looked after that process.

And forgive me if I misstate the terms of your affidavit, but is it correct that
Mr Lalic is really the only example you can give of any training having been provided by Qantas to any of these guys throughout the process?---No. There was training provided at the support centre site around resume writing, interviewing skills and a lot of other training.

But in terms of any LAME specific training?---In relation to redeployment?

Yes?---It was a commitment prior to any announcement of the closure of heavy maintenance Sydney. So the process in relation in relation to the licence had already commenced.

Of course, yes sorry. I think we’re at cross purposes. I’m not talking about
Mr Lalic, what I’m talking about is the retraining offered generally throughout the redeployment process. So we’ll put Mr Lalic aside just for a second?---You mentioned Mr Lalic and so - - -

No, sorry, it’s probably confusing. I asked you about the training opportunities offered generally by Qantas throughout the redeployment process and I think you said going to the support centre and doing resume writing and so on?---Yes.

Was there any other more LAME specific or redeployment specific training that was managed by you through this process?---Not managed by myself, no.

**** LESLEY ROELANDTS XXN MS DOUST

Managed by someone else?---Not in relation to specific LAME training. There was some forklift, there was a couple of other situations that were, but not specifically. I didn’t just manage LAMEs, I managed aircraft workers and all other - - -

Yes, LAMEs and AMEs and all other. I’m only asking you to comment so far as it involves training opportunities offered to LAMEs. Did some of them access the forklift training?---I wasn’t aware of any of the LAMEs given forklift training.

All right. If training had of been offered as some sort of strategy or objective of the redeployment process would you be the fellow who could tell me about that?
---The training in relation to the support group was a package provided or prepared by other teams that looked after that. I specifically was looking after my staff and their situation at that time.

Okay. So is this correct then, apart from this sort of general resume writing type of training that was offered there was no other specific LAME skills training offered to LAMEs as part of the redeployment process?---In there was a situation with a couple of persons that applied for positions in Avalon and were successful as senior LAMEs there.

Yes?---That they are after being accepted in the positions it was considered that the licences that they held at that time weren’t specific for the needs of Avalon and instead of removing or denying them positions in the two situations it was accepted that when a training course became available for those specific that the two guys would be placed on that training, but I think it was a commitment to follow through with the positions that were offered.

Yes. So there wasn’t any immediate training costs that accrued as a result of that offer or that decision?---Not specifically at that time, no.

Okay. Did you personally have a budget that you were managing for training purposes?---No.

Okay. So you weren’t responsible for that. Apart from the couple that you can identify giving the commitment about the licence training if they go on to Avalon is there any other examples that you’re aware of that training having been offered to LAMEs as part of this process?---There was one particular case of a gentleman that needed to do his car 214 training, that he’d already paid the company costs of the licence and everything, but again to alleviate the possibility of a position that final bit of Qantas based training was carried out.

**** LESLEY ROELANDTS XXN MS DOUST

Okay. So overall when you’re talking about 260 LAMEs the overall training investment in the redeployment process was limited to a handful of a few?---No, no.

Sorry, LAME skills training?---No, not training in general, no.

Training, the resume writing stuff was available generally, but in terms of any concrete on the job skills for the LAME positions. Now, did you at any stage sit down with your superiors or your team and discuss any sort of concerted strategy to offer training in this redeployment process? Sorry, and when I talk about training now I’m talking about the LAME skills, so licences and so on?---No because there wasn’t a - no, I’d like you to repeat the question.

Yes. Did you ever at any stage during this redeployment process sit down with your team and plan the offering of LAME licence or skills training to the retrenched workforce?---No.

And sorry, I think here in your statement you say you are production manager Sydney heavy maintenance operations. Are you still attached to heavy maintenance at this stage?---Not heavy maintenance Sydney. I’m attached to heavy maintenance.

So I think just going - can I just clarify this. In paragraph 1 of your affidavit?
---Yes, that’s what I’m employed as, Sydney heavy maintenance.

You are production manager Sydney heavy maintenance operations?---Yes.

And where are you attached to?---Presently I’m attached to heavy maintenance.

You are based at Mascot?---Yes.

But that’s a much smaller - - - ?---Absolutely.

Than it was 12 months ago. And is that position ongoing or that’s about to move on?---No, it’s not. It’s not ongoing at all.

And you don’t have anything to do with ACS in Sydney, do you?---Nothing.

Okay. Now, are you familiar with the situation of Mr Field, Mr Roelandts?---Yes.

**** LESLEY ROELANDTS XXN MS DOUST

You’re aware that he received a letter in this process that said that he was being offered an ACS job, I think imminently?---I wasn’t aware of the offer.

Would you just excuse me for a second. I'll just try and find that document for you. Sorry, can I just clarify were you familiar with the situation of Mr Field?
---He was one of my employees.

Okay. Can I hand the witness a document? Just for everyone else’s purposes I’m looking at JF 6 of Mr Field’s?---No, I wasn’t. The grievance procedure that drove that letter I wasn’t part of. It was a separate committee.

Thank you. And so are you unable to shed any light on what’s happened subsequently?---To that? In a separate interview with John he at that stage, my initial contact with John that all he wanted to be considered for was a secondment that got him through to meet his 40 years of service.

But this letter is subsequent to that process, is it?---Yes and at a meeting when I was, when we met with John to talk through he did identify at that stage that he had only applied for a senior - not a senior position - a supervisory position, but I was unaware of him being offered a LAME position.

All right. Do you accept that it’s unacceptable for Qantas to write to Mr Field and advise him that he’s about to be offered an ACS job and then not follow through with it?---I was unaware of the offer.

But if that’s the case that it hasn’t been followed through that’s not an acceptable way for Qantas to operate?---It would be a general mistake. If you’re saying that it’s unacceptable it might have been just an honest mistake.

In relation to - sorry, I'll just go back to that?---I was unaware of him being offered a LAME position.

Yes. You yourself would never mistakenly send out a letter to someone telling them they’re going to be offered a position, would you?---I hope not.

Because that’s a pretty serious step to take. It’s not a minor mistake. As to
Mr Walker I think you refer to him in your statement. And you might recall reading that he suggests that he spoke to you about his young twin sons in the interview? Sorry, just for your purposes it’s at paragraph 54?---Yes, I don’t recall in the conversation with Mr Walker him getting to the detail of discussing specifically his son and HSC, but I do recall him discussing his residence and where he lived and that he was, yes, like many others was very solidly based in the Sydney vicinity.

**** LESLEY ROELANDTS XXN MS DOUST

Yes. Well, in his case the central coast?---Well, he travels that now.

Yes. Now, it’s possible, isn’t it, I just note that you don’t actually outright deny him referring to his sons in that interview?---No I don’t, but my recollection of the interview was that we did have a discussion about his inability to look at some of the other locations that were offered.

So it’s possible that he mentioned those issues but that you recall some other comments in that general subject area?---I would say I was doing a great job talking to every single one of my employees at the time and I was very compassionate, I can’t recall word for word, but I do remember having a discussion with him about his personal situation.

I think you say in your statement that there’s a preference amongst LAMEs for the ACS positions. You’re aware, aren’t you, that in part one of the reasons for that aversion is because there’s an ongoing review by Qantas of all its heavy maintenance operations around the country and prospect of further redundancies in those areas?---That comment was made by some of my staff when we asked them about and suggested other positions available at other sites. It was made in communication at the time of announcement it was identified that ongoing assessments of other parts of Qantas Engineering would continue and I think - - -

Sorry, no go on?---And I think that there was, I can’t remember the exact dates, but there was time lines put around it. It was in six months or 12 months, but it was communicated to all staff on the day of announcement.

And from your experience of carrying out the interviews with the blokes and the redeployment process did you find that the awareness of those ongoing reviews was something that they had recalled?---Had recalled did you say?

Yes, had recalled?---Had recalled? On a few occasions.

And they mentioned it as being one of the reasons for an aversion for moving into another heavy maintenance position around the country?---I would say that it wasn’t their first priority. A lot of it was other issues, family, friends, things like that. On a few occasions, and it wasn’t many, that that was given as a major factor.

Yes. If you could just bear with me one moment, Commissioner, and I'll just see if there’s anything other that I could ..... no thank you, Commissioner.

**** LESLEY ROELANDTS XXN MS DOUST

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE [4.04PM]

MS MCKENZIE: Just a few questions, Mr Roelandts. You were asked some questions about Mr Lalic and you were asked about when you became aware of his family circumstances and I think you said that you recall that you discussed those issues at a later date, not at the original discussion that you had with him. You remember that evidence? Do you recall roughly when you first became aware of the particular personal circumstances that Mr Lalic had?---I can’t recall a date, but it was some, I would say some weeks after in a different location to the support centre.

Yes. Was it after you had been aware that his partner was considering a position in Geelong or in around Avalon?---Are we talking that comment was about
Mr Ortega?

I apologise, I withdraw that, about Mr Ortega. And finally you were asked some questions in relation to Mr Field and you were shown JF 6 which was the letter from Mr Reid. Did Mr Field tell you about the receipt of that letter?---No.

Was Mr Field one of the employees that you had as your responsibility to manage the redeployment process?---Yes.

How often did you yourself have discussions with Mr Field?---Through the process I would recall in the vicinity of six times.

Yes thank you. I’ve got nothing further of Mr Roelandts.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Roelandts. You can go.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.06PM]

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms McKenzie, sorry, can I ask you something?

MS MCKENZIE: I can give you the numbers on the annual leave if that’s .....

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay.

MS MCKENZIE: I can just tell you.

THE COMMISSIONER: Wait a second, wait. Let me just get Mr Harris’s thing. Yes.

MS MCKENZIE: The average of the annual leave, extracting out the six Sydney areas, is for annual leave 41.82 days.

THE COMMISSIONER: This is in base maintenance avionics, is it?

MS MCKENZIE: Did you want the numbers for each, the average for each, or the total?

THE COMMISSIONER: No, it doesn’t matter. No, that’s good. So you’ve done it for the 750. Okay, so the average for the Sydney six groups, six areas, yes?

MS MCKENZIE: Yes which is a total of 856 people and the average from that number is 41.82 days of annual leave and 83.62 days of long service leave.

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. But what about the grand total? I’m just trying to see how - doesn’t matter, you’ll tell me tomorrow or another time.

MS MCKENZIE: I'll do them. We’ll work out the average for each of the areas if that’s - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I don’t need to know that. But the evidence or the submission from the .....

MS MCKENZIE: We haven’t done the grand total, we’ve just done the Sydney ones.

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, there’s that. But the other thing what I
really - thank you for that, that’s probably sufficient. Can I ask you this,
Ms McKenzie, I don’t know in relation to Mr Field he says in his evidence he lost his grievance which he’d applied for a supervisor LAME or assistant manager or something and then it says:

I then received a letter to say that I’d be offered a LAME position at ACS and I would be contacted about that by 26 July. I have not been approached further about that offer. In early August I accepted a six month secondment.

Now, what he doesn’t say is I haven’t heard about the offer that was going to come on 26 July and if he had I would have taken it. So he doesn’t say that. But I don’t know whether the parties or someone can talk to Mr Field, but if in fact there’s nothing, if in fact he does want and would have accepted it and does accept a LAME position, which I know is a demotion for him, then Qantas is a bit bound to provide that for him and any provision of that would certainly be not changing the process because you’re not pursuing any of the new options of 1 August. But it may very well be, and this is a long way around, the real answer to that is that Mr Field doesn’t want to become an ordinary LAME again.

MS MCKENZIE: Well, we’ll deal with Mr Field’s circumstances in the submissions, but the evidence is that he only applied for a supervisory position, a maintenance supervisor role, and that was the only position for which he was interviewed and that he did not wish to accept a LAME position or even in fact a senior LAME position. The letter that he was sent appears not to be something that he raised with Qantas any time after 24 July, but in fact he received I think on 8 August a letter from Mr Roelandts offering him the secondment position and it doesn’t appear that Mr Field relied on or made reference to or communicated to anyone in Qantas the letter that he’d received, or appears to have received, JF 6.

So it’s a little curious that the issue in relation to that comes up at the end of January. But we need to deal with that in the totality of the evidence around
Mr Field and I certainly will be dealing with that in relation to submissions, but our evidence would be he didn’t apply. He did not apply for that position.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but he may not have applied for it, but he said that he was going to be offered it. I appreciate employees have got an obligation to chase things through, but equally companies have got obligations to meet what they say they are going to do. It’s just it’s all very curious that’s all, both his conduct - I mean, he meets Mr Roelandts or he communicates with him and says yes I’m happy to take this six month secondment, he doesn’t mention - this letter still hasn’t arise so that makes me think he’s not interested, but equally why didn’t he get that letter?

MS MCKENZIE: Why did he or why didn’t he?

THE COMMISSIONER: Why didn’t he get the letter or the offer of employment or the contact that was to occur by Wednesday, 26 July. It says Mr Reid on 24 July. It’s all a bit - - -

MS MCKENZIE: I’m sorry?

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Reid writes to him on 24 July and says - - -

MS MCKENZIE: I’m sorry, Mr Reid.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you’ve lost the grievance, but we’re going to offer you by tomorrow or the next day a LAME position. It’s a funny thing for the - I presume Mr Reid’s grievance person - - -

MS MCKENZIE: Well, the letter’s not signed, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

MS MCKENZIE: It’s not clear. It’s not clear. I mean, what we’ve got is the letter, but we’ve got Mr Field’s conduct subsequently appearing to be inconsistent with at the very least somebody who wanted to take up that offer. He certainly doesn’t appear to have referred to that letter, referred that letter to anybody within Qantas at or around that time. What he does do is accept an offer that’s made to him less than two weeks later for a secondment position.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it may very well - I’m just looking at the letter a bit more carefully:

Having regard to your special circumstances the committee has decided you should be offered a LAME position.

Maybe Mr Reid could tell us, we will not hear from him, but it may be that the committee listened and thought we’ll offer you a LAME position which will get you over the 40 year date, then along comes Mr Roelandts and says I’ve got six months for you in which case problem solved. So that might be the answer to all of this. We’re not to know, are we?

MS MCKENZIE: We’re not to know, Commissioner, but Mr Ratcliffe was the chairman of all of the grievance committees and he wasn’t asked any questions about Mr Field’s circumstances. Mr Ratcliffe I think to the extent that he was asked a question, and I think it may have been put a little bit hypothetically, was that it may have been a mistake. That’s the best we’ve got in relation to that, that I don’t think he was asked specifically about this letter to Mr Field. He may have been in a position to say as the chairman of the grievance committee, but we can’t take it any further. But we do have the subsequent letter of secondment and
Mr Field’s acceptance of that.

THE COMMISSIONER: I see, yes.

MS MCKENZIE: Which came very soon after the letter.

MS DOUST: Well, Commissioner, a couple of things that really should be said. The first is Mr Ratcliffe, as I understand his evidence, was chair of the grievance committee in the sense of carrying out any actual tasks on that committee. His evidence was to the effect that he convened it. The second thing to be said is
Mr Field was here and was cross examined and there was no suggestion to him that this letter that he’d received from Mr Reid was in fact some sort of concoction or something and I would have imagined that Qantas might give instructions to that effect if it wished to countermand the letter in any way.

MS MCKENZIE: That’s not being suggested at all. I’m sorry if that’s been, that’s not a part of our case. It’s not being suggested at all that there’s any concoction on the part of Mr Field in relation to the letter.

MS DOUST: If there’s any suggestion that this is other than a letter from Qantas I would have thought that we might hear that from Qantas in their case. Instead we haven’t heard anything to contradict it at all. But a couple of points that need to be said to answer your questions, Commissioner, this letter was dated the 24th. There was a commitment about communication by the 26th. Shortly thereafter the ALAEA was having meetings with Qantas about some various proposals to accommodate everyone. Shortly after that Mr Field like others receives a retrenchment letter which is curious in the circumstances. Shortly after that he gave instructions to the ALAEA to appeal that.

So these sorts of matters that could have been ventilated in the context of an appeal but Qantas shut that down. So that I think answers your questions, Commissioner, about Mr Field’s response to this course of events. It seems to me that if we have failed in any way to make the position plain so far as Mr Field is concerned this matter is too important given his long service to Qantas to leave it on that basis and you should allow us to supplement that either by instructions or by recalling him briefly in the morning.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, or given his four years - sorry. Sorry,
Ms McKenzie. Or given his 40 years of service - I’m just speaking to both of you - given his 40 years of service and given that an offer to him to be a LAME, not a senior LAME, would not be changing the game plan vis-a-vis or the others that have made other plans and might have a gripe, given that if in fact Mr Field was prepared to work as an ordinary LAME in Sydney and that could be ascertained then and maybe that problem could be solved by Qantas making that additional decision. That’s got nothing to do with whether the other five win or lose, whether orders are made or not. I would have thought that was a possibility.

Otherwise I guess I'll just hear from you all about what we do about Mr Field and the rest, but it just seems a bit odd. He may have dragged his feet, but you have answered that, Ms Doust. Because if there’d been an appeal, and I’m not suggesting there should have been, I’m not ruling on that now, but you say is if there’d been able the first thing he might have said was well how come I get retrenched when I was promised a job, but he never had that opportunity. So we don’t know. On the other hand he could have been in the end not really particularly interested as long as he got his 40 years.

MS DOUST: Well no, that’s not the case at all. I mean, it’s clear from his evidence that he wished to pursue ongoing employment with Qantas.

THE COMMISSIONER: He says I'll take an ACS Sydney position, he said that, but whether he means I'll take an ACS position in my current substantive grade, that wasn’t kind of explored.

MS DOUST: Well, I must say I would - it is no doubt an oversight on my part. I considered it fairly clear without saying I think and I’m not sure whether it was addressed briefly in evidence in chief that he was interested in continuing his employment.

THE COMMISSIONER: If he’s interested or not, he’s an employee of Qantas. Someone can pick up a phone and speak to their employee irrespective of what goes on in these proceedings and say are you interested in ACS and if that’s the case Qantas has to decide whether there’s some reason why it doesn’t adhere to the 24 July letter because it wasn’t properly written or if it was then perhaps you should do so.

MS DOUST: Certainly. All that I propose, Commissioner, is to ask for you leave in the morning to supplement any evidence that he’s put directly to that question.

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m not saying yea or nay to that, but he’s an employee of Qantas, can’t someone just ring him up and just say you have an ACS - - -

MS DOUST: Look - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: If Qantas says we’ve rung him up, he wants an ACS, he’s happy to do an ordinary LAME position, but we’re not prepared to employ him - I’m not critical of Qantas, that’s part of their case they’ll say - but if on the other hand he says no I'll only go back as a senior LAME then there’s nothing to do, that letter from Mr what’s his name has got no relevance.

MS DOUST: Yes. Commissioner, the only reason I propose the idea of calling some additional evidence was if Ms McKenzie had a particular need to cross examine him about the tenor of the evidence, otherwise I’d just propose to find out from Mr Field what his actual position is. Mr Norris tells me that it may well have been addressed in the evidence, but I’m not able to read that writing I’m afraid.

MS MCKENZIE: We would be happy if the ALAEA can just confirm to us that Mr Field is prepared to accept an ACS position. Either I'll get instructions in relation to - - -

THE COMMISSIONER: As a LAME.

MS MCKENZIE: As a LAME I’m sorry. Our understanding of the status of the evidence was that if he was unsuccessful as a supervisor he wished to be considered for a senior LAME role and our understanding of the evidence is that there is no evidence that Mr Field’s current position now or at any stage during the redundancy process was that he would be prepared to accept a LAME role, but we’re happy for that simply to be confirmed. I don’t think we need to have him called to put in the box.

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

MS MCKENZIE: But if it can be confirmed then I can get instructions in relation to the suggestion the Commission’s made.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I don’t think we need to trouble ourselves with what he said in the box because it was a bit left up in the air. It’s just a matter of someone finding out whether - to be clear what I’m saying is that the letter from Qantas suggests that he was going to be offered an ordinary LAME position, that is a demotion. If there’s no problem with that letter on one view Qantas is stuck with that and ought to comply with it. There’s no use worrying about that. If
Mr Field says well that was very nice but I don’t want to be an ordinary LAME in which case we go back to his primary position which is he should be provided with a senior LAME position and somehow to Brisbane.

MS DOUST: No. Look, I apologise for the much ado about nothing. Our note is certainly that in his evidence he made clear he just wants a full time position in Sydney and that’s how I understood it, but I will seek clarification over night, Commissioner, and I'll inform you of those instructions in the morning.

THE COMMISSIONER: And Qantas even earlier than that because they might have a quick solution to it all, to at least him maybe.

MS DOUST: Certainly. Thank you, Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Which brings us to this. There’s no more evidence?

MS MCKENZIE: No, our evidence is complete.

THE COMMISSIONER: And so we can proceed to submissions tomorrow morning? We’ll resume tomorrow morning for submissions?

MS DOUST: Yes. I was actually going to inquire about transcript because I understand that .....

THE COMMISSIONER: We haven’t ordered, did we? Yes, we’ve ordered it sorry.

MS MCKENZIE: We’re happy to proceed with that.

MS DOUST: I had actually sided with Ms McKenzie earlier the idea of perhaps holding over until Thursday in the hope of getting the transcript because it seems to me from our point of view there was some fairly important evidence in cross examination. We can make some sort of general submissions and then invite you, Commissioner, to read the transcript carefully after it becomes available.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I’m easy. Normally these things finish early. The last day it’s cut off. But it was listed for four days. If you say it would be much more convenient to your side to resume on Thursday morning and have no proceedings tomorrow I’m agreeable to that. What do you say about that,
Ms McKenzie?

MS MCKENZIE: Well, it doesn’t seem to me that an extra day is going to assist really with the transcript. We will at our absolute best and there’s no guarantee if you get the transcript by the end of tomorrow which doesn’t really assist me much in terms of preparation of submissions. My preference is to go on tomorrow.
Ms Doust and I discussed yesterday morning the likely timing and conscious of the fact that the four days were originally set on the basis that there were going to be 16 applicants. We fairly confidently came with the view that we wouldn’t need the four days and I’m afraid I’ve on the basis of that already more or less committed myself with other things on Thursday. Also given that the transcript was unlikely to be available in sufficient time to turn it around.

If Ms Doust wants the transcript before submissions I don’t have a problem with another day being set which gives us both a reasonable opportunity to actually have the benefit of the transcript, but it doesn’t seem as though having it tomorrow afternoon is going to help. The difficulty is my witness has gone today too so I won’t get the transcript, the cross examination of my witnesses until tomorrow afternoon and I accept that’s reasonable given the pressure already on the transcript people. But it doesn’t really assist me to go over to Thursday. I’d prefer to go on tomorrow, but I’m in the Commission’s hands.

I should have said though, Commissioner, that my commitments on Thursday, they’re not immutable. It was really a matter of convenience rather than unavailability. It’s a matter for the Commission. The days were originally set for four days. My preference is to go on tomorrow. Qantas’s preference is obviously to have the matter completed as quickly as possible given the time frame and that was the basis on which the Commission has set the matter down in relatively short notice anyway.

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Doust, what I think I’d prefer would be in fact to proceed tomorrow but with leave for both parties to as soon as transcript is available, so by Friday or on Monday - I mean, I was originally told the setting dates that the people were going off on 4 February. It’s apparently now it’s
14 February. So Friday was my only day to write the decision in full. So we’ve got a little bit - but I’m pretty full after today so it’s not a case of being able to adjourn and then come back next week. So what I would prefer is to have submissions tomorrow. This is not an unfair dismissal where you’ve got forensic, people lying or squirming in the witness box. People have been fairly straight forward about what they have said.

So what your own notes will reveal is probably what was said on transcript. But as I said if we proceed tomorrow with what you both understand to be the case and how it’s developed if you need to additionally write to the Commission with particular references to transcript, particularly where one side’s got it wrong, perhaps we can do that and if that can occur by Friday or Monday of next week at your convenience. But the problem with going to Thursday is we really have got still the same problem. We may not have the transcript from today in any case. So given that ultimately the onus is on the employer to justify its actions or to justify that it was reasonable the evidence of the three witnesses today is critical, I would have thought, to both of you. But we will proceed tomorrow on that basis, Ms Doust.

MS DOUST: If it please the Commission. Perhaps could we start at 10 tomorrow rather than 9.30?

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. How long do you think you would need? 10’s okay.

MS DOUST: I don’t think the submissions will be terribly long. I would have said over an hour.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. We’ll adjourn and resume at 10 tomorrow.

<ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY 2007 [4.30PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #ALAEA14 STATEMENT OF DAVID ALLAN BURNS PN945
EXHIBIT #ALAEA15 ALAEA SUBMISSIONS PN988
EXHIBIT #QF3 QANTAS SUBMISSIONS PN988
DENNIS MICHAEL RATCLIFFE, SWORN PN989
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS MCKENZIE PN989
EXHIBIT #QF4 AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS RATCLIFFE PN1001
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOUST PN1007
EXHIBIT #ALAEA16 QANTAS CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICS PN1345
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE PN1492
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1530
MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS, SWORN PN1554
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS MCKENZIE PN1554
EXHIBIT #QF5 AFFIDAVIT OF MR ATWELL-HARRIS PN1561
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOUST PN1566
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1676
MURRAY ATWELL-HARRIS, ON FORMER OATH PN1695
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOUST, CONTINUING PN1695
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1872
LESLEY ROELANDTS, SWORN PN1888
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS MCKENZIE PN1888
EXHIBIT #QF 6 AFFIDAVIT OF LESLEY ROELANDTS PN1894
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS DOUST PN1895
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MCKENZIE PN1970
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1977