C2007/3238, Transcript of Proceedings [2007] AIRCTrans 536 (11 October 2007)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 17548-1

COMMISSIONER RAFFAELLI

C2007/3238

s.170LW - prereform Act - Appl’n for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)
Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
and
Qantas Airways Limited
(C2007/3238)

SYDNEY

9.32AM, THURSDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2007

Continued from 12/9/2007

PN83

MR M AIRD: I appear for the Transport Workers Union of Australia and with me today is the official with responsibility for the relevant site, MR P MURRAY and three of the senior delegates at the site, MR S TSEVEREMENTZIS,
MR J MAZZA AND MR J BRENNAN.

PN84

MR P SMITH: I appear for the Qantas Airways Ltd and with me from the business is MR J MCEVOY, the General Manager of Fleet Presentation and
MS D McConnell, Industrial Relations Manager.

PN85

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN86

MR AIRD: Commissioner, if I can suggest that given that the company was respondent to a Commission order on the last occasion it might be useful to commence with the company indicating how that order is in fact being complied with and on what's transpired since last we were before you.

PN87

MR SMITH: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, the purpose of the report back as articulated in the Commission's order of 12 September is to hear a report on discussions that occurred between the business and the TWU since
12 September and secondly, to determine whether an order ought to be extended or not. Now, Qantas seeks to be heard on both those matters and prior to any determination being made and certainly we've got a number of things we'd like to say about any merit about considering the extension of the order and certainly the competence of the TWU notification to attract jurisdiction, more of that as we progress through the outline.

PN88

If I can commence with the report back, Commissioner, on the discussions to date, we would say that Qantas has fully complied with the Commission order in all its respects and in doing that a number of things have occurred. Firstly, Commissioner, there was a meeting between the company and the TWU and relevant delegates on 13 September, being the day immediately after the order was issued at which some good progress was made in discussing the issues of concern that the TWU have. The indications we received from the TWU at that time and indeed confirmed in correspondence which I would like to provide you with a copy of dated 13 September 2007 is that the TWU found that the meeting was a step in the right direction. If I could just hand a copy of that letter up.

EXHIBIT #QF3 LETTER FROM TWU, DATED 13/09/2007

PN89

MR SMITH: Thank you, Commissioner. During the meeting to which QF3 refers to, the TWU identified four areas of concern which I'll come to in a bit more detail, but essentially they related to an alleged increased risk of fatigue and stress, potential unfairness in the distribution of work, thirdly, and alleged undermanning of crews, and fourthly, a lack of clarity about job roles. Subsequent to the meeting this correspondence was received by the business and it sets out a request for certain documentation and if I can just briefly, Commissioner, the documentation goes to a number of various matters and also a proposal about a trial. It seeks a concise job description, published rostered, published management plan that deals with replacing staff who are absent for various legitimate reasons, a request that a ergonomic and biomechanical study be undertaken and a request that mechanical handling training occur.

PN90

There's some reference to a risk assessment. They've sought a copy of an organisational workflow chart and a plan that allows for more time to be allocated for certain tasks in summary. Now, whilst that list in the correspondence seemed to be somewhat broader than the issues that were articulated at the meeting and which we suspect might be closer to the more real and germane concerns of the TWU, but the company set about trying to address each and every one of those matters to the extent not that we would say that they hadn't been done already, but we certainly sought to redouble our efforts to achieve a level of comity and understanding with the TWU.

PN91

Now, Commissioner, correspondence dated 20 September 2007 was prepared. It's addressed to Mr Pat Murray, a TWU official.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: We have that.

PN93

MR SMITH: Yes. I should indicate, Commissioner, a copy was sent through to your assistant and I understand that it's sitting on the Commission file.

EXHIBIT #QF4 LETTER TO MR PAT MURRAY, DATED 20/09/2007

PN94

MR SMITH: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN96

MR SMITH: Now, that correspondence was prepared with the intention of presenting it at a further meeting of the parties on Thursday, 20 September, being just one week after the first meeting and the issuing of the Commission order. Qantas prepared diligently for that meeting, prepared a detailed correspondence, a folder of materials which I have here. I can indicate from the bar table a significant amount of documents, most of which are already in the possession or available to employees that address various matters that have been raised and indeed have been exchanged or discussed by the parties previously. But there are summary documents there we would concede.

PN97

That meeting was arranged. The TWU didn't show so we had a TWU no show on that day, Commissioner.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: You prepared this, you sent this on 20 September in anticipation of a meeting later that day or the next day?

PN99

MR SMITH: No, it was our intention to present the material by hand at the meeting and then what occurred is the TWU failed attend the meeting.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: By hand, okay.

PN101

MR SMITH: And so we took the next best option as we could see it progress matters which was to courier the materials to the TWU.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, yes.

PN103

MR SMITH: If I can take the Commission to the letter marked QF4.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN105

MR SMITH: The first page, Commissioner, indicates the basis on which the company says that we've fully and diligently complied with the Commission order dated 12 September 2007. In doing so we say that Qantas has advised each of the individuals who were otherwise seeking to access a voluntary redundancy, that whilst their applications were successful the progression of that was on hold and that those redundancies wouldn't take effect until they were further advised. We indicated at point 2 that the new rosters were to be published on 12 September, seven days in advance of the roster, that the restructure had been withheld from publication.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN107

MR SMITH: We indicated in terms of the meetings and consultations that occurred to date that Qantas and TWU would meet on 13 September to again discuss TWU alleged concerns over safety and crewing reductions and that we indicate in that correspondence notwithstanding the failure of the TWU to attend the meeting on 20 September as arranged that we were again available to meeting on Monday, the 24th at midday and we have also provided documentation relating to the restructure consistent with the request of the TWU and the orders of the Commission.

PN108

I mentioned earlier, Commissioner, that the TWU articulated four concerns at the meeting on 13 September. Those concerns as we understand it are set out at page 2 of QF4. We also set out in detail in the remainder of the correspondence our response to each of those matters that the TWU has raised. In relation to concerns about fatigue and stress, undermanning, lack of clarity about job roles, the company works through some of the history of the matter, the extensive consultation that's occurred to date and the amount of assessments that have been gone through and there's an annexure at the back of the letter which would be familiar to the employees which sets out the extensive amount of coms, meetings, safety reviews, trialling of group modules, training sessions, toolbox talks, newsletter activities, work process trials, the consultative process that the business went through over an extended period of months to gain input from employees about the nature of the work process changes that the company was seeking to make.

PN109

So that the source of these very clearly is not something conjured up by management that actually for the most part is percolated up through our staff. Commissioner, we've provided a file of materials to the TWU and also by hand subsequently to delegates. It contains at the front an overview of the process that's been followed. It draws out in particular the analysis methodology which was followed by the business and that the employees participated in, that no-one is Leg Sig Sigma approach where essentially the business looks to, in consultation with employees, identify any inefficiencies in process. Those types of things can be under categories such as over production, waiting time, transportation arrangements, over processing, inventory, practices that involve reworking, excessive motion and failing to utilise people's skills and knowledge.

PN110

There was a fleet presentation review team put together that had a significant representation of employees on it and was led by the operations manager and a training officer. A resource allocator was also involved, as was a leading hand. Two TWU delegates were also involved. That team was provided with comprehensive training in the Lean methodology concepts over a two day period in April. The review team commenced reviews in April and made initial waste and inefficiency observations during that month. Now, Commissioner, I don't want to overburden you with factual detail but to just give you a flavour of the efficiencies associated with the change in work practices which say would support the proposed change in crew sizes and the way that work is performed and this material has all been provided to the TWU and employees.

PN111

Essentially we've got examples of - rather than having one large group of workers responsible for going through and cleaning the entire aircraft, the notion is to break up the aircraft into areas where a smaller group would be responsible for that one area of the aircraft. That's one of the primary changes. So there will be a smaller work group focused and responsible for a limited area of an aircraft. One of the key immediate savings of that is that there are efficiency savings in that, is that there is a capacity for the business to reduce the amount of motion and movement of individuals between an aircraft so you don't have people bumping into each other trying to perform different aspects of the function throughout the aircraft when you've got a smaller team responsible just for one area, so you've got less people moving through that area.

PN112

As just one example, the module reduces the need for walking through aircraft to perform tasks, a module concept avoids multiple people performing discrete tasks throughout the aircraft. The team identified that on occasion there were some seats were visited up to seven times by numerous people. Now, what the review team came up with was strategies to avoid that over attendance and time consuming and inefficient approach to cleaning just, you know, even one area of seats. Other examples, your Honour, just to give you a flavour of it, there's an enhanced provision of replenishment packs which reduces the need to constantly fetch items from the truck. If employees are properly equipped with the items they need in order to attend the confined the area of the plane that they need to service, they don't need to then be using up time going back and forth to trucks pick, so there was an efficiency gain there.

PN113

There's a provision of mini trolleys which reduces the need for manual handling of items up and downstairs. The team identified that drivers previously walked between the first and business class areas on the truck as much as five to seven times per clean. That's no longer the case under the module plan, Commissioner, significant savings in time. Under the proposal there's better planning on contents of trolleys so you no longer require items to be collected from the truck. 90 per cent of requirements are now provided on the trolley. There is a sweep process at the commencement of the cleaning which enables pockets activities to be completed without having to double handle bulky items out of the way in most cases. So as I understand it, there's a sweep through of the bulky items and then another person can come through then with the assistance of a manual handling device, as I understand a long stick with a grip on the end which allows them to pick up smaller items under the seats and in harder to get at places. It reduces bending, lifting, double handling and movement of pillows and things to get at waste items.

PN114

We've got a situation by way of just one example and this doesn't in any way purport to be a comprehensive analysis of every efficiency initiative, but a further example, Commissioner, would be changes in the way employees are transported to and from the aircraft to reduce waiting time that you're able to move smaller groups of people without having to wait for an entire team so that they can proceed to attend to their confined area and that reduces waiting time significantly. There are other areas but I trust that gives you a broad flavour of the type of efficiencies that are there and as a result of that we would say that concerns about introduction of fatigue and risk as a result of the changes are misconceived because of where the work is performed more efficiently there won't be this situation where employees are required to do exactly the same work in exactly the same way within the same confined period of time.

PN115

Under the new process that won't be the arrangement at all. In fact, they'll be more efficiently performing the work so that it will be less onerous on them. We'd also say consistent with risk assessments and job safety assessments that the process on balance is safer and more fatigue friendly.

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, Mr Smith, just remind me of something, all these efficiencies that you identified came out of a review team, is that what you call it?

PN117

MR SMITH: Yes, that's right. Predominantly that's where they came from.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. And that team had a participation of TWU people?

PN119

MR SMITH: Yes. The review team consisted of a group of employees as well as management. There was aircraft service officers as well as some TWU delegates.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. Sorry, the document you're going to, that folder, when was that given to the other side? I know it contains stuff they already had but what - - -

PN121

MR SMITH: Yes, it was couriered on - - -

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: I see, that went with this letter?

PN123

MR SMITH: Yes, that letter was couriered on the 20th.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN125

MR SMITH: And I'm reminded that the overview material at the front included a summary of the fatigue assessment and I might just briefly indicate, Commissioner, that the fatigue assessment was conducted by an independent consultant, highly skilled and expert in the area who looked at the existing rosters in comparison to the proposed rosters with a fatigue assessment tool and indicated that all the shifts were classified as very low fatigue and that in fact the overall proposed part time roster had lower fatigue levels than the current version which we were pleased to see.

PN126

The fatigue assessment was also able to comment in relation to the supplementary proposed rosters, a confirmation that all the shifts were classified at low or very low fatigue, indicating that sufficient rest opportunities be provided between each shift. Commissioner, the materials include documents which have been referred to on previous occasions before the Commission, that is, training materials, some general presentations, some overview material about the consultation which has occurred which is consistent with the chronology attached to QF4, a bundle of notices that have gone out to employees commencing from 16 July, an exchange of emails and correspondence between the business and the TWU.

PN127

The materials include a roster cover overview, draft rosters, a precision timing schedule which is a document that goes to some TWU issues were raised around the amount of time the company might allocate to perform a particular cleaning task. It includes the safety assessments which have been thoroughly prepared by the Qantas safety department and the subject of consultation of the OH&S committee which included the participation of TWU and delegate representatives and which to the satisfaction of the Qantas safety department and experts there has been concluded and signed off. Any risks identified have the documented and attached appropriate controls and there was also included at the request of the TWU a draft position description, although we have explained, at various stages during the consultation process there's no significant change in individuals but rather the process and manner in which they might perform them.

PN128

People would still be doing cabin cleaning in aircraft. The core nature of the employment hasn't changed. Commissioner, I appreciate your patience as I move through some of this material.

PN129

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right.

PN130

MR SMITH: If I turn to page 3 of QF4.

PN131

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN132

MR SMITH: You will see that Qantas there sets out its response to each of the items referred to in the TWUs letter dated 13 September 2007 which the Commission marked as QF3 this morning.

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN134

MR SMITH: I can walk through each of those if you like, Commissioner, or if you've had the opportunity to familiarise yourself already I don't want to try your patience.

PN135

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, take me through them.

PN136

MR SMITH: Okay.

PN137

THE COMMISSIONER: The problem was - not the problem, but a feature of the material sent to the Commission was that I read it but not carefully enough because I didn't want to come here and then you tell me that 90 per cent of it is agreed and I've been wasting my time. Obviously that's not the case but anyway proceed.

PN138

MR SMITH: Okay.

PN139

THE COMMISSIONER: It's pretty clear what you've written but let's go bit by bit.

PN140

MR SMITH: Yes, okay.

PN141

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN142

MR SMITH: Commissioner, you'll note in QF3 on the first page that the TWU suggests that a week long trial with a 12 man crew commence ASAP and there's an assertion there that no such trial has taken place. On page 3 of QF4, at point 1 under the heading Trial, the company indicates that the modular approach to working has enabled training to be performed on isolated modules. As each work group is working separately and confined areas those arrangements have been trialled. Each type of work group, each work area under the aircraft have been trialled separately as modules. Final validation of the trial into the four man modules was performed in August on dates set out in that letter and there has also been active operational training with approximately 50 per cent of the workforce over recent weeks and it's been indicated to me that there's been some 30 aircraft trialled with this process.

PN143

The company's view is that extensive trialling has occurred already and sees no point to the TWU suggestion of having a 12 man trial performed when there's no learning to be gained from that given that it's a modular approach and all the modules have been trialled. Commissioner, the second dot point is that the TWU requests in QF3 a concise job description for all crew members. The company responds at point 2 of QF4 and I've made some of these points already, briefly on my way through, that the restructure will not result in material changes to the current position description for each classification in the SIT fleet presentation department. People are still engaged to perform aircraft service officer work cleaning aircraft. There's no change to that.

PN144

We've updated some position descriptions for each classification, including in relation to the driver role and a sample of the position description for an ASO level 4 has been provided to the TWU. There also has been prepared during training what the company refers to as detailed picture process maps and they document in detail the normal expected duties of each role. They're quite reader friendly. I don't know whether you, Commissioner, has encountered those in any of the other matters you've dealt with at Qantas but they're a pictorial ready reckoner sort of layout of how work might be performed in a stepped, you know, closed sort of way.

PN145

THE COMMISSIONER: That is, for example, someone going through with that big item cleaning and then followed by someone doing the little stuff, is that the sort of thing that would be - - -

PN146

MR SMITH: Look, I don't know whether there's a - that's the type of thing. I don't know whether that specific example has been prepared.

PN147

THE COMMISSIONER: I see, I see. You're developing it.

PN148

MR SMITH: Yes. I think the one that I have seen deals with the unload and load of trucks at the blanket bay so it deals with actually how the process would be for getting blankets on and off the trucks and it's a seven step process. So it really just tries to set out in some great detail - - -

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: So they're descriptions of particular functions. What you say is that the duties and responsibilities of the cabin cleaner or cabin presentation officers, whatever you call them, essentially remains the same although the way they do it will depend on the shifts that they're on from time to time, is that - - -

PN150

MR SMITH: Yes, or the modules that they're in, yes.

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. And they're not permanently attached to things?

PN152

MR SMITH: No. Look, as I understand it - - -

PN153

THE COMMISSIONER: Unless they're drivers in which it case it might - - -

PN154

MR SMITH: Yes. Look, as I understand it they're rotating shift workers and - - -

PN155

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.

PN156

MR SMITH: On page 2 of QF3 the ASU has - sorry, I withdraw that. Too many disputes, Commissioner, the TWU today. The TWU refers to requests for public rosters that allow for an even distribution of all work considering the effects of shift work and essentially it's a fatigue point that's been taken in that third point as we understand it. We've published rosters and they've been fatigue assessed and they've, as we would have it, come up trumps. The fourth point the TWU goes to is a published management plan essentially to deal with replacing staff who are on holiday, sick leave, long service leave, workers comp. The point being, as I understand the TWU concern, is the Qantas establishment level sufficient or is there a plan to cover absences if there is going to be this modular approach and reduction in crew size.

PN157

The company responds to that at point 4 and says that under the restructure the new roster will provide 22 supplementary staff for 150 rostered lines. It then sets out that the current rosters and staffing levels provide for 16 supplementary staff for 168 rostered lines. So what we're able to indicate is that there is an increase in coverage capability under the new roster which will ensure a much greater capacity to cover leave. So we see it as a significant improvement in relation to that. We see this change as being a material and real way to address the TWU concern which they say they have today under the current arrangements about the capacity of the business to cover lines. This enhances it.

PN158

The company then goes on to make some other observations about how the company would respond to certain service demands. As is the reality in all airports, Commissioner, you start out the day with a plan and then the trick at airports is to manage the inevitable unplanned that unfolds during the day. There a number of options available to the business and they're set out there on page 4. There can be adjustments to the appropriate level of timing and cleaning of certain aircraft or areas of aircraft and there's also a capacity to cover unplanned activity with overtime, or indeed if it's anticipation of temporary seasonal peaks with temporary part time or casual staff as contemplated by the enterprise agreement. So there's a range of mechanisms that can be dealt with there, but keep in mind the primary submission of the company is that the supplementary staff represents a significant improvement on their capacity to covered the rostered lines in any case under the new proposals.

PN159

Returning to TWU QF3, the TWU suggests an ergonomic and biochemical - sorry, I withdraw that. A biomechanical study needs to be undertaken as to the effects of an alleged extra workload for reasons including some of those I've outlined earlier. We see no extra workload and indeed we see increased efficiencies, but the company responds at point 5 of QF by reminding the TWU of the fact that Qantas has conducted several job safety analyses and a risk assessment in relation to the changes arising from the restructure, that any potential safety hazards and risks have been assessed by qualified and approved safety professionals in the Qantas safety department and all that work was done in consultation with the OH&S committee.

PN160

That assessment has not identified any uncontrolled safety risks arising from the restructure. That's a key observation and that's documented in the safety assessments which we've provided to the TWU at least no later than 31 August of this year, at the first Commission listing of this matter which I attended. The documents set out control measures that will be implemented where practicable and essentially it's the conclusion that the restructuring envisages an improved OH&S environment such as through the introduction of mechanical aids and through the changes to current work practices which we think will actually improve and address some of the TWU concerns around fatigue covering vacant lines and issues around lifting, bending, all those sort of things.

PN161

So with all that work having been prepared and done the company does not recognise that there's any outstanding TWU concern that hasn't been properly and fully addressed and sees no reasonable basis to pursue a further ergonomic and biomechanical study, so we indicate there that for all those reasons we consider it unnecessary. The next point the TWU raised in QF3 is that all staff are to undertake mechanical handling training before commencing any new restructure. The company responds shortly to that. I mean it may well be an area of heated agreement with the TWU yes, where training is required the business either has or will provide it, so we really don't see that as an outstanding issue before anyone would be required to perform any work in this new restructure to the extent that any additional training might be required.

PN162

The TWU requests an organisational workflow chart that corresponds to the rosters allowing for proper breaks. The business provided such a roster and work allocation information in the folder of materials and indicates quite consistently and consistent with the fatigue assessments that meal breaks would be rostered in accordance with the applicable enterprise agreement. The final point the TWU raises in its letter is it seeks a plan that allows for more time to be allocated to a task when numbers of what the TWU says are less than optimal. I think what it's alluding to here is if there's a reduction in some crew size on a day or some unplanned setting is there the capacity to flex the time allocated to work.

PN163

The company responds there at point 8 that there is information regarding work allocation in the folder. It's not proposed to either increase nor decrease the time allocated to clean each aircraft and we say that the efficiencies introduced in the work processes will enable the same work to be performed in the same time with smaller teams. Any increase in the allocated time would negate that efficiency benefit, but I also remind and don't repeat the observations that the business made in point 4 which really go to areas of managerial prerogative about appropriate levels of servicing and timing of its aircraft in relation to cleaning.

PN164

I'm reminded in relation to the ergonomic and biochemical study observation at point 5 of QF4, Commissioner, that an additional function assessment is being prepared by an external provider, Work Focus. That's been completed. No concerns identified. We're more than happy to provide a copy of that to the TWU and delegates and that's just recently received. Now, at the time of writing QF4 and after our positive meeting on the 13th and the correspondence of the TWU marked QF3 which indicates that the opening that the TWU found the meeting to be a step in the right direction, the business has some level of optimism that we were moving to a point where we could to go implementation.

PN165

The business makes a few observations in the letter in conclusion where we talk about being anxious to avoid any further impact on the business caused by delay, the restructure, that it's critical that we pursue these efficiency gains to remain viable in an increasingly competitive market and that we're also wanting to give effect to the arrangements met with individuals who were pressing us for their voluntary redundancy, made other plans, looking to do other things, wanting to action that. We also indicate that at that time that we remain open to meet with the TWU and indeed at that stage a meeting was arranged for Monday,
24 September to go through all these materials, any questions and provide any clarifications that might be required as to what was on any assessment a thorough and detailed addressing of the concerns raised both in their narrow form at the meeting, which we understood to be the key concerns, and the narrow form I refer to, Commissioner, to remind you is on page 2 of QF3, but we've also gone to the trouble of addressing each of the stated ones that have arrived in subsequent documentation in QF3.

PN166

The business also concludes that letter with a timely reminder that we continue to have concerns about the application before the Commission which we think can be properly characterised as a manning and crewing dispute and not of the alternative nature that the TWU has strained to suggest at various times. Commissioner, on Monday, 24 September whilst the business and delegates were available to meet, comprehensive materials have been provided in advance, we had yet another occasion of the TWU no show for a meeting. The business offered to best utilise the time with the attending delegates to briefly walk
through - - -

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, Mr Smith, there were delegates of the TWU ready to meet?

PN168

MR SMITH: Yes, but no TWU official.

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: But on the 20th were the delegates ready to meet?

PN170

MR SMITH: The meeting, as I understand it, didn't proceed at all on the 20th.

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Nobody turned up?

PN172

MR SMITH: Nobody. Well, yes, it didn't go ahead. The TWU organiser wasn't available. Sorry, I'll just clarify that. Yes, look, I confirm what I've just explained, that the meeting arranged for the Thursday didn't go ahead.

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: That's Thursday, the 20th.

PN174

MR SMITH: Thursday, the 20th.

PN175

THE COMMISSIONER: Why?

PN176

MR SMITH: The TWU was not available, although that meeting time was agreed in advance. We couriered the materials and the correspondence and arranged with the TWU organiser to attend another meeting with delegates on the Monday. The business attended that meeting, was advised that delegates had received two hours before the meeting on the Monday the folder.

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: This is the folder of the 20th?

PN178

MR SMITH: Yes.

PN179

THE COMMISSIONER: The 20th was Thursday, yes.

PN180

MR SMITH: The 20th was Thursday.

PN181

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, go on.

PN182

MR SMITH: The company whilst alive to the absence of the organiser on Monday was still prepared to indicate the nature of the materials to the delegates who attended very briefly and that occurred. There was some short discussion. Since that time there's been no TWU attempt to meet or respond to the thorough and detailed work and offers for meetings which have been presented to them. We heard nothing other than a phone call on Wednesday, 26 September, which was a telephone call proposing a one week extension to the Commission order and the only basis that the TWU offered for that was that they would like an opportunity to review the materials, or further opportunity to review the materials.

PN183

Commissioner, we would respectfully submit that from that report back of the discussions and the material in the correspondence which have been marked in these proceedings, that the Commission can draw a number of conclusions. I mean the author of the correspondence I might indicate Mr McEvoy is in attendance in the Commission and if it's necessary to more formally put the material into evidence we can move to do that, or if Mr Aird would like the opportunity to cross-examine he can indicate that to us later, but for the present purposes I think we can indicate that a review of that material will indicate that Qantas has actively and fully complied with the Commission order of
12 September, that management was readily available and meet and confer with both the TWU and delegates on more than one occasion and indeed did so.

PN184

Qantas seriously sought to better understand address any residual employee or TWU concerns about the restructure to the extent that they were properly articulated or documented or conveyed to us in meetings. We've provided detailed correspondence, further documentation. We provided risk assessments, fatigue reports, position descriptions and extensive material of the nature sought by the TWU and additional material to try and assist to alleviate their concerns. Notwithstanding our request in our letter of 26 September, we received no further indication from the TWU about what any outstanding concerns it has might be. As far as we can identify, every concern the TWU has raised has been addressed.

PN185

Commissioner, if I can turn briefly to the second part of the purpose of the report back which is whether or not an order ought to be extended or not, there would be two bases to our submissions in relation to this component of it. We have submissions we would like to make around the competency of the TWU notification to attract further jurisdiction to extend the order and also some comments around what we would say would be a lack of merit if the Commission was to find it did have any residual jurisdiction to do so. If I can deal with the jurisdictional point first, Commissioner, when I originally started preparing some notes for making submissions today I thought I'd indicate that the TWU notification and the character of the dispute was a manning dispute in disguise but I crossed that out by the time I got to ending my preparations because I don't think there is any disguise.

PN186

I think it's quite plainly and squarely a manning dispute and I say that for reasons that you can glean from TWU documentation. The first one is the initiating notification of dispute. There's no disguise there. If you go to the initiating application, Commissioner, the TWU states:

PN187

The matters in dispute relate to manning levels at Qantas cabin cleaning.

PN188

And that heading, that description is in bold at the top of page 3 of the notification and I think that that clearly summarises the nature of the true character of the dispute before the Commission. There's also a TWU email dated 4 September which has been marked QF1 in these proceedings which indicates that the real issue is undermanning is unsafe and has comments in it which indicate that nothing in the independent fatigue assessments or job safety assessments or risk assessments could alter that view. So it doesn't matter how much work we do on safety. It doesn't matter how much independent risk and fatigue assessment we get done. It doesn't matter what Work Force reports say. It's a manning dispute.

PN189

Commissioner, the Commission was also taken to appendix A which it's a reference to a compulsory redundancy agreement provision. Commissioner, there is no compulsory redundancies in this matter. There has been a - before I go to that I might add that the issue of appendix A is not raised in the notification because it started to emerge on the second listing of this matter in the Commission that there are no compulsory redundancies. There has been an extensive amount of consultation, notice provided. There's been correspondence with the TWU as early as 16 July indicating the need to enter into a fair and transparently usual expression of interest process.

PN190

What we've had is a situation where that's been heavily oversubscribed. We're not talking about compulsory redundancies. Indeed the task before the business was to select between a large number of oversubscribed individuals who wanted to access a redundancy on a voluntary basis. These employees are looking to go and we don't see that there's any scope to characterise any of the issues or the real character of this dispute to being in any way about appendix A. In making these observations, Commissioner, about jurisdiction we would also add that since the matter was last before you the true nature and character of this dispute is much clearer, much clearer.

PN191

The TWU on its own correspondence and conduct is now in a position where it is clear that their primary drive and motivation is in relation to resisting a change in crew sizes and that they're seeking to try and find a basis to characterise that as a dispute over the application of the agreement, but it's that argument and reasoning comes later. It's not the driver of the core character of the dispute. The TWU sought to make some submissions on the last occasion in relation to clause 17 of the applicable enterprise agreement, TWU EBA6 as it's known as briefly.

PN192

THE COMMISSIONER: You'll need to assist me by giving me a copy.

PN193

MR SMITH: Apologies, Commissioner.

PN194

THE COMMISSIONER: If you've only got one copy it doesn't matter.

PN195

MR SMITH: That's okay. I've only got some short submissions. It won't inconvenience me.

PN196

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, sorry.

PN197

MR SMITH: The first observation, Commissioner, is that clause 17 does not deal with manning or crew sizes. It deals with Qantas's ability to direct and I say direct, employees to perform duties in accordance with skills, classification and training. Now look, at the core here there's no suggestion that employees are not skilled or competent or trained to perform cabin cleaning work. They're doing it now and they're going to be doing it under the proposed restructure. Nor has the TWU identified any specific direction to which they can point which they say the company has made. As far as I can tell, Commissioner, at this point QF is offering employees a training and trialling of the new process for a restructured work process.

PN198

There's been no company direction issued and I don't see on what basis the TWU can say that there's a direction of the type contemplated in clause 17 upon which they can rely to ground their notification and so we would reject that characterisation of the dispute by the TWU. I think there was some comments made by the TWU in relation to clause 12.17 which as far as I can tell, Commissioner, concerns a notification of a safety authority requirement but it's not clear as to who has that obligation and if there was some issue around that it could not possibly be a dispute that could ground the breadth of matters that the TWU is seeking to address.

PN199

The TWU also walked through - but I'm not too sure whether they still advance the 12.17. It may have been abandoned on the last occasion. It wasn't clear to me when I read the TWU submissions in transcript last night. But there was also some mention of alleged contracting out. Well, I mean that submission can't be advanced in any real way. There's no outsourcing or contracting out in this situation. So look, Commissioner, we would essentially say this in summary, that the Commission must identify the character of the dispute, that's the conventional approach to these section 170LW matters. There's ample material before the Commission to indicate that the dispute, the true character of the dispute is a dispute about manning levels and crew sizes and specifically a proposed reduction from 14 to 12.

PN200

There's no provisions in TWU EBA6 that deal with those manning levels or crew sizes. The Commission should be satisfied that its order has been fully complied with, that the opportunity for the TWU to raise any concerns has occurred and that the character of the dispute is crystallised even further since the last occasion it was before you to ground a finding that the TWU application is incompetent to support any further Commission order. The Commission was against us on that. We'd just like to make a number of observations that would go to merit if the Commission was minded against those jurisdictional submissions to make some order.

PN201

We would say that a reasonable review of the material before the Commission in the course of these proceedings would find no basis that would warrant the exercise of the discretion of the type that's been sought by the TWU and we say that going to primarily these points. Qantas has fully complied with the interim order. Its purpose has been given effect to. To the extent it was a beneficial order to the TWU and Qantas employees, they've fully enjoyed it. The TWU has been inattentive and on occasion absent in following up its alleged concerns and availing itself of all the opportunity that the company made available subsequent to the last time we were before the Commission in the making of the order.

PN202

The Commission was right on the last occasion to express concern about parties sitting around and dragging the chain and nitpicking. The Commission's concerns should be heightened in that regard now if the TWU was to press its demand for an extension of the order. There has been a full and thorough consultation process that has extended more than six months. There's been proper fatigue and risk assessments in place. There's been exchange of information and documentation of all the detail described in my report back to you today, Commissioner. We've also had a situation where the Commission needs to be mindful of balancing some interest here in our respectful submission.

PN203

On the one hand we have employees who have been successfully identified for voluntary redundancy. Those employees want to go, they've planned to go. They're reasonably expected to either be gone by now or very shortly next week. They've got other plans and they want to action them and pursue them. They've been inconvenienced themselves and presumably their families and their future employers by any further delay. That is a concern which the Commission has indicated I think it's mindful of and we'd reinforce that now.

PN204

There's also in balancing the interest that the business can reasonably pursue it's the company's primary objective to achieve competitive viability and efficient operations. Yes, within the perimeters of the application of the agreement which we say we've done and the relevant regulatory environment which we say we've done and in compliance with the Commission order which we say we've done. We would say that any further extension of the order would have an adverse operational and cost impact on the business. The last Sunday of October is the change of season roster, as the Commission would be aware from other proceedings in involvement in the airline industry that that involves an adjustment of rosters to accommodate a change in schedules given the exigencies of our northern season rosters and northern season schedule changes for airline traffic.

PN205

This change the business has made clear was sought to be bedded down and effected prior to moving to a change of season roster. Now, that timing is looming rapidly. It has been indicated to me that the company anticipates or at least calculates the costs associated with a further extension of the orders to be potentially in the vicinity of $20,000 per week. There's also been an extensive contribution of management time. There is also a wish on behalf of the business to return its mind to competitive tendering for certain work and in order to do so it needs to be able to indicate - it needs to have an understanding of what its cost base and the nature of the efficiencies of its operations. It wants to be able to tender on the basis of the restructured arrangements as opposed to the existing arrangements. At this point in time it can't do that.

PN206

Look, Commissioner, I might add I don't put that submission so high that there's an imminent tender happening as we stand here today, but I do indicate that that's something the business wants to progress and it's not able to do so with confidence at the moment. Commissioner, there was of course on the other hand issues that needed to be addressed - Commissioner, sorry, before I move to the other side of the balance in equation I'm reminded that 50 per cent of the work in the cabin cleaning area is third party work so it's not just managing an internal wholly owned subsidiary client work but also commercial at risk third party work that we're trying to deal with here.

PN207

THE COMMISSIONER: What does that mean?

PN208

MR SMITH: Sorry, Commissioner.

PN209

THE COMMISSIONER: What do you mean, of all the work that Qantas cabin cleaning does half of it is on non Qantas planes, is that what you mean?

PN210

MR SMITH: Yes, in excess of. That's right.

PN211

THE COMMISSIONER: And that's always more threatened than your own stuff?

PN212

MR SMITH: Well, potentially, yes. Apologies, Commissioner, that didn't come out very smoothly.

PN213

THE COMMISSIONER: No, that's all right.

PN214

MR SMITH: In finalising a balancing act here, Commissioner, we fully appreciate and understand that there is a workforce that needs to operate within the proposed new restructure. We would say that the Commission should have a sufficient level of satisfaction that their interests have been interests and properly considered in this process, that there are no unaddressed residual concerns that are so significant as to warrant a further extended delay with the implementation of the restructure, that there's a local consultative process that's available for the parties to continue to pursue pursuant to the applicable agreement dispute settlement procedure.

PN215

There is an OH&S committee which is available to continue to monitor any concerns and the application of the new processes and any further assessments or adjustments that need to be made given the amount of work that's been done already to risk assessments, job assessments, functional assessments and the like. We can say that all that good work can continue and be properly done without any extension to the order and that the TWU has failed to identify any imminent risk to health and safety or wellbeing and we say that in reliance of the comprehensive job and risk assessments that have been conducted. So when balancing up those considerations, Commissioner, we would say that the weight would be clearly against on any merit selection any extension of the orders.

PN216

As a matter of practicality I would indicate it would be the company's present intention subject to any outcome of proceedings today to look to progress a publishing of a proposed new roster next week which would look to try and give employees as much notice as we can of the new roster changes associated with the restructure. The agreement provides for a minimum of seven days notice and as I've indicated, Commissioner, we're anxious to be able to effect that process and get it into place prior to the change of season rosters needing to be settled and put in place at the end of October. So there would be a publishing of rosters which would allow a further period of local discussion and consultation before there was actually a change to the way work was performed which we would say in our respectful submission to give the Commission further comfort that the company will continue to do what it has done so amply already as to make itself available to meet and properly address TWU concerns.

PN217

Just one moment, please. Other than to indicate we're hoping to publish the rosters on Tuesday, Monday being a public holiday, Commissioner, and that those essentially are our company's submissions absent any Commission questions, if the TWU, I might just indicate by way of reserve, the TWU wishes to take any point around matters of evidence, I've tried to rely faithfully on the documentation which has been exchanged between the parties. Mr McEvoy is here. If any matters of that nature need to be cleared up, well, we can certainly attend to that but we certainly rely on the contents of the correspondence in particular and
Mr McEvoy is here to attest to that if need be.

PN218

THE COMMISSIONER: We might adjourn for 10 minutes and then we'll hear from you, Mr Aird.

PN219

MR AIRD: Thank you, Commissioner.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.40AM]
<RESUMED [10.52AM]

PN220

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Aird.

PN221

MR AIRD: Thank you, Commissioner. I just wanted to apologise if there was any disturbances during my friend's submissions. I've just been trying to take some pretty quick instructions in regard to this matter, Commissioner. Commissioner, I want to deal firstly with the suggestion that the TWU has in any way not been inactive in trying to resolve the issues in dispute in not being active in trying in making itself available to attend meetings. The allegations that were put to my friend we reject out of hand. The orders were issued on 12 September 2007 we sought to meet with the company and that meeting took place on
13 September 2007 as already put before you.

PN222

Another meeting did not take place or was arranged by the company until Monday, 24 September. The meeting that occurred - or the alleged meeting where it was alleged that the TWU failed to attend we reject. The alleged meeting on Thursday, 20 September was not a meeting at all. It was arranged by
Mr McEvoy to provide Mr Murray with documents about the proposed restructure. Those documents I would have thought would have been available before the proceedings ever commenced let alone by 20 September, some eight days after the interim orders had been issued.

PN223

Mr Murray contacted Mr McEvoy. It was originally arranged for them I think a discussion as I'm advised was to touch base at 3 pm on the Thursday. Mr Murray had to attend other meetings with Qantas and that meeting was brought forward to 1 pm. Mr Murray attended QFCL to touch base with Mr McEvoy and receive the documents as per the interim order and they weren't available. Qantas not in a position to deliver those documents. They were couriered to the Parramatta office of the TWU for Mr Murray's attention on the Friday, 21 September, and they were provided at the first available opportunity to Mr Murray who does not only have responsibilities for QFCL and the documents could have been provided direct to the delegates, but they were provided by Mr Murray to the delegates on Monday, 24 September.

PN224

The delegates attended the meeting with QFCL but understandably given that they'd just received a folder full of a lot of information, we're trying to work through some of that information and the meeting probably wasn't as productive as it could have been because they were trying to go through the documentation that had only just been provided to them. Mr Murray was unable to attend, as Qantas are obviously well aware of, because he was in proceedings before this Commission about the dismissal of Mr Lonergan.

PN225

THE COMMISSIONER: You told me in those proceedings that Mr Murray couldn't be there on Monday at 2 o'clock because he was in meetings in this matter.

PN226

MR AIRD: Well, I mean he attend to proceedings. I'll have to seek instructions about - - -

PN227

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I'm right, aren't I, Ms McConnell?

PN228

MR AIRD: But he attend the Commission at 2 o'clock that afternoon for the proceedings - - -

PN229

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but he was at 2 o'clock at not at 11 because he was supposed to be, according to you, at the cabin cleaning meeting.

PN230

MR AIRD: Yes.

PN231

THE COMMISSIONER: Now you're telling me he didn't think he had to be.

PN232

MR AIRD: I'd have to seek some instructions from Mr Murray - - -

PN233

THE COMMISSIONER: The other - sorry, this is a lesser point. Okay.

PN234

MR AIRD: But Mr Murray did attend QFCL in the morning and handed the documents over to the delegates and had a brief discussion with the delegates at that time who were available to attend.

PN235

THE COMMISSIONER: But he didn't stay and talk to the company?

PN236

MR AIRD: He didn't stay for the later meeting. But the meeting still took place and it's not necessary and never has been necessary for an official to be in attendance at every meeting. I mean the key people to be in attendance, and I don't think Mr Murray will take any offence at this, the key people to be in attendance are the employee representatives, the TWU delegates that are here today and we'd be submitting that they're experts on the matter and they're the people that should appropriately be in attendance and they were in attendance. But in regards to dragging the chains in progressing the issues, I mean these are the experts, the delegates who are here today who have probably got the combined somewhere in the vicinity of, you know, 40 years plus of service performing the actual job, they've approached - I'm advised that Mr Mazza had approached
Mr McEvoy to seek some time to be released to hold some discussions about these issues that had been raised with the company, issues that people had been rostered on shifts.

PN237

They might be shifts that involve some overtime and are expected to be able to progress these discussions after shifts which can be a problem, that some of the discussions were taking place in between servicing of planes and it had been put to QFCL that this is unreasonable and inappropriate. I mean, meetings should have been taking place. Clearly we would submit the responsibility for that is with QFCL. The delegates should have been taken off the job to allow these meetings take place. They were ready, willing and available to be involved in discussions about the issues of concern. The fact that there was only one real meeting since the orders were issued, because the other meeting was disrupted by the fact that people had only received documents, whoever is to blame, Commissioner, is ridiculous and we would submit the primary responsibility for that lays with QFCL and reject the assertions they've put today as nonsense.

PN238

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Air, could I just ask you, this is a minor point, I didn't understand this but is cabin cleaning part of QFCL, is it?

PN239

MR AIRD: I probably need to be corrected on that. It's Qantas.

PN240

MR SMITH: Look, I can perhaps clarify that, Commissioner and Mr McEvoy will confirm. The employees are employees of Qantas Airways Ltd on this occasion.

PN241

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay.

PN242

MR AIRD: Apologies.

PN243

MR SMITH: And not Qantas Flight Catering Ltd.

PN244

MR AIRD: There's a few divisions out there that I still haven't got my head around, Commissioner, but I'm sure we're still talking about the same people.

PN245

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN246

MR AIRD: So Commissioner, we would say that the process has been unacceptable and as per your discussions on transcript when the order was issued and even if we put to one side who's responsible, there hasn't been adequate compliance with extensive meetings and extensive consultation taking place. Now, I'm not able to address in any great detail the range of issues that were put by my friend. I've only, as I said, Commissioner, we've only just received the folder with all the information. I wanted to touch on a few points that have been raised to some extent previously. One of our delegates here is one of the persons who participated in the trial and he's available and we'd be keen to put him in the stand today if, Commissioner, you had a mind to terminate the interim order that's in place.

PN247

My instructions from Mr Tsevrementzis is that the trial was completely inadequate, but not only that, that it was his position from the trial and the position of other employees that participated in it that the proposed changes were not saving any time and that the proposed changes were not working. So that was his position on the trial. We've only got submissions from my friend here and we're prepared to put Mr Tsevrementzis in the stand today to give some detail about what he says has occurred from the trial. What we also say about this trial and why it's completely inadequate is that Qantas have consistently refused to trial the changes in a live situation. So what they've done is they have a plane positioned over near the jet base in an isolated area and they don't still do the whole task, they do it as my friend commented on on some sort of cell by cell basis and then multiply it out from there.

PN248

We say that that trial is extremely problematic at best and we would submit, Commissioner that there is no basis why Qantas would not put in place a lot of trial. I mean that's what our position has been as a circuit breaker to this contest over the facts that have been put before you is to have a live trial and assess the outcome from there. We say that is a completely reasonable position. It's been the position of our members that they are under stress at the moment. We have documentary evidence as factual evidence that can be submitted and that can be led in evidence today that over the last 12 to 18 months there's been a significant spike in workplace injuries, a significant increase in workplace injuries and we say a part of that has been due to the fact that Qantas is unable to man the lines and they come before you today with some sort of Orwellian suggestion that they can sack people and yet have apparently - make people redundant, I correct myself there, Commissioner. Make people redundant, we're not suggesting that they are sacking people.

PN249

But some sort of Orwellian suggestion that people are going to be made redundant but they're going to have more people to man the lines is, we would say, bizarre. So that's the issue that we wanted to raise in relation to the trials and some of this was put before you last time, Commissioner, that we say that this whole process and we're not denying that it's been going on for some period of time, but the whole process has been at best problematic and at worse has been corrupted. Now, my friend raised the issue of the JSAs. Well, last time we were before you, Commissioner, you might recall that there were two different JSAs that had differing opinions which seemed to be a different view taken by different OH&S managers.

PN250

Also there was an employee group who were designated to these JSAs who had supposedly signed off on these JSAs and it was put to you, Commissioner, and we can put that again in evidence today that they in no way at all signed off on the JSAs and agreed on the outcomes of the JSAs. Now, that's just a basic fundamental principle that these documents have been prepared with an indication that employees have signed off on them and we've got people here who on those committees say they did no such thing. That's a serious situation to be corrected, the process of JSAs and the process of maintaining a safe workplace as employees agree with the outcome.

PN251

To say you've done a JSA and you have employees who understand the job and who understand how to do it safely and don't sign off on it but we've done the JSA anyway shows that the issue is only about process and not about substance. When we received the documents on Monday there was one, we would submit, quite crucial there and we haven't been able to review them in a comprehensive way, but one of the tabs on the documents, Commissioner, deals with - I'm just trying to locate the tab, Commissioner, just bear with me. It's tab 10, Commissioner. It says Workload Demand Profiles.

PN252

MR SMITH: Sorry. Would it assist the Commission and the TWU if we provided a copy of the folder that's referred to?

PN253

THE COMMISSIONER: Probably.

PN254

MR AIRD: We've just got it here.

PN255

MR SMITH: We've got a copy.

PN256

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN257

MR AIRD: And it was headed Workload Demand Profiles. Now, within that there was evidence presented to - supposed evidence presented to the delegates where they mapped out what shifts had occurred and it goes through some different days where it's got individuals identified as servicing planes. Now, I raise this at this stage on a prima facie basis while I'm going to raise some allegations which we would submit are fairly serious, that it appears to us when we receive some of the rosters of supposed identified work our members went and sought the actual rosters of what had occurred on the days in question and in relation to those people in question.

PN258

Now, on the information provided by Qantas in the folder there was a significant discrepancy in the information that they presented in the work that they claimed had occurred on these particular days by particular individuals than what had actually occurred. The delegates went and retrieved the actual rosters and the actual planes that were serviced on the same time and we've got these documents that we can hand up today and there was a significant discrepancy between what Qantas presented as the workload and what the workload was that was the workload that actually occurred. For example, for one individual a couple of planes have suddenly disappeared that the individual actually did service in the rosters is actually blacked out. On certain people's rosters for the crew leaders or the leading hands, I'm not sure of the exact terminology, where people were away and those lines weren't filled, that was blacked out on the roster provided to us.

PN259

Now, that's an exceptionally serious allegation. I've got the documentations and prima facie that's what appears to have happened. Now, I haven't had the chance to - I've only been briefed on this shortly before coming on, Commissioner, and we're happy to provide the documents that we have sourced and give Qantas an opportunity to explain the situation. But let's be clear on what our position is at least on a prima facie basis and that is that the whole process has been at best problematic and at worse corrupt and that's why we're submitting, Commissioner, that as a reasonable position this should be a live trial. Let's trial the thing and see what happens.

PN260

I mean we can present all the documents in the world by a whole range of experts, most of them are either employed by Qantas or certainly paid by Qantas, but to have an impartial approach to investigating whether there are genuine safety concerns would be to actually trial the situation in a live situation where you don't have, you know, an isolated plane placed a jet base where you don't have interaction with engineers, interaction with crew coming on and off and you can actually assess practically what the changes would mean. We would say given what's been put before you today, Commissioner, and in previous proceedings that would be the only reasonable approach to take.

PN261

Mr Mazza has drafted documents and I'm happy again to - because we've certainly put Qantas to proof so if they want to put us to proof I'd be keen to put him in the stand where he can outline from his many years of experience how a plane is serviced with 14 people and the safety issues that he's drafted up some practical diagrams to indicate why he has serious concerns about a reduction in the crewing levels, Commissioner. I mean another issue that we identified in the trial and I think you have to bear with us that we haven't the chance and I have to seek some further instructions to respond extensively to my friend's submission, but another issue which we identify which makes not so much the trial but the process about reviewing the changed crew levels problematic is in relation to the driver's duties.

PN262

They have provided us with a list of the specific duties of the drivers which involves the collect the correct fabric in the fabric room, collect the correct high lift vehicle from the loom master, drive to the correct aircraft bay, using the circle of safety stop at 5MM and let the marshal out, drive slowly to the aircraft and stop again at 2MM, raise the high lift to the aircraft door and open as per standard operating procedures, assist the staff to remove the dressing trolleys in the correct order from the high lift to the aircraft, proceed with allocated tasks as per the rotational module 1 to 11. Now, they're some specific duties that drivers have but when they're assessed the reduction in crewing levels they also have been done, I'm advised, on the basis that drivers would also be inside the plane doing the cleaning duties, replacing the pillows and we're saying that that's just not practically accurate on the assessments that they've done.

PN263

There will be some time for the drivers to be performing some of these tasks but not on the basis that it's been assessed is what I'm instructed. In regards to some of the issues about the impact, we would submit that I think that the profit of Qantas was 1.4 billion in the Qantas Group that was recently announced and we'd suggest that that would give them capacity to at least do a live trial to resolve concerns that people have and to assess whether the changes can be done in a safe way. I mean the delay in enacting a live trial we would submit lies with Qantas. It's been a position that our members and the TWU on behalf of our members have been suggesting for quite some period of time. I mean again you have to seriously question why someone wouldn't actually want to trial something in a live situation. I think we can all draw on experiences where documents and reports don't necessarily match up to the practicalities of how things occur on the ground.

PN264

In regard to the issue of the order being extended, we would say that could be resolved by Qantas giving us a commitment to conduct a live trial for a brief period of time. We would say that the jurisdictional issue has been dealt with but we would say that it's a misrepresentation of what we put that my friend suggested was the basis for jurisdiction in regard to the interim orders. I apologise, Commissioner, I can't expressly recall where you had found jurisdiction, Commissioner. I think you referred to appendix A in the interim orders. We'd again refer to appendix A and in particular the second paragraph there at appendix A where it says from appendix A:

PN265

The company and the unions agreed to seek to manage all necessary staff reductions in a manner aimed at minimising ...(reads)... a redundancy program be embarked upon.

PN266

We'd also refer you, Commissioner, to clause 17 as we did previously and we specifically referred to clause 17.3, Commissioner, where it states at clause 17.3:

PN267

Any direction issued by Qantas under this clause is to be consistent with Qantas responsibilities to provide a safe and healthy working environment.

PN268

We say jurisdiction is founded there. We refer to clause 12.17 of the dispute procedure where it indicates that a dispute needs to be complied with in regards to issues of occupational health and safety. I'm not really sure what my friend was getting at in relation to, you know, it's a dispute about manning levels, that that somehow excludes very serious occupational health and safety concerns. I mean if they reduce the crewing levels from 14 person to one person it would still be a dispute about manning levels, but we quite obviously have a whole range of exceptionally serious disputes that relate to that so I don't really know what he's getting to there.

PN269

His reference to the dispute that we filed in these proceedings was quite clearly completely out of context and erroneous. The dispute notice that has brought these proceedings on is quite detailed. It raises a number of serious occupational health and safety concerns and some evidence has been put before this Commission to substantiate those serious concerns. We're trying to find a circuit breaker in this situation, Commissioner. Our members are saying that we're not able to man the lines at the moment. They're saying that there's a significant increase in workers comp cases and I've got some documentary evidence to provide, so that's prima facie evidence that there's problems occurring there now and safe systems of work if people are getting injured at the workplace.

PN270

I mean these are workplace injuries that we're saying have been increasing over the last 12 to 18 months. It's been our position that crewing levels should not be reduced. It's a good faith position and it's a position to try and test the bona fides of the company to say we want to trial this and we'll press ahead and we'll trial it. But we want to trial it in a live situation. I think that's a perfectly reasonable and appropriate position. If that can be agreed to today and we'd ask that Qantas give that some strong consideration, it would prevent any issue about the interim orders because we can move forward on a consent basis and there'd be no need for orders.

PN271

If Qantas do not agree to that, Commissioner, we would say that there is good reason to have serious concerns about the systems of work that they're proposing to put in place. We would be submitting that the process is problematic and perhaps corrupt and it's completely inappropriate for Qantas to implement changes in that situation that can possibly endanger the health and safety of employees and in that situation the orders should be continued for some period of time, but we'd seek a response from Qantas about implementing as a matter of urgency a live trial for the proposals that are suggested. If I can just leave the submissions there for now, Commissioner.

PN272

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN273

MR SMITH: Commissioner, look, I'll be very brief in responding. It seems that even on taking the TWUs account of what transpired in terms of the consultation provision of documentations post 12 September that the TWU received the Qantas letter, QF4 in these proceedings on Friday morning, 21 September 2007 which is effectively a week ago and the accompanying folder of materials which indeed we have available here to provide to the Commission for reference if required, as previously offered and that the company was available to meet on both the 20th and the 24th. It's curious that whilst Mr Aird seeks an extension of the order presumably to allow further assessment of discussions that he also was able to indicate that the TWU was not necessarily wanting to attend meetings - - -

PN274

THE COMMISSIONER: What do you say that the 20 September meeting was not really a meeting, it was just to be a hand over of documents?

PN275

MR SMITH: Yes, well, my understanding was that there was to be an exchange of documentation where Mr McEvoy and Mr Murray would meet. They would hand over the documents. Mr McEvoy would speak to the detailed correspondence, describe the contents of them, Mr Murray would then have the opportunity to confer with delegates. The company was available as soon as Monday to meet and indeed the combinations were made in other Commission proceedings to facilitate that although Mr Murray didn't take up the opportunity which seems to be clear and in fact supported by Mr Aird seems to suggest today wasn't even necessary that Mr Murray be there.

PN276

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, go on, sorry.

PN277

MR SMITH: In relation to the comments about whether or not adequate time was made available to delegates, nothing in the materials that I've seen represented any clear formal request which the company hasn't granted for the release of delegates or to make available time for them to meet with us or to consider documentation and as I'm instructed we're not aware of any request being denied so I'm not too sure how the TWU proposes to take that anyway and indeed the common ground is that the delegates did attend at least two meetings since the order of 12 September, being the meeting on the 13th and the meeting on the 24th.

PN278

Look, I don't propose to respond to each and every point because that some of it is traversing territory which is covered in detail in the correspondence that I went through this morning. You know, for instance the observation around the reduction in lines and the reference to some Orwellian suggestion that you can have less people, that you've got more coverage. There's no Orwellian suggestion there, Commissioner. It's set out in the correspondence. We've got a reduction in lines and increase in supplementary crew. We've got an improved ratio of coverage that's set out in the correspondence. There's tangible statistics about that. The whole point is if you work more efficiently you don't need as many people.

PN279

There was some complaint about the provision of a job safety analysis and that there were two different competing versions. I understood that that was resolved on the first occasion the parties came before the Commission which was
31 August in which the company provided by hand during the course of those proceedings the job safety analysis which we understood to be the final version upon which the company relied. We have made clear in correspondence and have put it no higher than that job safety analysis and risk assessment was done by the Qantas safety department in consultation with the occupational health and safety committee.

PN280

We say that that was a full transparent and proper process that individuals had the opportunity to raise concerns and those were processed, that it is open to the company to rely on that report and that there is no requirement to have agreement of each individual on the OH&S committee before the company can be in a position to institute some change. It's not the function of the OH&S committee to hold some veto. It's a consultative mechanism and it was properly utilised on this occasion. But more to the point, we still don't hear any significant imminent risk to health and safety. Indeed, we hear a proposal today from the TWU as yes, let's go do it. I mean, yes, let's go do it. We're happy to go and do it. That's what we want to do, we want to implement it.

PN281

Surely if there was any residue of real safety concerns then how do you reconcile that with a proposal to, well, let's just go out and do it and give it a go. It seems to me to be consistent with what the company puts is that there are adequate controls in place and any safety concerns have been fully and properly addressed and indeed the real position of the TWU is that they understand and acknowledge that. It was interesting to hear for the first time the comments about drivers duties being some adjustment where drivers would be required in addition to operate the vehicle to also assist in participating in some of the in cabin activities. That was the first time we've heard that there was any concern about that.

PN282

Now, we don't understand how that change is couched as a safety issue. There's been no submission let alone evidence in relation to that and if there is some concern underlying this that it's about drivers not wanting to resist a change to participate in cleaning within a cabin, well, then let's get it out today. Let's see that that's what this is, resisting this change, that that's all it's about and it rises no higher. We've heard nothing from the TWU in response to our submissions that suggests that this is anything other than a crewing and manning dispute. We have heard nothing from the TWU which would discharge the onus which it carries to attract the Commission jurisdiction and to ground in merit any need for further Commission discretionary intervention in the matter.

PN283

We are able to emphasise that we have conducted extensive trials of this work. More than 50 per cent of the staff have participated in them. It's involved more than 30 aircraft and I've had clarified for me that on occasion that the way the modules have in fact been played out it has in effect been a 12 man operation in any case on at least some occasions. So we would say that that extensive work over three months and most recently in August more than satisfies any requirement to trial and that the competing considerations about the adverse impact on individuals who are looking to by consent cease their employment and also to best position the business in order to remain a viable ground handling business needs to be effected without further delay.

PN284

So the company doesn't embrace the proposal to trial beyond perhaps - and I haven't had an opportunity to take instructions on this, but to the extent that there's training being conducted, continuing in the coming week, well, the TWU or delegates might want to take up the opportunity which has existed on previous occasions to, you know, participate and consult in relation to that. But we would say with respect that there is no basis for the Commission to issue any new or extended order in relation to this matter.

PN285

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Smith, what do you though because Mr Aird ties his whole objection up essentially to - that there's never been a live trial, that until you have a live trial and that's what they want, you really can't know whether 12 people can handle what 14 are now doing?

PN286

MR SMITH: Well, what we say to that is that at the core of this new restructure is a module process and there are crews of four that participate in cleaning defined areas. So they don't work in a way as they previously did where they're part of some - you know, intrinsic part of some larger crew which operates throughout the entire aircraft. They're smaller modulated crew operating in a confined area, so that smaller group comes on and does their area and it's clear on all the trialling that we've done that that's working and been more than adequate process and you can simply aggregate the various module activity to see that the process has been trialled and can work. Indeed that response is set out in our letter of 26 September - sorry, 20 September, marked QF3.

PN287

I'm reminded that the training's that been done has been in a live aircraft situation. Look, we think that the TWU grossly overstates the absence of trialling and tests these processes and that there has been an extensive participation by half the workforce in live trialling of the modular approach and it's been demonstrated to work.

PN288

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Smith. Mr Aird and Mr Smith, you can sit down, leave aside the Commission's power in this area, it's not been unusual or in fact it's been normally the frequent means of dealing with manning changes for an employer to be able to implement their change and over a period of two, three months it's monitored and at the end of the two or three months the parties come together, with or without the Commission, and people sit down and say yes, it's worked or no, our accident rate has gone from one in 1000 to one and a half in 1000 which is bad, or aeroplane people have complained that the standard's rubbish, et cetera, or it's worked. So why doesn't that have any merit?

PN289

MR AIRD: Well, it does in my submission. I mean that's what we've based - I mean when we say a trial, I mean this a - I mean I don't think Qantas are giving us credit for how much ground we're conceding on this and to say that this means we don't think there's serious safety issues with the trial, I mean we don't accept that position. But clearly if it's trialled and it works - - -

PN290

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but why should it be only for a week?

PN291

MR AIRD: Well, I agree, I think it should be for an extended period of time, for two months.

PN292

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but why shouldn't those who wish to go, go? If the trial is unsafe then Qantas, notwithstanding whatever its board might suggest, must comply with safety standards and if they need an extra person, well, too bad. What the board says - I mean I don't know if that's what its policy is, but isn't
that - - -

PN293

MR SMITH: I'm sure the board, your Honour, will say comply with the safety standards.

PN294

MR AIRD: I probably have to seek some further discussions. I might leave it at that, if I can just have some - - -

PN295

THE COMMISSIONER: We might adjourn for a short time. Let me just make this observation, I'm not happy with the TWUs lack of attention to the meetings. It's just not good enough. I expected there to be meetings. Qantas was there for you to say well, this is a hand over or it didn't involve the organiser, well, that's okay, I'm not critical of that. But don't come and tell me that you want to have further discussions because this is to me there's no confidence that that will occur and a one week trial to me doesn't impress me at all because unless you have this over a period and my gut feeling is that the six or seven or 14 that wanted to go ought be allowed to go, but you can change my mind on that, Mr Aird. But anyway, we'll adjourn for a short time.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.32AM]
<RESUMED [11.58AM]

PN296

MR SMITH: Commissioner, if I can indicate from the company's perspective, we would be prepared to work with the TWU to put in place a process which would include the following features, that is that those employees who have successfully sought a voluntary redundancy would be allowed to go, that the restructure would be put in place, that the parties would together monitor the new structure, that monitoring mechanism would include the participation at the local consultative OH&S committee, and a separate business review group, that after an acceptable period of time we suggest two months, a review of the experience of the restructure could be conducted and that this process would be without prejudice to either party seeking to return the matter to the Commission for further assistance should it be required.

PN297

If it's not clear already I might indicate that the business review group would be able to look at issues that go beyond safety concerns to other, you know, work process and efficiency issues and would be consultative in nature. So it would include appropriate employee representation.

PN298

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Aird. Sorry, is that you - - -

PN299

MR SMITH: Yes, that's the proposal and I might just note just to remind the parties, I think it's the custom that the OH&S committee meets monthly.

PN300

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Aird.

PN301

MR AIRD: We'd seek a three month trial which needs to genuinely be a trial, not an implementation of the review process, so we'd seek a three month trial of the proposed changes. We'd seek that the employees determine their own representation. We don't ask to determine Qantas's representation. We'd seek that - but we would agree that in that process that there should be two delegates and two OH&S representatives. We'd seek that those people - the employee representatives have the capacity to meet with whoever Qantas chooses to have as management representatives on a regular basis. I would suggest once a month would be inadequate.

PN302

In regard to the trial we'd simply seek not a substantial document but a one or two page document that would just have some basic dot points about what we're seeking to identify through the trial process. Obviously this is about whether safe systems of work to reduce the crewing levels, so we just seek a sort of one or two page note to give some guidelines to the committee that would oversight the process. But I think there's clearly been some consultative problems. I did want to just correct one thing for the record from the union's perspective, that we just wanted to advise just for the record that in regard to - and I don't want to disrupt anything now that we seem to be making grounds for the conciliation, but we did want to put on record that the Thursday meeting that was called Qantas specifically excluded the delegates, so it wasn't anything they were trying to facilitate in the next ...... That would be our position to address to move forward.

PN303

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Aird. There seems to be general agreement, although Mr Smith's mentioned a trial of possibly two months, the TWU says three months and the TWU talk about, particularly in the OHS area, that they're two people, two OHS reps or their delegates, I'm not quite sure, should meet with the other side or in a committee more regularly than a month and if it's a two month or a three month trial I think that does make sense.

PN304

MR SMITH: Yes.

PN305

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't know whether the parties are envisaging that the normal OHS committee which might be wider than cabin cleaning and should get involved or whether this is a separate OHS group, I'm not quite sure. But once a moment is a bit of a problem only because members or employees will raise with the OHS people and say look, I'm really finding it hard. Well, to wait another month for it to be raised formally by then, you know, people have forgotten it. So anyway - - -

PN306

MR SMITH: Commissioner, just two points, I didn't use the language of trial. The second point around the proposal around the meeting of the OHS committee we could look to say in the first instance or for the first, you know, six weeks to look to meet on a fortnightly basis, if that would assist the progression of the matter. But I suppose we're proposing with the OH&S committee that we use the existing structure, not set up some parallel structure. So the comments that the TWU otherwise made around nominating appropriate employee representatives and things and the business would do like is of no difficulty, raises no concerns for us in terms of who would conduct the business review and if you could reflect upon the use of the language of trial, I was trying to avoid that.

PN307

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I understand that.

PN308

MR SMITH: Yes.

PN309

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, whatever it, whatever is implemented it's going to be reviewed and if there are serious shortcomings, I'm not putting this in your mouth, one would think that some of the eggs might have to be unscrambled and adjustments made. I mean when you call it a trial - - -

PN310

MR SMITH: Yes.

PN311

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean the fact is the downside, unfortunately,
Mr Aird, this is just what happens in manning reductions, the VR people have gone and so the workforce has reduced but if there's still significant problems, well, either the workforce would have to be enlarged again, or Qantas would have to just find some other ways of getting around it and that's their problem, if it emerges that there are real significant shortcomings.

PN312

MR AIRD: Yes, Commissioner, but the process obviously goes without saying that it relies on good faith and I mean a good faith position would be that the matter is termed a trial and it's seen for what it is and that is that the matter be trialled and that the employees choose who they seek to - I mean this is a significant issue for the site. There's often a cut across between delegates who the company might try to portray as purely having an industrial role, but delegates consistently have the major role in representing OH&S issues at the site and it's the practical reality often at the forefront of raising occupational health and safety issues.

PN313

The idea that safety issues are only addressed through people on the OH&S committee, it's important, Commissioner, we would say that the employees determined who should be on this committee to monitor this process, not that Qantas define who should be on the committee. We would say that - well, we've sought four employee representatives. I think there's about 170 employees which would enable communication to get back to - - -

PN314

THE COMMISSIONER: This is four employee reps on the OHS committee?

PN315

MR AIRD: No, we'd be seeking two delegates and two OH&S committee representatives.

PN316

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I know. Two delegates and two existing trained OHS committee people on the OHS working group?

PN317

MR AIRD: I don't know what the title is.

PN318

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, there's two groups. One is the business review group and the other one is the OHS - I don't want you to have a fight next week about this, that's why I'm trying to - - -

PN319

MR AIRD: Look, I don't think that's - I mean we'd be seeking two people who are OH&S committee people so that there's two people that are safety trained and it would be a matter for the employees to determine who those two OH&S committee are and two people who are delegates and we'd commit to provide that to the company what four people would be involved in that process.

PN320

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Smith.

PN321

MR SMITH: It might assist me if I just repeat what I think I heard, that the OH&S committee would be in place and would meet fortnightly and there's currently I think three employee representatives that participate in that, so that committee would operate as is. In addition there would be a business review group. We suggest that that would meet monthly so its charter would be somewhat broader than the OH&S committee because it would deal actually with the work processes and the efficiency measures and just how the thing is going generally, the rostering and other matters. The TWU has suggested that two delegates and two OH&S representatives participate in that from an employee perspective.

PN322

The business does not oppose that proposal, so to capture it, we would understand it to be that the VRs go, the restructure is put into place, a review and monitoring mechanism occurs which involves the participation of the existing OH&S committee and the participation of a business review group, that the business review group would meet monthly, the OH&S committee would meet fortnightly and that there would be a review after a period of two months with each party preserving its rights as to whether or not it would seek to have the matter referred to the Commission if need be. We note and acknowledge your comments that the Commission as to what the potential outcomes could be for the business depending on what the review delivers, although we remain optimistic.

PN323

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Aird, what do you say about that?

PN324

MR AIRD: I seek clarification of who the OH&S committee and business review committee - Commissioner, I mean I don't think there's any objection to the business group and OH&S committee to have some sort of oversight but we're saying is that this trial needs to be - the company needs to provide time for employees to participate in it. We would see that as being part of the problem with the process. So we'd be seeking four people and the meetings that would be arranged would be purely about assessing how the trial is proceeding and what issues are arising out of the trial. Those four people from an - management can have as many people as they choose. We don't choose to identify how they should be represented, but we'd seek the two OH&S committee people and two employee delegates beyond that committee.

PN325

I mean the committee can determine whatever it likes but that's how we seek to have the employees represented to discuss how the trial is operating and what issues may be arising during the trial period.

PN326

MR SMITH: The business doesn't oppose that, Commissioner. We'd effect where necessary appropriate releases to allow agreed employee representation to attend both the OH&S committee and the other group meetings. Again I've elected not to use the language of trial. If we do that that is significant for us, Commissioner.

PN327

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm tempted to see whether we should further clarify it or leave it as it is. I'm just not - see, I perceive, leave aside you're calling it an implementation to be reviewed and you're calling it a trial, but I'm a bit more - I glean from the TWU that they want the new process, whether you call it a trial or a process, they want to have it monitored by a group which includes four people from the TWU, two OHS committee members and two delegates, whereas you're talking about it being monitored by the existing OHS committee and then as well as that by another group called the BRG, is that right?

PN328

MR AIRD: That's what I understand their position is.

PN329

MR SMITH: Yes.

PN330

THE COMMISSIONER: I must say I'm a little bit tending towards the TWU thing only because it's a bit artificial to say, well, this is an issue that the OHS committee should deal with and that doesn't have the delegates. I mean Mr Aird says in the end the delegates are the ones that often to carry these things and cop the blame and are there to say, well, this is just rubbish or yes, we'll have to cop this. Unless they're part of the solution they're going to be part of the problem.

PN331

MR SMITH: Yes. We want them to be part of the solution. We understand the employee OH&S representatives are part of the OH&S committee. I'm not looking to dwell on, you know, either semantics or excessive structure but we also want to avoid parallel processes in the workplace where there's more than one place to properly consult with about safety issues.

PN332

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN333

MR SMITH: We've got an OH&S committee. It has been working. It has dealt with this issue already. Let's continue to use.

PN334

THE COMMISSIONER: How big is this OHS committee?

PN335

MR SMITH: It consists of management and employee representatives. There's three employee representatives and at least two line management representatives and two Qantas safety management representatives, so a committee consisting with my rough mathematics, seven approximately. This would vary from time to time. It's an existing appropriate structure. We just think let's not create something new, it's there. They've had involvement in this process. The TWU delegates have nominated participants there. We're not trying to exclude anyone but we just want to avoid duplication of process.

PN336

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, why couldn't two TWU delegates be co-opted onto that committee and then really it does everything?

PN337

MR AIRD: Commissioner, I'm just concerned about this. I mean just trying to get people that are going to have - this is a significant change to the business. We're talking about a significant restructure. We've raised some OH&S issues. It doesn't stop - there are constantly OH&S committee issues that can cut across industrial issues that have been negotiated. This is about good faith and about the employees choosing how they are to be represented. That committee was not necessarily elected to negotiate through some of these changes and the issues that are occurring and I mean I think that's pretty clear because where we've got to today is that the employees are here before you saying, well, we haven't had our voices heard, the issues that we've raised haven't been addressed.

PN338

I mean we've got no comeback then. I mean we're not trying to be excessive and get people off the job or going to have a committee of 28 people. We're saying two OH&S committee people and two industrial delegates need to focus some time on this trial. There's a mountain of documents that have been put to people from, you know, experts in OH&S management at Qantas and clearly our members need the time to consider this.

PN339

MR SMITH: Sorry.

PN340

MR AIRD: Commissioner, I can suggest if we could go off the record?

PN341

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, we'll go off the record. Thank you.

<OFF THE RECORD

PN342

THE COMMISSIONER: I think we've reached what seems to be at least an accommodation at this point and that is that the new process defined or regarded by the union as a trial and by the company as an implementation of a new process will be monitored and reviewed at the end of two months and if there is a need for further review, well, then that obviously is something that might blow off and blow on and go on into a further period and that the monitoring of that new operation will largely fall on the existing OHS committee which will include two further nominees of the TWU and it will look not only at OHS specific matters but a broader aspect such as what's good for the business and what's good for an expansion of the business and the employees bring certain knowledge and expertise in that regard as well and that will be the forum for it; and that at least for the initial six weeks or virtually the whole time, that committee will meet fortnightly.

PN343

Anyway, I don't think we need to say any more. I should have indicated that reluctantly perhaps on the TWUs part but I think appropriately, the VR people will be allowed to go in accordance with their desires and the company's desires. The matter will be re-listed on short notice if there's a problem but otherwise may be not re-listed - or will be re-listed at the end of the examination period or the monitoring period or either two months or some time after that. On that basis these proceedings are adjourned.

<ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [12.25PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #QF3 LETTER FROM TWU, DATED 13/09/2007 PN88
EXHIBIT #QF4 LETTER TO MR PAT MURRAY, DATED 20/09/2007 PN93