BP2007/10, Transcript of Proceedings [2007] AIRCTrans 63 (19 February 2007)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 16470-1

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE

BP2007/10

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA-PLUMBING DIVISION WESTERN AUSTRALIAN DIVISIONAL BRANCH
AND
CSBP LIMITED
s.451(1) - Application for order for protected action ballot to be held
(BP2007/10)

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION-WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BRANCH
AND
CSBP LIMITED
s.451(1) - Application for order for protected action ballot to be held
(BP2007/11)

SYDNEY

12.36 PM, MONDAY, 05 FEBRUARY 2007

MR ELLIS: I appear of behalf of the AMWU.

MR L EDMONDS: I appear on behalf of the CEPU.

MR T DAVIES: I am a solicitor from Blake Dawson Waldron and I seek leave to appear for the CSBP Limited. And, your Honour, I wonder whether we might remain seated during the hearing or whether we’re in your range of hearing standing up?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, you can remain seated. I'll get a great view of your tie if you stand. Yes, anyone else?

MR DAVIES: I have to say I have with me, your Honour, MR M RIORDAN who is from CSBP Limited.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Yes, there are some witnesses that need to be called in this matter, is this the case?

MR ELLIS: Yes, your Honour, there is. We intend to call a witness. The AMWU intend to call Mr William Warren Tracey.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: William, okay. And who else?

MR EDMONDS: Yes, ma’am, the CEPU intends to call Mr Greg Wilton and
Mr Glenn Barker.

MR DAVIES: And at this stage, your Honour, it’s my intention to call
Mr M Riordan. I should just indicate that I’m not aware of the evidence that’s being called by the applicants so we may need to reserve whether or not an additional person is required, but at this stage I don’t anticipate that.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, we’ll get to that. I'll hear what you have to say in opening, gentlemen, and then I think it will be appropriate if Mr Riordan waited outside, Mr Davies.

MR EDMONDS: If that be the case could Mr Wilton also? I understand that as between the two unions a number of discussions have occurred in tandem.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Why don’t you two have a discussion about that and you can let me know?

MR DAVIES: Mr Edmonds has just suggested that’s okay. Yes, that’s fine, we’re happy to do that if that be the case.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Yes. There was some difficultly in that there was no one in Perth to swear the witnesses. I’ve spoken to the registry and I think that someone will be provided from chambers. Has anyone come in?

MR ELLIS: Yes, there’s a person here now.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, who is that?

MR ELLIS: It’s the associate to McCarthy DP, Amanda.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for that assistance. What we might do is simply not inconvenience her to any greater extent than just avail of her services for the swearing in of the first witness and then somebody can call her when it’s necessary for the later witnesses. Are you happy with that arrangement? Can somebody volunteer to do that?

MR ELLIS: Yes, that’s fine if it please your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, well I think that we might get her telephone number and call her when it’s necessary to call the witnesses, starting with Mr Tracey, and in the meantime I'll hear from you in opening.

MR ELLIS: Okay, ma’am. I think how we should proceed, ma’am, the submissions of - the application of the AMWU have submitted in respect of the name of the applicant on the application itself. We anticipated we would address those questions before we proceed to witnesses, ma’am, because if our application to amend the application is not granted then we may need to withdraw our application and proceed in another day or two.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

MR ELLIS: Now, we may seek leave to amend that application. We concede that the named party on the application is incorrect. We say it was a clerical error which occurred in our office and I accept responsibility for that and we say
that - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What is the party that is named?

MR ELLIS: The party as named in the application is a hybrid union of the state union and the federal union. That was the error that occurred. The name that should have been on the application is the name which appears on the initiation of bargaining period notice and that is the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union. That’s the correct name. That’s the name which we seek to amend our application to read. We say the applicant has been fully aware of the negotiation between the parties given notice that the federal union was the negotiating party. There’s no prejudice to the respondent with our application to amend if our application is granted and we say, ma’am, the application should be amended in accordance with our application.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it opposed?

MR EDMONDS: Your Honour, it’s neither. Could I please put it this way? We don’t suggest that there would be any prejudice if an amendment was allowed. I guess the question really is who made the application in the first place. If it was made by the federal union and the Commission finds that it was but there was an error then that error can be amended and we would not be subjected to any prejudice, but we would submit if the application was in fact made by the state union then in fact what the AMWU is asking the Commission to do is to let one union, which is the federal union, step into the shoes of another federal union which is the transitionally registered AFMEPKIU of Workers Western Australian branch. So that’s really the question.

Mr Ellis is a legal officer of the state union transitionally registered.
Mr McCartney, who’s signed off the paper work effective of the application, is the state president of that union and that is the only union with the name that includes the words “of Workers” at the end of it. So that’s the question. There are ..... one by his Honour Marshall J in ..... Health Care v HSUA and another by his Honour Melville J? ..... Australian Postal Corporation v CEPU and the question in those cases really turned around whether or not there was ambiguity in which case the court would rectify a change of Commission orders or whether in fact it was clear all along who was bringing the particular application in which case the court didn’t take issue with the particular error.

So I’ve made my submissions and if you Honour has had an opportunity to read them there’s nothing I need if I could say here more than that. The points in relation to the matters are set out in paragraphs 7 to 13 of my submissions that were sent through to the associate to Lawler VP yesterday.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR ELLIS: Let me just reiterate our position that it was a clerical error. It was always intended that the federal union would make the application. It was never intended that the state unions in whatever naming they are would be involved in this application. The state union is not a party to the agreement so it couldn’t possibly bring the application. As we say we don’t believe there’s been any prejudice to the respondent. We submit, your Honour, that the application should be amended and the matter should proceed today in accordance with the requirement of the Act.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They might be matters about which,
Mr Ellis, there could be evidence.

MR ELLIS: I beg your pardon ma’am?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They might be matters about which there could be evidence.

MR ELLIS: We could?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Evidence. Are they matters about which you intend to give evidence or anyone intends to give evidence?

MR ELLIS: About the nature of the drinking and so on?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, about who was intended and who is the originating party, the union party.

MR ELLIS: I had intended, ma’am, the witness that we intend to swear can give evidence to the fact that it was the federal union which was negotiating with the employer.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that might be appropriate.
Mr Ellis, I think you should call me your Honour or Senior Deputy President, whichever is more convenient for you. I have this urge to look around for my corgi’s every time you call me ma’am. It makes me nervous.

MR ELLIS: Okay.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

MR ELLIS: I will, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there anything you wish to say in opening, Mr Edmonds?

MR EDMONDS: At this point, your Honour, if I could just direct you to the outline that I filed already. There’s just a few typographical errors in there that I wondered if I could amend. On the first page of that outline the bargaining period that’s referred to in the header should read BP2007/10 and there is a typographical error in the proposed draft order which referred to Ives VP which I’m afraid was a trans-position error. Otherwise there wasn’t anything further that I wanted to add to my opening aside from what’s already contained in that outline of submissions.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Do you wish to say anything before I hear the evidence, Mr Davies?

MR DAVIES: Just very briefly, your Honour. Apart from the question of the identity of the applicant there are really two primary issues that we raise in relation to the making of the application. One is a question of whether or not the application can be granted and that relates to whether or not there has been genuine bargaining. The other submission is in relation to the method by which if the Commission was to grant the application the vote should occur and then there’s a very minor issue we mention at the end about clarification around one of the questions to be asked of the employees were that to occur.

We don’t raise with the tribunal today any question about whether or not there has been prohibited content sought on the part of the unions in the negotiations. The concern that we have is that the nature of the claims made by the unions have been so over the top as to be fanciful. That is that they don’t fall, we say, within the realm of any person genuinely trying to reach agreement and there will be some case law that we will need to refer to plus ..... during the course of the proceedings. But our position in relation to that is outlined in our written submissions that were filed from paragraphs 14 through to 27.

In relation to the postal vote we’ve just made submissions there that a postal vote, we say, is probably more appropriate. It may delay things by a day or maybe two, but appropriate because of the location of some employees down at Esperance and Albany as well as on annual leave. So I don’t think I need to say anything further at this point, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Mr Ellis, do you wish to call your witness?

MR ELLIS: Yes, your Honour. We’d like to call William Warren Tracey to the stand.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And is Mr Tracey wanting to affirm or swear to his evidence?

MR ELLIS: Mr Tracey will affirm, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. And is McCarthy SDP’s associate in attendance?

MR ELLIS: Yes she is, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would you mind delivering the affirmation to the witness? Thank you very much.

<WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY, AFFIRMED [12.50PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ELLIS

MR ELLIS: Your Honour, just before I commence I’d just like for your information to confirm that the other witnesses have left the room. They’re not in the hearing at the moment.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

MR ELLIS: Mr Tracy, for the record can you tell the Commission your employment? Are you working? Are you in paid labour?---I am. I work for the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union.

And what’s your role with the AMWU, Mr Tracey?---I’m an organiser responsible for all the duties responsible for Alcoa and it’s contractors and the major employers and contractors up and down the strip.

And does that include CSBP?---I think so, yes.

Mr Tracey, can you tell the Commission when you first began negotiating your agreement with the CSBP?---Negotiations for a new agreement with CSBP probably began around February, March, April of 2006 and commenced with CSBP tabling an agreement of what they saw at the time was ..... that in their view the membership would pick up because the offer was too good to refuse. So it was a unique set of circumstances. Normally when we negotiate we sit down and table a log of claims and run through issues and matters which are of importance to the membership. These negotiations began with CSBP actually tabling what they saw was a final agreement and wanted our response to that document.

And that was back in April 2006?---It was March, April, yes.

And you’ve been involved with the key negotiating meetings with CSBP since then?---Look, most of the negotiations. Well, the negotiations actually have taken a format whereby we have probably had since September three or four main meetings which involved the union official and organisers responsible for CSBP and our senior delegates down there, but we’ve let a lot of the running and meetings on a day to day basis or week by week basis to try and seek to get an agreement to the delegates on site and then we would update where officials would come in and attempt to .....

Shall we proceed, your Honour?

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XN MR ELLIS

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I didn’t say anything I’m sorry. Did you think I did?

MR ELLIS: Yes.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, I didn’t. Please, just continue.

MR ELLIS: Yes, your Honour?---And we would attempt to, I suppose, consolidate those negotiations that have been occurring at a staff level with our shop stewards and delegates.

Okay. So you’ve been involved in negotiations since April, May 2006?---That's correct.

And have you been involved with negotiations since the notice to initiate a bargaining period was issued on 7 September 2006?---I have been. We’ve had a series of meetings both at the site, both with the company and their representatives and also with various meetings with our senior negotiating team and mass meetings with the membership to update them, I guess, on the progress of negotiations and where they were at at each stage.

And just for the record can I ask you if I run through a series of dates if you could just confirm if you attended these meetings with the company. Did you
attend - - -

MR DAVIES: Your Honour, I just wonder whether it might be better for
Mr Tracey - I’m okay with Mr Ellis giving him some dates, but perhaps giving a bit more of an indication of how many meetings and roughly when and then .....

MR ELLIS: I appreciate it’s leading, ma’am, however in this case ..... if you would prefer?---No, that’s fine, I know their names.

MR ELLIS: Can you tell the Commission the dates of the meetings which you attended with the company in negotiating for the new agreement, Mr Tracey?
---Since the bargaining period came down or?

Yes?---Since the bargaining period came down I think the first meeting would have been in or around about 8 September. We then had one on 16 October, 30 October and then again on 18 January from memory.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XN MR ELLIS

And have, during the course of these negotiations, have you conducted meetings with the membership on the site to discuss the negotiations?---Yes, yes we have. What we would do is, and I suppose probably the key meeting would have been the meeting on 16 October, that’s where we made a decision to allow or continued most of the negotiations on site with the negotiating committee which involved two of our senior stewards for the AMWU, ..... Peterson and Ferro Davies, where they would go back and intending with ourselves because I was sending information based on my key roles in the negotiation was to send information back about relativities up and down the strip given that I do all the negotiations for the metal workers in regards to the major employees on the strip in Alcoa. On the 16th we gave them scope to try and get back and see if they could, I guess, get towards some form of agreement at that site. We would, after we’ve had meetings on site, we would update perhaps on about a fortnightly basis, every 10 days, with the delegates who were the main negotiating committee and then go back to mass meetings with the membership. And I think probably after ever one of those meetings we - that’s repeating.

That’s all right?---We would go back to site and hold mass meetings with the members, with the delegates, update where the negotiations have gone and then subsequent to those main meetings go back to site and hold those mass meetings with the membership to update them and get feedback on the progress of negotiations at that stage.

Okay. Can you tell us now, could you tell the Commission or give the Commission an overview of the course of the negotiations. Were you, and particularly the quantum of the claim, can you explain the union’s position in respect of the claims that have been made upon the employers since the initiation of the bargaining period?---Since the initiation of the bargaining
period .....

We’re getting some feedback here. Can you hear us okay?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I can hear you and I haven’t missed any of the evidence, I don’t think.

MR ELLIS: There’s a lot of feedback coming back to us.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there a mobile phone on in the room?
---There might be.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XN MR ELLIS

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Turn them off. We can tell in Sydney on their monitors that there’s a mobile phone on that might be causing some interference.

MR ELLIS: Can I go and have a check in my bag, your Honour?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, go and check. Yes. My manager in Sydney tells me that it’s most likely the speaker on the mobile phones that interfere. So if they’re all off we’ll see how we go.

MR DAVIES: Yes, I think we’ve just turned our phones off, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, let’s see if it recurs and otherwise we’ll attend to it.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XN MR ELLIS

MR ELLIS: Mr Tracey, you were telling the Commission about the negotiations and the claims made upon the company. Can you commence again?---Yes. Look, there’s probably a number of key issues between us. They relate to the size and scope of the pay claim that we put on the company and in particular for the members of the AMWU, the allowance around call-outs and allowance and conditions around call-outs. We have maintained a claim for quite some time for an increase on site that was around about 7 or 8 per cent and the debate we’ve been having with CSBP was that that would restore relativities with other employers across the Kwinana strip. The position we put is we’re in a unique set of circumstances in Western Australia where there’ve been conditions, wage rates or wage increases that we have been negotiating up and down the strip reflect the shortage of labour, particularly in the trades area that we represent which is boiler makers and mechanical fitters, and that if CSBP was to continue to retain the trades that we represent then any increases would need to fairly reflect both of those workers and the shortage like we have here. The argument coming back from CSBP continued to be that they believed they were paying the relativities. We went back and forth where we showed increases we had been receiving at the ..... on the strip who are like for like with CSBP and that had been the nature of negotiations probably right up until about November. It became apparent in our view and the comparisons have been done with respect to the band of increases that came under classifications inside the CSBP EBA. So that was the band or the range of payments from level 1 to level 7 that reflected the top rate for trades, level 1 through to level 7 being the top rate, level 1 being the lowest, and that that band which is approximately 10 or 15 thousand between the lowest and the highest pay increase was a band that sat, or needed to sit, relative to what tradesmen, fitters and boiler makers and that sort of thing were earning up and down the strip. CSBP argued that the band was correct, we’re arguing that it needed to be higher. Around about November in relation to pay increases we then realised that in terms wanting to achieve a band that contained the seven classifications that we were chasing was probably unachievable given what CSBP has put to us in relation to what they could reasonably afford. So about November we changed our approach back to a five set classification structure where the top level within our band would match the top level within the CSBP offer and then what we sought to do was take out the first two or three bottom levels inside the band, make the entry level for trades around about a level 3 or level 4 and fit that within so that the top level came out to match the top level in the CSBP offer rather than trying to achieve a band structure or a top level that sat well in excess of what CSBP were telling us they could pay. So we changed our offer to see if we could match what it was CSBP were chasing. CSBP in more recent negotiations, particularly around about 18 January, we put to them in no uncertain terms that we sought to change our approach to negotiations so that our top pay rate didn’t go outside of what CSBP had already offered and we would put the other parts of our classification structure within that, but remove over to seven and move to a four or five band structure. We asked CSBP - because we got refused on that. We put to CSBP what it was we were attempting to achieve and that is we know that there are cost restraints on you, we are seeking not to move outside the top pay level that you’ve offered and put that as our top pay level but within a five classification type structure, are you okay with that concept. Because they came back to us and said look, what you’ve put together in relation to the way it fits within the top level of our pay offer that we put together, what you’ve actually put together results in pay increases that result in 15, 12 and a half and 10 per cent and we said we were willing to look at increases that were less than that, but were they happy with a concept that we were putting together that would take us outside of the current seven level classification structure into a four, five level classification structure. The reply we got back was that no, the pay increase is the pay increase and that’s all we’re offering, which was disappointing for us because we’re looking for ways to move through this so that we can attempt to try and get some resolution to this agreement.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XN MR ELLIS

When did the company reject that offer?---The company probably formally rejected that offer at the meeting we had on 18 January. We spent considerable time talking about the concept we were trying to put forward in relation to a classification structure that was different to what was contained in the previous agreement that would meet our needs but not go outside of their top range of pay. We had a debate about the 12 and a half, the 15 and the 10 per cent and we said well, we first need to understand are you okay with the concept that we’re putting forward and then we can have a look at the quantums in terms of the percentages that would apply to each of the classification levels. They effectively said well, no, the pay increase we offered in April is the pay increase and that’s where we’re going to say.

And you, at various times throughout the negotiation, did you take those figures and cart the response back to the members?---Well, we had to because the new approach that we had to the classification structure, which was to meet outside of the old seven level classification structure, was something that would change, in our view, the integrity and content of the EBA that we had and we needed to take that back at mass meetings and see if the membership were okay with us to endorse an approach that would see - because our previous highest level pay increase was 7 or 8 per cent in excess of what CSBP were offering and we had to go back to the membership and saying we were dropping our highest asking level and were they okay with the response that came back and that we would work out our structures within there. Now, the first time we didn’t realise it was at the 10, 15, 12 and a half per cent level. We were told that. We then said we would have a look at getting it within the 6 and a half to 8 per cent range, but we needed to know whether CSBP were comfortable with the concept of a new classification type structure.

And to this day has the company responded to you about that concept of seven to five levels?---To my knowledge no. Their position seems to be the original offer they made of 5 and a half per cent is the original offer and it hasn’t changed since they put the first document on the table in April. Our membership are on board with the concept we’re floating in terms of a higher entry level and a four or five level classification structure. They’re okay with that. We got that endorsed at mass meetings. We’re still in negotiation with the CSBP to see if they would pick up that idea because we do want to fit within the top range of their pay levels that they can offer, but we seek to improve the amount people can earn at entry level and at two or three levels above that, which will be level 4 or level 5 under the old agreement, level 6.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XN MR ELLIS

Okay. I’d like to ask you some more questions now in relation to an allegation of a 500, 600 per cent increase in allowances. Can you tell the Commission what you understand by that?---It’s been suggested that we’re asking for a substantial increase in the amount of money or allowance that would be paid should workers go into a call-out type system. When we originally put the claim together we were asking for $15,000.

That was in April was it?---That was in April right through until October, November. And what we put up again we had to go back to our membership and change our claim because it was substantially changed to what we had put to the membership prior to that. But what we were seeking is it’s been asked - and these are the two sticking points, one is the wages and the classification structure and, as I said, one is the call-out allowance. What we are seeking is that the company seeks to have some certainty around the use of call-outs and that is people being called back after they’ve left work to attend to break down and maintenance and all that sort of stuff that goes on regularly, that goes on week by week. So if machinery breaks workers are on standby to be called to site to help to repair whatever plant may have been broken down. Now, workers traditionally go on call for a week. That is they would work an eight hour day and then after they finish that eight hour day, at about 3.30 or 4 o'clock, whenever it may be, they were on call until they start work the next morning and that is for that week between when they finish work in the afternoon and start work at 7 o'clock the next morning they were available to be called into work to fix any breakdowns that may occur. What we have said is that in relation to call-outs it presents problems for workers in terms of the unpredictable nature of when you may be called out. You may be called out at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, you may be called at 2 o'clock in the morning, you may be called out at 4 o'clock in the morning and for that work on call your work life balance is affected. Now, we say that for the five or six weeks each year that these workers are on call for seven days at a time they can’t leave town, they can’t drink, they can’t attend social functions where there may be alcohol or these sorts of things going on because they have to, for that seven day period, make themselves ready, willing and available to be called into work. And so we say that that has the same impact on these workers for five or six weeks, four weeks of each year, as would be the impact on workers, production workers, who do shift work and as a result of that rather than having any call-out allowance we would seek to have the same shift allowance that production workers are paid. We then on that line and justified it on the basis of work being the balance and it didn’t seem to be moving CSBP. Again as they did with the classification structure they came back to us and said you need to understand a $15,000 shift allowance for the small amount of tradesmen that we have on site is a problem for us cost wise. What we then came back to them in November is we said well, what we might have a look at given what you’ve put to us in terms of your costs is we’ll halve the allowance down to $800 a week, but what we would seek, and the position that I put both to the representatives for the company and the members at the site is that you need to understand the position our people are in and that is they have to go back to their family and no amount of money will get around the fact that if over Christmas or Easter or New Year you’re on call or during your children’s’ school holiday you are on call and you can’t go away or you can’t attend family functions or you can’t drink, those sorts of things that working people do, no amount of money will fix that. And what we would seek to do is halve the allowance and ask for an extra week’s annual leave just as shift workers get so that when our tradesmen go back to their partners and say look, I’m on call for this week, but the square up is that I’ve got an extra week’s annual leave I can spend with the family where they can be certain they can leave town. Because the nature of the call-out and part of the conditions that you come onto the call-out under is you’re not allowed to leave within 100 kilometres of the site so that you can be called to work. You’re not allowed to drink, any of those sorts of things that you would otherwise do in your down time outside of work. And so we sought to change in November our approach to a $15,000 shift allowance back to an allowance of $800 a week, or $8000 a year as the company has pointed out, and an extra week’s annual leave because we thought we could sell to peoples’ partners the concept of going on call better if the square up for the workers and their families was an extra week’s annual leave each year so that although they’re on call for five or six full weeks they could say to their partner we’ve got an extra week’s annual leave at Christmas when we can head off, or school holidays or whatever it might be. The negotiations with the company so far had gone to we started at 240, we went to 800, the company’s already offered us 600 or $6000 a year and I think to suggest, perhaps, that a claim of $8000 a year is fanciful then the company’s already nearly got all the way there. And with that six the difference between us at the moment is $2000 a year on that. We’ve asked for $8000, they’ve offered us $6600 that they’ve already put on the table.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XN MR ELLIS

Are you aware of similar allowances paid in other companies in the industry in the area?---Well, this is the problem for - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could I interrupt just for one moment. Are you saying that the offer is for $6000 plus the week’s holiday? I’m not clear about that?---No. No, they were still arguing about the week’s holiday and the truth of the - - -

Yes, all right. I just wanted to understand that. Thank you?---Yes, no. The offer they put, your Honour, is $6000 to $6600 and perhaps a half way measure on the annual leave that would, say, if guys are on call on long weekends or a public holiday we may reimburse them annual leave for those days. So we’re still able to have a talk around work family type priorities, but we haven’t got them all the way there on that extra annual leave. In relation to the question that was just asked, and this is where the problem for us is, at many of our other sites and in the metal trades general award, when people are on call as CSBP is asking they are wasting their time for that 16 hours that they’re at home which would be a claim substantially in excess of what we’ve asked for even at the $15,000 shift allowance. And that is a standard, I guess, that our union in terms of the AMWU have up and down the strip and particularly with our contractors, that if they are on call under those agreements they get single time for every hour that they’re asked to spend on call, which under the CSBP arrangement would be 16 hours over seven days a week for each week that they’re on call.

MR ELLIS: Mr Tracey, can you confirm the discussion in respect of allowances. Is this going to be paid to all the workers on the site or just some who are on call-out?---It will be paid to the workers who are on call. So each week they go on call they would receive that allowance.

So how many people in one time are on call?---Probably four.

Out of how many workers?---Well, there’s 250-odd workers there all up, but in relation to the trades there’s probably about 40 or 50.

Okay, thank you for that. I’d like to now move on to the issue of the withdrawal application. Are you aware that the AMWU previously filed an application for a ballot?---I am, yes.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XN MR ELLIS

And can you tell the Commission what happened to that application?---On one day of last week we proceeded with an application to go to ballot and that afternoon I received a call from officials of the Miscellaneous Workers’ Union who said look, we are waiting for some further feedback from CSBP in relation to a movement on some of the critical issues that are between us. On the basis of that I rang counsel for the AMWU who were putting the application that morning and said look, we are having a meeting tomorrow, which was last Tuesday, over at the Miscellaneous Workers’ Union’s office and there’s a view from them that they are still going to be able to get some feedback from CSBP on the claim and the agreement that we’re trying to negotiate and we will need to withdraw the application. There was, I said, and obviously it was my call being the organiser for the area, that we need to withdraw because some of the information we could be getting tomorrow may influence the outcomes we had in relation to our agreement. On the Tuesday afternoon we had that meeting at the office of the Miscellaneous Workers’ Union and the information that they provided to us, well they still hadn’t heard back from CSBP at that stage, but the information they provided to us was in relation to other issues in and around negotiations at CSBP and the bargaining periods and that sort of stuff and didn’t have any material impact, I guess, on where negotiations and our claim in terms of the metal workers who’d gone with CSBP and so after that meeting in the next morning when we had a meeting we decided that we would continue with the application to go to ballot given that the position materially hadn’t changed since 18 January, the meeting that we had with CSBP.

Okay. I just want to finish, Mr Tracey. Just one or two more. Can you tell the Commission in your involvement with negotiations what’s your understanding in respect of the union which has been negotiating with CSBP?---The union that’s been negotiating with CSBP has been the union that’s been party to the agreement all along. It’s been the union that initiated the bargaining, which is the federal union.

That’s the federal union?---The federal union, yes.

Thank you. And during the course of negotiations you’ve been involved with a number of people. Have you also been negotiating on behalf of the CEPU members on the CSBP site?---Have I been negotiating on behalf of the CEPU members?

Or anything you said applies to the CEPU members.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XN MR ELLIS

MR DAVIES: Objection, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would you like to tell me what it is,
Mr Davies, or do you want me to guess?

MR DAVIES: No, your Honour, I was just waiting for the opportunity. Mr Ellis has put a leading question to Mr Tracey. He’s told Mr Tracey that - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, you’re right.

MR DAVIES: - - - the CEPU - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ellis, it’s a good idea not to provide the answer at the same time as the question. Mr Davies is perfectly correct. If you take that objection you should follow the form.

MR ELLIS: I withdraw the question.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davies, there’s no need for you to stand when you make an objection. It’s so uncomfortable and I can see you perfectly well at the table.

MR DAVIES: Thank you. It was a reflex.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I know. It’s difficult to stop yourself, isn’t it? Yes, Mr Ellis.

MR DAVIES: Thank you, your Honour.

MR ELLIS: I take the objection and withdraw the question. Mr Tracey, what can you tell the Commission about the parties negotiating the new agreement?
---We seek to have to some extent a combined bargaining unit in relation to the negotiations at CSBP. A lot of the issues are very similar.

And which parties or legal people are involved in that combined bargaining unit?
---Legal people?

Yes, which people?---The AMWU and the CEPU and to some extent for some of the general claims the Miscellaneous.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XN MR ELLIS

Okay, thank you. Mr Tracey, can you tell the Commission your position in respect of negotiations as of today and the future?---Look, even as late as this morning we hope to be in a position where we can reach agreement with this company. We’d seek to, and I guess our approach all along has been to, and that’s why we’ve continued to change our approach with the negotiations in terms of trying to put forward suggestions that might be palatable to CSBP trying to fit within the stated cost restrictions. We seek to get an agreement with this company and we seek to get an agreement with this company soon, if at all possible.

Are you aware that you continue to negotiate with the company?---We’ve always been negotiating and we still are. That’s never been closed off and CSBP seem to be clear to be well aware of that.

Thank you, your Honour. I have no more questions of Mr Tracey.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Edmonds, do you have any questions?

MR EDMONDS: No thank you, we’re fine thank you.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davies?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DAVIES [1.19PM]

MR DAVIES: Thank you, your Honour. Mr Tracey, am I correct in understanding that you are an organiser of the Automotive, Foods, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union of Workers Western Australia Branch?---Well, depending on where we operate will depend on which end I organise for because it depends on what union’s a party to or what branch of the union is party to that agreement. If you have a look at areas where we’ve traditionally had state agreements then you operate in a capacity of state right of entry and all that sort of stuff. On sites where it is the federal body that’s part of the agreement then you operate in the capacity as a federal organiser. We’ve always had two roles.

So if I could ask my question again, are you an organiser of that union?
---..... the union that’s party to that agreement.

And if I could ask also are you an organiser of the Automotive, Foods, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union of Workers Western Australia Branch?---I’m also an organiser of that branch, yes.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

And you gave some evidence, Mr Tracey, the role that delegates have been playing in the negotiations with CSBP. Am I correct in understanding that the delegates are authorised to make offers to the company on behalf of the union?
---They aren’t really distinct what we discussed what those offers are, but yes they do have authority to continue to engage negotiations with CSBP. We often find negotiations that we hold with various companies across the state that it is the delegates who have the intimate knowledge of what goes on on a day to day basis and an intimate knowledge of how the claim would be best. We find that delegates, in our view and we’re given an responsibility for our delegates and authority to be able to do that to try and resolve a lot of issues in negotiations on a day to day basis.

So if the delegates were to put a position to the company the company could take that as being the union’s position?---It would depend on the manner in which that is being put. Obviously when you give that sort of authority and latitude to delegates there are times that they may go beyond ..... I suppose the main sticking point as far as we’re concerned in relation to offers made to the company is that it’s an offer that’s been taken back first by our membership and usually that’s done through when we seek to change the nature of the claim material, that is going through endorsement through mass meetings. That would ultimately be where authority for that sort of stuff would come from.

So if the delegates were going to put a position which was the union’s position the union would know about it and then the union would go back to the membership to have a vote, is that what you’re saying?---..... so, you know, we don’t get it right 100 per cent of the time, but by and large and I think we’ve probably proved this in according with the nature and type of agreements that we’re getting in this state at the current time, we get it right most times but not always.

Mr Tracey, if I was to suggest to you that in a discussion - excuse me, your Honour. In a discussion between Ferro Davies and Mr Riordan that figures, the pay increase of I think in the order of six across the board have been discussed, what would you say about that?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I didn’t hear that. I didn’t hear that percentage, Mr Davies.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

MR DAVIES: I was just saying, your Honour, I asked a question is Mr Tracey aware of a discussion between Ferro Davies, a delegate of his union, and
Mr Matthew Riordan, of CSBP, in which Mr Davies indicated that across the board rates in the order of 6 per cent, and I might be out by 1 per cent, your Honour, were acceptable?---There was some discussion around this issue at the meeting that we had on 18 January and that is that quite clearly pay increases, although we sought endorsement from CSBP about the concept we were trying to put forward in terms of a five classification structure type band that we accepted, that potential increases of 15 per cent on base rate would be a problem and that we would have a look at - and I’ve got to tell you the figures that we were looking at at the time were about 6 and a half, 7 per cent - would probably be something that we could float by the membership. So I don’t doubt that there’s been - and I gather you’re not clear on the figure yourself, you’re saying it’s 6 per cent but you might be out by 1 or 2 per cent - - -

I didn’t say one or two?---Our by one. Yes, if that’s the case there could well have been discussions around that because we had floated that after that meeting on 18 January that we’d need to bring back 15, 12 and a half and 10 and perhaps when we reflect the top range figures which, I think, was 6 and a half per cent and that if we can get that across the board then the guys would be okay with that. Now, that’s something that we need to go back to discuss with our membership, but prior to doing that we had to get some feeling of whether CSBP was happy with as a concept a classification structure that was substantially changed to the one that was in the old agreement and that was probably where a part of the sticking point was ..... I don’t doubt that there may have been some discussions in and around that. We give our delegates scope to do that.

And if I can just gain a better understanding of the various offers that the union has been making so far and initially in April it was your evidence that you were looking for 7 per cent increases across the board plus a $15,000 standby allowance?---The nature of the claims we put were in and around that. There were some other issues around clauses and all that sort of stuff which were subsequent to the offer in April by CSBP had been resolved is my understanding, but there was a push for increases that would achieve relativities around about the 7, 8 per cent or whatever it may have been.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

And are you aware that currently the standby allowance is effectively in the order of $2400 per annum assuming somebody is on standby 10 times per year?---Well, it’s actually not. They’re already paying $5700. They were actually paying, they put out a letter in November that they would pay $570 a week as opposed to $240 and we’ve moved them to $600 and they haven’t paid them the $600 yet, but they in November offered and paid a pay increase of 5 and a half per cent and a
call-out allowance of about $5700 to $6000 that they are paying it now and they put that in writing. So the 440 or the $2400 that you’re talking about hasn’t been in place since October.

So they were paying standby allowance of $2400 until October 2006?---And then the company of their own volition - we didn’t ask for it - the company of their own volition came back and says look, while we are negotiating or continue negotiations in and around this agreement we of our own free will agree to give you 5 and a half per cent and about $5700, $6000 a year until we get resolution of this agreement.

So you’re saying without having yet reached agreement the company has actually paid 5 and a half per cent wage increase and that’s being paid at the moment?
---That's correct.

And it’s increased the allowance from $2400 per annum to $5700 per annum assuming 10 standbys a year?---Assuming 10 standbys a year it would be around about $5700, that's correct.

Now, the position that you have maintained, 15,000 standby and four by seven, let’s call it, and let’s accept - - - ?---..... four by seven.

7 per cent across the various classifications of workers?---Right, yes. Seven, eight.

Perhaps I should say three by seven, three years, 7 per cent increases across the full classification?---Around about that, yes.

That was maintained until after your meeting with your members in October, is that correct?---It was maintained, I guess, until we tried to seek ..... alternative ways to try and get resolution of the process, resolution of the agreement, and that happened around about October, November. Also, though, my understanding is that the idea had been floated verbally by CSBP some time prior to that, but I’m a little bit unsure if that was a part of the scope we gave the delegates to do that.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

Okay. Now, you say that the 7 per cent wage increase was maintained to restore relativities across the strip. By that do I understand you to mean that you saw a 7 to 8 per cent increase as what was necessary for CSBP trade rates to match BP and match Alcoa?---No. We thought that we used Alcoa and BP as examples of rates that were going around for tradesmen in the industry up and down the strip. What we thought to do was to achieve pay rates that accurately reflected the information we’d given to CSBP about average wage increases, what had happened with CPI in the state, around about 4.8, all that sort of stuff and to justify that there were employers out there relativity wise who were paying substantially more than what CSBP was paying and we used that as proof and part of our negotiations to say that higher increases than what they were offering -because we were getting 5 and a half, five and five, as you said we were chasing seven or eight, seven or eight - that in fact those figures ..... were justified on the basis of a shortage of labour, what had happened with CPI and wage rates that other companies were paying.

And the companies you used were Alcoa and BP?---They were some of them, yes.

They were the two companies that you put to CSBP as being the companies whose rates you were comparing, weren’t they?---They were the companies that we were having a look at in terms of some of the rates that were paid up and down the strip. We also used average wage increases that had been achieved by various contractors on the strip, United, Western’s, AMEC and some of these companies around the strip to say that the sorts of increases that we were asking for weren’t out of order, that in fact we had achieved these sorts of results or thereabouts with other employers.

So if we start off with United, what wage increases are United paying under their current instruments?---The wage increases we achieved, United - and I negotiated that agreement on behalf of our organisation - was approximately a 13 to 14 per cent increase in the first year. Wage increases alone in the first year were 11 per cent and then you’re adding to another three or four in terms of allowances and that sort of stuff, the effect of over three years 26 per cent increase in paid conditions. If you go to the recent agreements we had done down at BP Refinery we had 8 and a half odd per cent in pay increases alone in the first year, five in the second, 6 and a half in the third without industrial disputation at those sites. They were seen as necessary to retain and attract good tradesmen in this environment. We were experiencing a lot of problems with many of the contractors that came in and did shut downs up around the strip. Companies like ..... who were employing people, you know, who’d only previously worked on lawnmowers and all these sorts of things and we were having what I thought was a valuable discussion with not just CSBP but a number of employers about what they needed to do to (a) to attract and retain the right labour, a typical example of trades which is who we represent. If you go to some of the other employers on the strip and in and around Alcoa that we’ve done agreements with, Western Constructions from 25 to 27 per cent over three years. AMEC we’re currently doing around about the same amount. We just did and we just finalised this year or the end of last year the BP agreement, again pay increases of around about 18 to 21 per cent over three years plus a $5000 salary bonus and those sorts of rate gains that people can attract and retain good tradesmen. And it’s in the context of that sort of information out there that we hope to say to CSBP that what we’re asking for wasn’t unreasonable in this environment.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

Your Honour, I wonder if I might hand a document to Mr Tracey. It’s a document that is page 56 of the submissions that we put through yesterday. It is a page out of the current CSBP enterprise agreement.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: One moment.

MR ELLIS: These are the submissions in relation to the AMWU.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR ELLIS: Mr Tracey, I’d just like to understand this point. Do you recognise the table that’s under the heading 13(ii) to be the table of rates of pay which cover workers including your members at the CSBP operations in Western Australia?
---Yes, I do.

And you will see there that there are currently seven levels of rates of pay?
---There is, yes.

And with your members, which of those levels are they paid on?---It’s probably entry level 3.

Right through to the top, number 7?---There’s a few people on level 7, yes, not too many.

Now, if I understand correctly what you were asking the company to consider as your system of rates of pay in the new agreement was to so far as your members were concerned remove level 3?---Level 3, 2 and 1, yes.

So people would instead of starting on 51,294, using the October 2005 rates, would commence on 55,456?---Yes. We had to do that because a CSBP
..... Coburn Cement. The entry level that they had in place was not able to attract tradesmen. I mean, people were out there, they can go to a construction site or go to do their shut down work or whatever it might be. You know, we’ve got probably 15 billion dollars worth of construction work going on in this state at the current time. They needed to - we said if you want to attract tradesmen - and we’re having the same debate at ..... Coburn Cement - you need to lift your entry level. And so level 3 is just simply too low. You’re not going to get people coming in on that rate. You might get the odd person that comes in and as that expands people are coming here for two or three months and then going off. That was the issue. So we said as to try and resolve - what we suggested to CSBP is to try and resolve the impasse between us, do a separate - and this is why we’ve had to go back to our membership on this, that we currently have a seven level classification structure, let’s go for a four level, which will be level 4 to level 7, it will help the problems we’ve got in terms of attracting people - and this has been the debate between ourselves and this company - it will help us get through the problem that we’ve got in terms of attracting labour and by going to a four level structure it would also deal with the issues of retention and that is - and all we hope to do between level 4 and level 7 is fit that within the top range of the CSBP offer rather than 8 per cent over the top as we have been asking for, but shift four to seven within that so they would allow pay increases and recently the one we put up CSBP have come back and said was 15, 12 and a half and 10 per cent. We have had talks about saying look, if you agree with the concept of a separate classification structure from the seven level that you’ve got in there then we can move that around to try and satisfy pay increases and some of the talks we had were about 6 and a half, 7 per cent.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

If I start off at level 4 your 15 per cent increase there meant that you were going 55 to approximately, and we’re just talking about rough thousands, about $64,000 is what you were putting, was it?---If that’s what it is, yes.

And that what was previously an entry level person starting on 51,294 would start on 64,000?---Look, I’m a bit unsure of the exact figures, but - - -

Well, exactly whatever 15 per cent is. So 55,456 plus 15 per cent is .....

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is this, Mr Davies, the original offer you’re suggesting?

MR DAVIES: Your Honour, this is now the offer made in October of this year.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Last year.

MR DAVIES: Last year. If I would suggest to you, Mr Tracey, that the figure
15 per cent on top of 55,456 is 63,774, you wouldn’t cavil with that? I know you don’t have a calculator?---No. You’ve got one there so I’d have to agree with you.

And that entry level person back in prior to the company unilaterally giving pay increases and unilaterally increases allowances they would receive they did 10 standbys 2400 a year? The entry level person probably wouldn’t do a standby, it would be the level above them, is that right?---That’s not correct.

Entry levels could do standby?---Well, entry levels, they are still qualified tradesmen, yes.

Okay. So they were in the past prior to the new negotiations they would receive 51,294 a year plus 2400 standby, assuming 10 per year. What you’re asking them to receive was 63,774 and then originally, your Honour, now talking about back in April - sorry, no, and then $8000 on top of that as your allowance?---That's correct, yes.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

Plus a week’s annual leave. So instead of receiving 53,694 they were going to receive 71,774 plus an extra week’s annual leave?---Look, that would be the case, but CSBP are almost there. They’ve already offered us pretty close to that. You need to understand that. You’re going off the base that is October ’05 when in reality CSBP have come nearly all the way on the allowance and that is 6000 versus 8000 and that they’ve come 5 and a half per cent on - and we agree that the 15 per cent we put up, that was too much, if you’re okay with the concept then we can leave that back to probably 1 or 2 per cent over what you’ve offered. That was the ongoing rate for the negotiations we were having with this company. So CSBP while I’ve said the figures that you put have taken the top range which is
15 per cent plus the however many 8000 it was, on the 8000 CSBP have already come three quarters of the way and that is they’ve got the six and we’re asking for a little bit more. And in terms of the wage increases we’re now back to a position - as you’ve said there’s been discussions with Ferro Davies and our delegates on site - in the vicinity of 6 to 7 per cent. We’re probably 2 per cent outside of each other so they had to keep those negotiations going.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davies, could I just interrupt for a minute? Mr Davies, did you have instructions about the increase being paid by your client of the 5700?

MR DAVIES: Yes, your Honour, yes.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It seemed to take you by surprise. You put the 2400.

MR DAVIES: Sorry, your Honour, no. I was aware of a 5.5 per cent increase, I’m aware of the company’s position in relation to allowances and we will agree that our current offer is $6000 in relation to allowances, we’ve already paid a 5 and a half per cent increase before getting an agreement and we’ve already increased the allowance to 5700.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did you know that?

MR DAVIES: I didn’t know the 5700 was being paid now. I knew 6000 was offered.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Do you want to get some instructions about that? I don’t want to oblige you to continue in
cross-examination without getting those instructions.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

MR DAVIES: I’ve obtained the instructions.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

MR DAVIES: Mr David Stewart is in the room as well. He’s not a witness, but he can give me instructions about that.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. I just didn’t want to pressure you to proceed without - I could give you a short adjournment if you hadn’t full instructions on those matters.

MR DAVIES: Thank you, your Honour. Mr Tracey, let’s take it at its highest. The $6000 allowance that the company is offering along with a 5 and a half per cent increase for somebody who was a level 3 means that the company is offering 60,115 as the person’s new rate of pay in the negotiations?---Well no, we need to be clear. The company has agreed with us that the level 3 should go, as I understand it. They had problems with the entry level too and they’ve come to an agreement that the level 4 with an agreed three month training agreement would be sufficient. So you’re coming off a 51,294 base. You should be coming off a 55,456 base and then we’re talking apples with apples.

Okay, well let’s do that. Let’s call up 57 - can I borrow your calculator? 58,506 plus 6000 is 64,000 and you’re asking for - - - ?---So, sorry, 55,456 plus 5 and a half?

That’s 58,506?---Yes.

Plus 6000 is a $64,000 offer?---Right.

You’re asking for a 12 and a half per cent increase on top of that?---No, no.

For entry level and level 4?---No, no. The position we have come at is that we accept - and this has been the ongoing negotiations - we accepted the 15 per cent was too high. If the company agrees within the concept we put up about a four level classification structure then we will come back to pay increases that are more suitable. And as you said Ferro Davies has already had conversations that about 6 and a half, 7 per cent may be more acceptable. So if you’re at at our top range, which is where we’re at, around about 7 per cent, we accepted that the
15 - we tried to put together a proposal back in November that would better suit CSBP’s needs in terms of their costs at the top level of the wage band that they had offered. When we came back and they showed us that at the bottom level you’re asking for 15 per cent we accepted that there are concerns about that and we are willing - and I need to be clear about this - we are willing if CSBP agrees with our concept of a four level classification structure then we will review - and there have been discussions already at around the 6 and a half, 7 per cent - we will review the amount we are asking for. We accept that 15 per cent is too much so I think it’s unfair to say that our current position in relation to these negotiations is asking for $71,000 entry level because it’s not.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

Now, Mr Tracey, I’ve got some specific questions I’d like you to answer. The first is that you knew that your level four offer was a 15 per cent increase?---No, we didn’t. We tried to put together a concept that we thought may well fit within what we’re asking. When the company highlighted to us at a meeting that these other percentages are being asked for we said well, we need to go back and review those figures, we don’t have a problem with that, but do you agree with the concept?

Where did you get your figures from, Mr Tracey?---It was something that the delegates had put together on site to try and find a way through the impasse in relation to our negotiation.

You allowed them to put them to the company on behalf of the union?---No. Well, we allowed them to put to the company as a way to try and advance where the negotiations were at, because the position we had from the company at the start was they weren’t moving off their pay offer they put to us in April and were they willing to have a look at a classification structure that was substantially different from a seven level classification structure we had in the previous agreement. And to be able to move forward with what we had put on the table, we needed them to endorse the concept that we were putting up. We came back from a substantial pay increase to say we will match your top offer, but what we want is movement at a four level classification structure inside that. And CSBP told us they weren’t willing to move away from what they put up in April. Now, there has been some discussion since about what we said is reasonable pay increases and that’s what we’re putting on the table. I think it’s unfair to say that the original 15 per cent offer, when we found out it was 15 per cent, would be an unreasonable increase when talks since then have said we’re willing to come back to 6 and a half, 7 per cent.

Mr Tracey, I’ve now given you four opportunities to set out fairly comprehensively the union’s position and I understand it, and I expect most of us do. If I can ask you to confine yourself now for the time being to some specific things that I need to get to which aren’t being answered every time that you give us the complete story. You said that when the delegates went back with this original offer they came up with these figures. You were interested in a concept, the figures were way too high, you knew those figures weren’t going to fly?---We didn’t know the figures. I personally didn’t know the figures were too high until Matt Riordan and the site manager, Ross Martelli, came back and said are you aware that these are the percentage increases. That was at the 18 January meeting.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

And you said you’re not chasing those figures anymore?---No. What we said is if you’re okay with this as a concept we will review the figures, but we need to know - it goes nowhere if CSBP don’t endorse the concept that we’re trying to put up. That’s the problem.

So, Mr Tracey, as of today what is the union’s current offer in respect of the wages increases that it seeks?---Our current offer is, or our current position, is trying to determine if CSBP is okay with the concept. If they are then we will refloat those figures. And there has been some discussions as I understand it on site, and you’ve raised them today, of pay increases around the 6, 7 per cent mark.

Well, Mr Tracey - and the transcript will reflect this - earlier in your evidence you have given, you have told me on oath that the company has already accepted the four classification structure?---Well, they haven’t accepted it. They are having a look at an idea where - and it was put to us again as late as this morning because of talks that Matt Riordan had on Friday - but we can hardly have a discussion about the position of the negotiations. We think that this will float in terms of a four level classification structure and that is entry level at level 4 with a three month learning period or agreement to do training and that sort of thing. That’s potentially where we think the position’s at, yes.

So level four, three month learning and you’re looking for an $8000 allowance and 6 per cent increases, is that correct?---No, that’s what came back to us as early as this morning.

Okay?---Now, again we’re going to need to take that back to the - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I’m sorry, came back from whom?
---Matt Riordan.

The offer from the company was a 6 per cent increase?---No, the offer from the company was to endorse or have a look at potentially a entry level four, but we don’t know whether they - I mean, it’s a bit hard to determine where they say they cover entry level four here plus increases, or is it a separate classification structure which is the proposal that we’re trying to float.

MR DAVIES: Well, Mr Tracey, what I’m trying to get to the bottom of as you might be able to understand is what the current four level rates position is at the unions. Just tell me, if you could tell myself and the Commission, assuming you’re level 4, you’re level 5, you’re level 6 and you’re level 7, you’re asking for an $8000 standby allowance?---That's correct.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

One week’s annual leave?---That's correct

And is it six and six and six and six?---No, it’s around about, it would be somewhere between 6 and a half, seven, 7 and a half and the discussions that have been had, as I understand it, with the delegates in talks with Matt Riordan and we were updated on that and you’ve said something about it today, but we were updated on that as late as this morning before we came in here.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, could I just summarise so that there’s no difficulties in the transmission of this evidence to me and my understanding of it. That there’s currently a level 4 at 55,456, a level 5 at 59,618, a level 6 at 63,780 and a level 7 at 67,943 and that the union’s proposal is that there be a 6 and a half to 7 and a half per cent at those rates and that they be the applicable four rates as long as there is a three month training at the entry level at level 4?---No. The company put to us that the entry level would have - their acceptance of an entry level 4 would have to include the three month training agreement and that is they would agree to do the training so that they covered all of the modules that would be required which was effectively level 4.

MR DAVIES: But paid at level 4 during those three months?---That’s correct, yes. Level 4 would be the entry, yes, that's correct. But we’re still a little bit uncertain whether it fits within this classification structure, that is the trades will only go level 4 to level 7, or are we talking about a separate classification? Because this classification structure also relates to the Miscellaneous Workers’ Union and production workers. Now, if we are to have the rates that we are chasing - and as is being said there’s been some discussions in and around 6 and a half, seven, 7 and a half - if we are to have those levels or trades only then there will need to be a separate classifications structure for the trades stream as opposed to the productions stream and I think the proposal that’s being floated by CSBP, and this is where we’re apart, is CSBP are saying we will keep this seven level structure, accept your entry will be level 4 plus the three month training program. Now, that is an issue for us because under the proposal that we put up we are asking for more money for tradesmen than operators get and so we can not possibly fit within what we believe to be CSBP’s position. And this has been the problem with a few of the negotiations that we’ve had. There has been talk
about - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could I just stop you for a moment. I understand that position. What I’m asking about is subject to resolving the classification structure is the current offer from the union 6 and a half to 7 and a half per cent on top of the current rates?---In tandem with the 8000 and the one week, your Honour, yes.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

Yes. And in relation to the company’s position the company is paying five seven and has offered six in relation to the allowance but has not offered the extra week’s holiday?---That's correct, your Honour, and paying 5 and a half of the money that we’re asking for.

5 and a half per cent?---Yes and 6 and a half at the top. Level 7s are already paid 6 and a half, the 5 and a half relates to levels 4 and 5. 4 and 5 they pay at 5 and a half, 6 and 7 they’re already paying 6 and a half.

MR DAVIES: And Mr Tracey, you’re suggesting there then that there’s an issue for the union if your members retained a description of level 4, level 5, level 6 and level 7 with the agreed rates of pay as compared with if the company put a separate table in the agreement called metal workers levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 with exactly the same numbers?---But they can’t be the same numbers because they are not the pay increases that they’re offering to the production operators. That’s what we’re trying to so. That’s why there is this issue of getting endorsement for the concept we’re putting up. Level 1, 2, 3, 4 or - level 4, 5, 6 and 7 for the trades will be different to level 4, 5, 6 and 7 for the operators.

Well, Mr Tracey, could we just stick with your trades because they’re the people that you’re negotiating on behalf of. So long as your traded people get the increase you ask for there are only four levels and they get the allowances, you are saying that’s the deal, that’s the position at the moment?---We think we have an ability to put that to the membership, yes, plus the week’s annual leave.

Now, if I can turn to the standby. You mentioned before that trades rights - you mentioned trade level 3 are already qualified and that they perform standby work. It’s correct, isn’t it, that mechanical workers across the grades perform standby work?---Yes.

You’re also aware that workers are required under the enterprise agreement to work planned and unplanned hours?---Yes, yes.

So in fact what a standby does is it places the workers in an position where four of them who are on standby know that for that week they’re the ones that get called in for unplanned absences, is that correct?---They know for that week they can be called in at any time, yes.

Now, on average would you accept that there is usually about one call-out per week?---Well, it depends what are you’re in. Some areas tend to break down more than others. So where there’s some, some plants if you go to the front might get a couple call-outs or whatever it might be per week, three or four, some places go back to back over various days and some may not have any. That’s the uncertain nature of the call-out system.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

Well, can I suggest to you that when there is a call-out usually it’s one of the mechanical workers that gets called in to do that call-out?---If it’s trade work it will be, yes.

So usually when there’s a call-out one of those four workers will get called in?
---Well, depending on what plant you’re working. There are different areas where the guys cover that area only.

And if I am correct and there is on average about one call-out a week - - - ?
---Well, it varies.

- - - that means that the four on call-out - I appreciate you’re saying sometimes it might be two or three, sometimes it might be none in that various area, I understand that?---That's correct.

Now, you said that the workers are allowed to go up to 100 kilometres from their homes during their period of call-out?---Well, not from their homes, from the site.

From the site?---Yes. Most people live within a hundred k radius of the site.

And their time spent travelling to the site counts as time worked, doesn’t it?---In the agreement, yes.

And their time spent at the site counts as time worked?---I would hope so.

And they get a minimum time counted of four hours?---Yes.

And if they’ve - your Honour, perhaps just to explain the way the hours work I might ask some questions of Mr Tracey about how the mechanical workers work their hours at CSBP. Mr Tracey, you are aware that all workers work a base of 1976 hours per annum and then on top of that employees are required to work additional hours which are agreed to and paid for in their annual salary?---That's correct.

And that amount of additional hours varies from worker to worker by agreement with the worker on an annual basis?---.....

So if a worker comes in on their call-out time those hours worked and the travel hours will count as part of their ordinary hours and their additional hours worked for the year?---It comes off the clock, that's correct.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

And in fact because they work Monday to Friday shifts?---Yes.

So they work basically a 38 hour week?---Correct.

And 38 hours times 52 is 1976 hours?---That's right.

So when they get called out that’s part of their additional hours?---That’s one part of their additional hours.

And their additional hours are paid for at an agreed penalty rate?---Working by those hours, yes.

And if they work above and beyond the additional hours that they’ve agreed to and paid for they have two options, (1) to take time in lieu if they wish?---If they want those hours up, yes.

Or alternatively to be paid at a penalty rate for those hours?---Correct.

Okay. And the blood alcohol content level for working at the site must be below point 02?---I would assume so, yes. There’s certain negotiations at the moment in and around the DNA policy.

So as I think everybody’s generally aware that would mean that your workers when they are on standby to drink more than one drink per hour, one standard alcoholic drink per hour?---When our workers are on standby they don’t drink anything.

But they can have a BAC concentration of up to 0.02?---Working around heavy machinery you don’t drink.

So they choose not to drink?---Well, of course. You just can’t work around heavy machinery, not with any alcohol in your body. I mean, it’s an OH&S issue.

Okay. So what you’re saying is people who work in heavy industries should have a BAC of 0.00?---If guys are at home and they’re on standby to come into work they should not be drinking. Full stop.

Now, you gave the comparison between the shift allowance that’s paid to shift workers and what you say people on stand by should get?---That's correct.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

Shift workers actually work shifts, don’t they?---That's right.

So whenever a shift worker works a roster every cycle they’ll be working night shifts and they’ll be working day shifts and they’ll be working afternoon shifts, assuming a three shift, 24 hour cycle?---They don't have a three shift, 24 hour cycle. They have a two shift, 24 hour, so there'll be days - - -

Okay. Well, I'm easily happy with that. So a two shift, 12 hour shift cycle, they'll be working day shifts and they'll be working night shifts?---Yes.

And they'll get paid for their hours worked?---That's correct, yes.

And they a get a shift allowance recognising the inconvenience of working each night shift for the whole of the night shift?---Well, they get a shift allowance recognising inconvenience of working a fixed shift system that includes weekends, long weekends and that type of thing.

And night shift?---And night shift, yes.

And your claim for an $8000 allowance plus a week's annual leave, you said that that was because the workers are inconvenienced around family events, Easter, et cetera, and the week's annual leave is to give them some, I guess compensation, some leave compensation for the inconvenience caused by working standby?
---Look, what it goes to is the issue of work/family balance and that is no amount of call out money or time off the clock compensates your family for not being there during school holidays, being called out perhaps on your child's birthday, being called out at Christmas time and our view is, is that if you are to put in place a system in terms of call outs which doesn't recognise the system that is generally accepted in the industry and that is that people get single time while they've been on call, then we believe the offer of a week's annual leave give you the ability to say to your family, look, I appreciate that for this week I can't take any family activities that may be a school camp away from the city, that may be going to barbecues where people are drinking, that may mean I've got to get into bed at a particular hour because of the potential to be called out at one, two, three or four.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Excuse me, this is not an answer to the question and I've already heard that evidence. That's not to say that I don't want you to comment on that, I just don't want you to do it twice and it wasn't an answer to the question. Mr Davies, perhaps you could repeat the question.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

MR DAVIES: In fact, your Honour, I probably can't. I'll try my best.
Mr Tracey, I was asking you some questions around the arrangements for standby. Now, your claim is that annual leave is intended to compensate, if you will, families for the inconvenience caused by a mechanical worker or a metal worker being on standby during their standby periods during the year, that's correct?
---That's correct.

Now, of course when a mechanical worker is on standby they're with their family if they want to be, aren't they?---That's correct.

And in fact some people might say they're more with their family when they're on standby because they're not drinking?---No, that's - - -

MR ELLIS: Your Honour, we object to that. I mean that's completely unnecessary.

MR DAVIES: Well, I press it, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You can ask it. It's a matter of weight. It might be a reflection on Mr Davies really. Mr Davies, could I just ask you given that we've sat over lunch time how you're going to be in cross-examination so I can organise a break here for my staff?

MR DAVIES: Yes, your Honour. Your Honour, I think probably another 10 minutes.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Well, after this witness we’ll take a break. I think that it’s important to confine ourselves to the issues that I need to determine here, which is not the point itself one way or the other, but
whether union bargaining is fanciful. I’m not sure all this detail is necessary for those purposes given the range of the terms. If you could just direct your attention to that issue, Mr Davies.

MR DAVIES: Okay. Thank you, your Honour. Mr Tracey, you said the company has offered a $6000 allowance. It hasn’t offered to provide these workers on standby with a week’s annual leave, has it?---No, it hasn’t.

Is it correct that most of your members, I accept that there are some exceptions, but most of your members are resident around the Kwinana area, not all but the majority?---The majority would be around the Rockingham and Kwinana areas.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

And perhaps for the Commission’s assistance Rockingham is less than 100 kilometres from Perth?---Yes, from the site.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I know where Rockingham is,
Mr Davies.

MR DAVIES: Thank you, your Honour. Now, Mr Tracey, are you aware that you have members down at Albany and Esperance?---I’m aware that we have some members there, yes.

Okay. And are you aware that at the moment there are any members on annual leave?---No.

You don’t know one way or another?---No, I don’t.

Now, you said that you - you may or may not recall this - you called the counsel for the AMWU about the withdrawal of the first application for a protected action ballot that was filed with the Commission?---That's correct.

Was that Mr Ellis that you called?---Yes.

You told Mr Ellis that there was going to be a meeting between LHMU and CSBP and they were trying to get movement?---No. I told Mr Ellis that the Miscellaneous Workers’ Union were of the view that they would be getting further information back from CSBP. It was going to be by way of phone call as I understand it. They were waiting for CSBP to call and that there would be a meeting with the three unions to see if that the information that they were receiving was relevant to the negotiations and the claim that we had on foot.

Although you’ve also said that the LHMU are negotiating different rates and I think you said the issues, if I can quote you, that there were some general issues that were common between LHMU, CEPU and AMWU but not the specific issues. So the allowance, the standby allowance, wasn’t an issue involving the LHMU?---No.

And the rates of pay for your four levels of people were matters that you were negotiating independently at the LHMU?---Specifically in relation to the four level type structure, yes.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

Right. If you could just bear with me, your Honour, I’m just checking my submissions to see if there’s any questions that I might have missed. I think just for a point of clarification, Mr Tracey, I think that if this is a statement again that you might just indicate that it’s correct. The original offer back in April was a 7 per cent increase over three years for all four levels plus a 15,000 standby allowance?---I think so, yes.

And then in October of last year the standby allowance reduced from 15,000 to 8000 and the rates of pay increased and it obviously depends upon which level you are at, what your rate of pay increase would be, but the claim went across the board to 7 per cent for all levels over three years to a level which was if you’re a level 3 person well in excess of 20 per cent, if you’re a level 4 person 15 per cent, a level 5 person 12 and a half per cent, a level 6 person 10 per cent and a level 7 person 6 or 6 and a half per cent, is that correct?---Look, I think the nature of ours was I don’t think we went to a level 3. I think it was level 4 15, five 12 and a half, six 10 and then 6 and a half at the seven which was what CSBP has offered.

But a person at level 3 would move to level 4 on your system so they would get a bigger increase?---Yes.

I have no further questions, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Ellis, any further questions?

MR ELLIS: Your Honour, I have a series of questions I would like to ask
Mr Tracey, however I note your Honour’s suggestion of a brief adjournment and we’re happy to do that and ask questions after it or proceed with it now if you like.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I’m not sure we can have such a brief one. I’m suggesting at least a half an hour. Will that do?

MR ELLIS: We’re in your hands, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are. 2.30 by my time. The Commission is adjourned.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [2.07PM]
<RESUMED [2.48PM]

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY XXN MR DAVIES

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are we ready to continue?

MR ELLIS: Yes. Your Honour, I'd like to ask Mr Tracey, following up from issues that were raised in cross-examination.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ELLIS [2.48PM]

MR ELLIS: Mr Tracey, during the course of cross-examination you were asked questions about the state union and the Federal union?---Yes.

Can you tell the Commission when you were in the course of negotiations with CSBP, which union were you negotiating on behalf of?---The Federal union.

Thank you. Now, you also asked questions about an increase the company has paid as of November last year, is that correct?---Yes.

And you were asked questions about the relationship of the increase in the claim the union are making upon CSBP about Alcoa and BP itself?---Yes.

Can you tell the Commission if the claim the union has upon CSBP, are you seeking exactly the same amounts of wages that Alcoa and BP pay their workers?
---Exactly the same amounts?

Yes?---No.

What's the purpose of the reference to Alcoa and BP?---The claims we were making at CSBP so that they were fair, there were companies - it becomes a bit of a parity issue, but they were aware that there are companies up and down the strips that are paying those amounts and the amounts we were asking for are not unreasonable in this climate.

Now, during the course of cross-examination you were asked questions about figures, wage rates, any number of discussion about percentages and so on. Can you tell the Commission if the union shifted its position at any time during the course of negotiations in respect of quantum of money?---Sorry, I'm not - - -

Have you changed your position at all?---Many times, yes.

**** WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY RXN MR ELLIS

Thank you. Now, what's your knowledge as of today about your four level offer, the union's four level offer, CSBP? Have they accepted them or not?---Look, we're not sure. As I said, there was some discussion with the delegates on Friday and we had an approach this morning which was - you know, I wasn't certain exactly what that approach is, I've got to tell you, but we did have an approach - - -

Are negotiations ongoing about that matter?---Well, this morning, yes.

Now, you were asked some questions about the withdrawal of the previous application and you said you withdrew the application because why, why did you withdraw the application?---The basis of the phone call conversation I'd had from the Miscellaneous Workers' Union, their Assistant State Secretary that they had some information that could potentially lead to a review of the claim, where it was at, and we would meet the next .....

Thank you. You were also asked questions about Albany and Esperance. Is it possible for an attendance ballot to be conducted at those sites?---Yes.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A what ballot?

MR ELLIS: An attendance ballot.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, thank you.

MR ELLIS: As opposed to a postal ballot, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I just didn't hear you.

MR ELLIS: I'm sorry. I have no more questions of Mr Tracey, your Honour.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.52PM]

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The next witness is?

MR EDMONDS: Yes, thank you, your Honour. We'd seek to call Mr Glenn Barker to give evidence.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there anybody in attendance to swear the witness?

MR EDMONDS: I just had the associate to DP McCarthy contacted to come down and swear that witness in. So she's on her way as we speak.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

<GLENN BARKER, AFFIRMED [2.54PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR EDMONDS

MR EDMONDS: Could you give your name and address for the record, please?
---Glenn Barker, with two "n's", (address supplied).

Your occupation?---Electrical fitter.

Who do you work for at the moment?---CSBP.

For long?---Just over three and a half years.

In your role at CSBP do you have any other roles other than your occupations?
---I'm currently filling in for electrical ..... and I'm their shop steward for the CEPU on the site.

In the course of your duties as a shop steward have you had cause to attend any of the meetings since September of 2006 to discuss the new agreement?---Yes, I have.

I wonder if you could tell us from your recollection the dates of those meetings?
---Not from my recollection. Not really. But there were a fair number through October, November, then through this year as well in January.

So I want to put some dates to you and ask you if there's been meetings on these days. Has there been meetings on 18 October, 25 October, 30 October, 3 November, 27 November and 18 January?---Yes. If I go through my notes, yes, they'd probably match up with those dates.

I wonder if you could tell the Commission what's generally been discussed over the course of those meetings?---A lot of different things, I suppose. From a maintenance point of view, pay parities, call out arrangements, regards to allowances and the compulsory nature of attending to them. Yes, a bunch of different graphs on parities between different agreements. I suppose that is the crux, from our point of view there's been a lot of talk with some of the other unions involved.

Can you tell me about the major sticking points between the company and the union with respect to reaching an agreement?---From our point of view mandatory call outs and the pay parities.

**** GLENN BARKER XN MR EDMONDS

When you talk about pay parity, what are you talking about there?---Basically the differences between the like type environments or along the Kwinana strip, the other industries, the difference between our pays and their pays.

Can you tell me about the differences between CSBP pay and the pay that's being paid at other bases in the Kwinana strip?---Well, dependant on where you are, obviously. You know, there's - it ranges from next to no difference to substantial difference, just depending on the type of industry, the size of the industry and it's up to 20, $30,000 if you look at BP.

What other agreements have formed part of those discussions?---The company ..... benchmarking ..... from different sources and this is a bunch of agreements that I downloaded off the net from places like Wesfarmers, LPG, Alcoa, Edison Energy, BP ..... just a bunch of different things.

From inspecting those other agreements that you downloaded off the internet, is there a difference between the pay rates in those and what's been offered to CSBP?---Some of the places are again, yes. It really comes back to the tasks involved, really, the type of job description, depending on ..... and the structures.

Can you tell me about the differences in the pay rates with respect to the proposed agreement, CSBP, the differences in the pay rates between what the company is offering and what the unions are asking for?---Part of the structure we work under, we're basically in acceptance in principle that the upper level is probably pretty well right.

So, if I can just clarify there, the upper level between what the company is asking for and what you're asking for?---Well, in principle we're - ..... and the AMWU ..... believe that that's probably a realistic figure, the set figure, but the problem is the lower end and trying to maintain a workforce and attract new workers. So they can increase it.

Can you tell me about what the union is proposing for the lower end and what they're offering in the lower end?---We've had a lot of discussion between ourselves on different ways of applying it to get - so a different figure, I suppose.

If I can just interrupt there. When you say "we've had a lot of discussion", who's the "we" that have had discussions?---Not with the company primarily, this side of it, but there was a couple of things that were put to the company but we've had, you know, eight, maybe nine different arrangements that somebody else has come up with to try and work within the framework that were given by the company to work with him to try and, you know, meet two needs, I suppose, okay.

**** GLENN BARKER XN MR EDMONDS

What were the needs that you were trying to meet?---Also, you know, that they ..... and keep the plant running, basically.

What's the problem with the workforce at the moment?---Just I suppose turnover of people and this, you know, I suppose attitude of the grass is greener on the other side and it can be at some places.

So could you tell me about the level of staffing that's at the workplace at the moment in the electrical area?---Yes, I think at last count we lost about five people in, what - what are we in, February? In the last six months.

Five people out of a workforce of how many?---Roughly around 20 sparkies on site.

And had those five people been- have those positions been filled?---No.

So why, in your view, do those positions remain unfilled at the moment?---I can only presume that they're just not attracted by the offer.

What can you say about the offer that's going out to commence work at CSBP?
---Well, it's $58,000.

How does that compare, in your experience, to other places around the Kwinana strip at the moment?---An average of about ten grand short.

Now, does the offer that you're making to the company on wages, does that try and address that particular issue?---Well, we've tried to come to an agreement, I suppose, that they've got some guidelines to work within and we're kind of, I suppose, trying to get input as to what we see as being a realistic figure to get people there and I don't know, what can you say? I haven't seen it so far.

Can you tell me what the company has said in response to those proposals that you've put?---No.

Sorry, they've said no, have they?---No. They see it pretty much, you know, look at a different structure, can we get away from the final structure with the operations, no, don't want to do it, don't want to do it.

So what is being offered by the company at the moment for those at the low end of the scale?---If you come in as normal it's 54,000, but at the moment they're offering to bring people in under a leading agreement to do it within three months and that gives you a $4000 pay rise and they're going to put that up front of proviso that they complete that, so they come in at 58,000.

**** GLENN BARKER XN MR EDMONDS

Okay?---For a 38 hour week.

Is there any other sticking point aside from the wages at the entry level, at the moment?---Now .....

Can you tell me a little bit about the call-out issue?---Basically in the past when you ..... got paid an allowance for carrying it for the week. Basically every year ..... and due to the nature of it ..... we thought, you know, because it's not ..... seem to be doing in this day and age. When we ask that it be increased, that they've come back ..... just on 570 a week.

Is that's what's been offered or is that what's being paid at the moment?---That's what's being paid and I believe last - that was the last official offer.

Have they seen put an unofficial offer with respect to standby allowance?---At one meeting there was an offer of $600 in principle, but that was around working through some of the other things as well, but, basically.

Has that $600 ever been put as a formal offer?---Define formal.

Has that ever been put as a formal offer you can take back to the workers?---No.

Can you tell me what the union is currently asking for for a standby allowance?
---$800 per week and a week's annual leave to compensate for public holidays that they'd be covered directly - - -

Can you tell me a bit about the - if we can just go back to the wage rises again. Can you tell me a little bit about the - sorry, there's a bit of feedback there. Can you tell me a little bit about the wage rises for the lower levels, isn't it true that that's a wage rise for people on a level 3 position, isn't it true that's a wage rise of something about fifteen and a half per cent?---I've not calculated it myself, but that was the number that was actually talked about at the last meeting that I had, yes.

Okay, and what's the attitude of the CEPU to that - to a wage rise of that quantum?---Well, if it's needed, it's needed, basically. You know, to attract people that are going to maintain the ..... and can do the job from day to day. ..... needs to be done, so.

**** GLENN BARKER XN MR EDMONDS

Have you been engaged in discussions with the company since this application was filed on Thursday?---Yes, Friday, had a big discussion.

Was there any offer put to the union then on Friday by the company?---I don't believe it was an official offer, but there was discussion around ..... what was discussed before of paying the people up front for the A module and bringing them in at a level higher straight away to offset the levelling and there was some rewording of the standby clause, just to make it a bit clearer and in about - to allow people to opt in at the start of the financial year, like our additional allowance clause, basically, I think the proviso on that was, and accept the payment and took into a roster.

Are you willing to meet with the company even now to try and reach an agreement?---Yes.

Now, at the meetings that you've had on those dates that I took you through before, have officials from other trade unions been present at those meetings? Can you tell me whether the issues affecting the CEPU are similar to those affecting other unions?---The AMWU, yes, they're the same basically log of claims, yes.

So can you tell me the names of the officials from those other unions, particularly the AMWU, been present at those discussions?---Sheldon Peterson, he's the shop steward on the site, and Fairo Davies, he's like his back-up. Of that .....

Would it be fair to say - sorry, I'll withdraw that. Would you say that the position of the AMWU and the CEPU are broadly similar at those discussions?---Yes.

Thank you, your Honour. I've got no further questions for this witness.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DAVIES [3.10PM]

MR DAVIES: I was just wondering if Mr Ellis was - - -

MR ELLIS: I have no questions for this witness, your Honour.

MR DAVIES: Mr Barker, if I can just start by clarifying the primary positions that your union has taken during the negotiations. I understand correctly, the original position at the start of the negotiations, you were looking for a $15,000 standby allowance?---Yes, approximately.

**** GLENN BARKER XXN MR DAVIES

And prior to the company - the company has given you some increases even though the negotiations haven't been finished, haven't they?---Yes.

Prior to those increases your standby allowance was about 2400 a year, 240 per week?---Yes, depending on how many rotations.

Yes, so 240 a week and you can do 10 rotations?---Yes.

Which would be roughly normal, you do 2400 bucks?---Yes, depends on the size of your crew, yes.

And so far as wages were concerned, at that stage you were looking for seven per cent increases over three years?---Yes.

And did you regard that position to be a reasonable position?---And $1000 parity payment, that was on top of that as well, and that was what came out in the maintenance forum for the company - us to participate in, to get to at the end and healthy workforce.

And so you maintained that position for about six months?---Yes.

End of October?---Probably before.

You changed positions before the end of October?---We started talking about other standby arrangements before that, yes.

And then you mentioned that you'd done some benchmarking against some other workplace - were they - they were agreements that you got off a website, were they?---Yes. The AIRC one.

You mentioned you had a look at Alcoa, Edison Energy, BP and Wesfarmers, LPG?---Yes, a bunch of others, yes.

And you were asked if there were differences in the rates between them and you said yes, there was?---Yes.

And you gave an answer that the reason for those differences really, using your words, comes back to the tasks and the job descriptions. What do you mean by tasks and job descriptions, you mean different workers are required to work different jobs from each other, is that correct?---Mainly a level of responsibility. A lot of the other places I have worked at before.

**** GLENN BARKER XXN MR DAVIES

Which ones have you worked at before?---Western Mining, the SEC, BP, Alcoa Kwinana, I've worked out in the bush, I've seen a lot of different work forces.

Just out of interest, how did you come to be working at CSBP?---I did some shutdowns a few years ago and must have made a half decent impression with the boss and when the job came up I saw it advertised and I applied for it - - -

You weren't employed at that time?---No. I was working at Alcoa as a contractor.

Working at Alcoa as a contractor. So you chose to leave Alcoa and come across to CSBP? You left the contract?---Yes.

And part of the reason was that it was a permanent role with CSBP as compared to ..... was it?---No. The main reason was that I was a single trade instrument fitter and I was looking to get my electrical ..... and they were willing to cross train.

So there was opportunity?---Yes.

Now, subsequently, and let's not get too caught up on the date, but say roughly October of last year there were discussions and a new position was put by the unions?---In regards to?

In regards to the bargaining with CSBP?---What, the call out or just overall?

Overall a new position was worked out in October last year, do you recall that?
---Depends what the position was.

I'm not saying what the position was. I'm just saying a new position. You keep the same position up to and including October last year, or was there a new position?---It's been ebbing and flowing I suppose for a while, different thoughts have been coming out all the time, so depends specifically what we're talking about.

Well, I wasn't there in October, Mr Barker, so I really can't help you. I'm asking if you recall the unions putting a new position roughly in October of last year?---We may have, yes.

You were involved in most of the meetings that took place?---I've been to a lot of meetings, yes.

**** GLENN BARKER XXN MR DAVIES

And you had private discussions with Mr Riordan as well?---On Friday, yes.

Is that your first private discussion?---From memory I think it was, yes.

And that private discussion, did you put a position to Mr Riordan indicating what might be acceptable?---I said that - well, I believe I said that the call out wording was a lot clearer and I could not give him an answer one way or the other without taking it back to the troops to make a decision on and the other one was the classification structure and the way that they were bringing people in to the A Module, basically said the same thing.

What about rates of pay?---And it's the rates of pay, class structure from round the rates of pay.

What were the rates of pay you talked?---Basically what the company's offered all along. It was $58,000 entry but if you were a level 3, that included an A Module straight away.

What about the other levels? Did you discuss the rates of pay for all four levels, what were the rates that you discussed?---Whatever they were, $4000 increments above that which was the same as what they've always been. Up to 72,000 which is the upper end.

And in terms of the standby allowance, $6000, did you talk?---No.

8000?---No.

You just talked about the wording in the standby and you didn't talk about the figures at all, is that what you're saying?---Six - eight hundred dollars.

Yes, so $600 per standby?---No. That's the company's position, yes.

And your position is 800 and a week's annual leave?---Yes.

Of course you accept that under your existing agreement you're required to work planned and unplanned absences?---Only if you take additional hours.

Well, additional hours are the pre-agreed hours?---Yes.

**** GLENN BARKER XXN MR DAVIES

How many additional hours have you taken?---I've taken 200.

So you're required to work up to 200 hours of unplanned absences?---Yes.

And how many electricians are there - sorry. How many electrical workers or other workers, electrical, to be CEPU members? If that's too tricky for you, I'll just start with ..... at the time?---At Kwinana?

Yes?---Including supervisors and that, I'd only be guessing that there'd probably be about 25 including sparkies and the like.

And are you aware of an electrician who also works down at the company's country operations, I'll just clarify the location for you, at Esperance?---No.

You don't know about that?---As far as I was aware they were all contractors in the country works.

So you're not aware of an employee down at Esperance?---No.

Now you mentioned that there'd been some turnover at the site and there, I presume, you're talking about other electricians leaving, is that what you mean by turnover?---Yes. Primarily, yes.

And did I hear you suggest that five people had left, did you offer a number to the Commission?---Five, yes, in about the last six months.

Did you say five people left in the last six months?---Yes.

And do you know where those five people ended up?---One of them ended up at Alcoa Pitjantjara and the other four on to Ravensthorpe for Powertech commissioning the new plant.

Is your Honour familiar with the location of Ravensthorpe or should I ask some questions about that?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. I'm not familiar, but if you provide me with an explanation, I'm certain that the table will agree with you. It's only a matter of geography, isn't it?

**** GLENN BARKER XXN MR DAVIES

MR DAVIES: Yes, and I'm not going to get the location perfectly correct, but it's located south-east of Perth and I would say about and a half inland from the coast near a place called Hopetoun and probably about 1200 kilometres away from here. Mr Ellis is nodding his head.

MR ELLIS: 140 ks from Esperance.

MR DAVIES: 140 kilometres from Esperance which your Honour might know as being the most easterly town that Perth has of substance - that Western Australia has of substance, getting towards the South Australian border.

Are those people down there, they're living down there, working at Ravensthorpe?---They're flying in and flying out.

Fly in, fly out?---Eight days on and six days off.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did you say the most easterly point - I'm sorry.

MR DAVIES: Yes. No, I get it mixed up too, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I was thinking the ocean was on the east, but it isn't, is it?

MR DAVIES: No. So, your Honour, it may be that Ravensthorpe is closer to 700 kilometres from Perth, a fairly substantial distance, that was the main point there.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, thank you.

MR DAVIES: I hope I'm not repeating myself here, Mr Barker, but in terms of around about October, I don't think you can recall whether or not the union put another offer or the unions, but can I suggest that another offer was put to the company where the allowances decreased from 15,000 to 8,000 plus a week's annual leave, do you recall that?---Are you talking about for an actual roster arrangement just for a week?

So, yes, $800 a week, from $1500 a week to 800, plus a week's annual leave per annum for people who perform standby?---Yes.

**** GLENN BARKER XXN MR DAVIES

But the wages claim increased and it increased differentially, that is, the increase was different depending upon levels?---From memory it works out that way. We were trying to increase the lower end, yes.

So a level 4 person was going up by what ended up being about another 15 per cent?---Yes, that seems to be the figure that we were talking about.

On top of the other claims, the allowances et cetera?---Yes, I think it worked out to be less than what we originally asked for.

And then if you're on level 3, in fact you were going to get well over that again because a level 3 person would come in starting at level 4 and get the level 4 increase?---Don't know.

Well, a level 3 person - your Honour, it might help if I hand a copy, Mr Barker doesn't have the pay figures. Do you mind if I hand those to him - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. Is that off page 56 again?

MR DAVIES: That's correct. So I'd just like to confirm with you, and now I'm not talking about the five and a half per cent increase that the company has given late last year while bargaining continues, just looking at the October '05 list of levels 1 through to 7, if you can confirm electrical workers come in at level 3 and they progress into level 6 - - - ?---No. Electrical workers come in as a dual trader at level 4.

At level 4, so they've already got a dual trade and they get paid level 4?---Yes.

Okay. Whereas a mechanical worker comes in at level 3 and then moves up from there?---Yes, unless they've just completed their apprenticeship and they .....

Okay. So level 4 is going to go up by 15 per cent plus the other claims that ..... was produced, is that correct? So level 4 was going up by 15 per cent, that was going up to - I think I have the figure here?---It's about $58,000.

Level 4 was going up to 63,774?---Mm.

This is in the second claim, this is in October when you reduced your allowances?---No.

**** GLENN BARKER XXN MR DAVIES

And level 5 was going up by twelve and a half per cent, do you recall that, roughly?---I don't recall it going up to 60,000-odd.

So you don't recall the numbers at all put to the company?---No.

You've really got no idea what your second claim is in terms of wages?---Not without looking through notes and stuff.

If I was to suggest to you that the numbers provided to me by Mr Tracey of the AMWU or the calculation was correct, would you agree that Mr Tracey's probably got them right?---Yes, yes.

If you're absent on a public holiday under your current arrangements, you get a higher standby allowance for the public holiday than you do for working Monday to Friday, don't you?---..... yes. You get weekend rates for public holidays, yes.

Now, just in relation to the negotiations, you're a delegate of the CEPU?---Yes.

And when you negotiate with the company you're negotiating for the CEPU and you're assisted by the CEPUs organisers, is that correct? But what you're suggesting to me, if I understand it, is that the figures that you talked with Matthew Riordan on Friday were figures that you were agreeable to, but that was your private position, that wasn't the union's position, is that correct?---At that point in time, yes, it was my own opinion.

Do you know if that position is also the union's position?---No, because I have not actually discussed it with Greg at this point in time and we haven't had a chance to have a meeting to discuss it with the actual shop floor level either.

Your Honour, I don't think I have any more questions, but if you don't mind, I'll just quickly look at my notes?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Certainly.

MR DAVIES: Mr Barker, the claim that was being made by you and your union for the increase to the standby allowance, were you looking at getting parity with allowances paid to shift workers?---I suppose the argument that was actually put to the company at one stage was that it's a de facto shift arrangement without actually having the foresight to know when you're actually going to be there. You have no way of planning your life around it as a shift worker does. We thought that that was value for money if they want to continue with that system.

**** GLENN BARKER XXN MR DAVIES

But you'll accept that when a shift worker was on shifts, they're actually required to work - if they're on night shift for example, they'll be required to work the night shift roster, 12 hour shifts for the four shifts that they're rostered on for?---Two shifts.

Sorry, two shifts, two on, two off?---Two days, two nights.

Two days, two nights?---.....

Basically every second shift they work will be night shift, and when you're on standby you could be at home with your family, or out with your family so long as you're within 100 kilometres of work?---Yes. It's hardly being able to do anything, is it?

Well, you're able to be within 100 kilometres of work, aren't you?---Under the provisions of the agreement, yes.

Yes, and you can be with your family if you want to, can't you?---Yes.

So you can stay at home with your family for the whole of your standby period?
---Yes, you could do, yes.

And you don't always get called into work when you're on standby, sometimes you do, sometimes you don't?---That's right, that's the inherent nature of it.

In a particular week you might get called in once on average?---Twice or three times. It just depends.

Or not at all?---Or not at all, yes.

And when you get called in, then your travelling time, even if it's 100 kilometres away that you're called in from?---Yes.

Comes off your plan of unplanned hours?---Mm.

And you get at least four hours off your unplanned hours even if the job's five minutes away and takes five minutes?---Yes. Well, occasionally it does, yes.

And how many of you are on standby on any one occasion, the 25 of you?---The way the business is broken up, each area has their own arrangement of lots, so between us, normally there'd be five.

**** GLENN BARKER XXN MR DAVIES

And you get called in to your particular area of business most likely?
--- .....

That's the only place you'll get called in to, your area?---Yes, you don't know, you're not inducted and you don't know the systems in the other parts.

If there's a call out in the other areas, somebody else will go to those, you won't?
--- ..... for that area get called.

In terms of your area where you are, you are able to make arrangements, aren't you, with colleagues so that you can plan around family events, if necessary?
---Yes, yes.

So that one of your colleagues will take a standby for a week if there's something important that you have on, or you can take the week?---Yes, or if we change - take anybody in, yes.

Are you in a position to say which of your colleagues are on annual leave at the moment, Mr Barker, or is that something that you're not familiar with?---I know that one person that I'm with is on long service leave, but the rest of the plant, I don't know.

No further questions, your Honour.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR EDMONDS [3.32PM]

MR EDMONDS: You were asked a question about how you arrived at the initial claim and you mentioned something known as a maintenance forum. Can you tell me what the maintenance forum was?---Basically, what was it, 2005, we had big problem on site and even when I started there had been a little bit of turnover of staff and we were basically asked to sit around the table and discuss what we could do to sort things out on site and I think that was a request by Kiersten Greig(?), who was the HR Manager at the time, and we sat down with Kiersten, a mediator, I can't really say who else because I only went to one of them. I wasn't the person that decided to go to these. It was more the actual people from the shop floor side of things, to get a general idea of what's going on.

Who initiated this maintenance forum? Sorry, so was the purpose of the maintenance forum to come up with a way of resolving some of the difficulties that had arisen in the workplace, is that what you were saying?---Yes.

**** GLENN BARKER RXN MR EDMONDS

Now, what came out of those maintenance forums?---The pays between the different industries around us. I suppose there was a lot of chest clearing going on, just a lot of little incidental things came out, the way we work, how we could things better. There was a bit of a gripe about ..... paid to the operators at the time, discussion on the call outs and whether or not a shift would be a better option, going to one meeting, that's about all I can remember clearly at the moment.

Can you tell me about the $13,000 catch up payment that you mentioned?---Yes. It was - that went through some EBAs which was - I don't really know, and there was a - they calculated the mid point, I think it was, of us compared to them, and it equated to about $13,200 and that was what we stuck on, our log of claims, was the first item, a parity payment basically and some other things regarding altering the additional hours to better reflect the overtime value and one of the guys came up with some figures to basically work out what it was cost efficient to run a shift on site or .....

Now, what happened to that proposed $13,000 catch up? Is that still a payment that's been maintained?---Well, it was on the log of claims, but I think, personally I think that got given the boot quite a long time ago because, yes, it's a big number.

Can you just bear with me for a moment, your Honour. Did you recall if the company has agreed to the concept of bringing up those lower levels and getting rid of them?---As far as the first three levels from our point of view go, I believe that ..... but whether or not it was actually an actual position, I don't know.

I've got no further questions, thank you, your Honour.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.36PM]
<ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON, SWORN [3.38PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DAVIES

MR DAVIES: Mr Riordon, please state your name, your occupation and your employee responsibilities?---Anthony John Riordon. My title is the Human Resource Manager at CSBP Limited. My full duties are essentially management for human - - -

And when you say at CSBP, could you please describe for the Commission the operations that CSBP has for which you're involved or responsible?---CSBP is a manufacturer of chemicals and fertilisers and with respect to my duties, it's the management of employees, payroll, freight, some ..... and general HR matters.

And where does CSBP manufacture chemicals?---At a combination - well, it manufacturers its chemicals primarily at Kwinana but it also has despatch facilities at ..... Bunbury and Esperance as well. It also has a - I'm just trying to think of it, it's at ..... [3:40:26] Lake and it's essentially a laboratory facility at ..... Lake.

In terms of some of those locations, which locations among those ones you've mentioned contain - sorry, if I might withdraw that, your Honour. Could you please tell the Commission which of those locations that are workers who would be potentially covered by the proposed agreement that the CEPU has been negotiating with CSBP?---To the best of my understanding there would be potentially those type of employees at Albany and Esperance and .....

And in relation to mechanical workers?---For them it would be Kwinana, Albany and Esperance.

Have you had cause prior to these proceedings to consider whether any employees eligible to be members of the CEPU are on annual leave over the course of the next period of time, through to 16 February?---I understand if that is the case - sorry. The CEPU, I can't recall but for the metal trade - sorry, the mechanical trades union I believe there would be an employee, well, could be employees at Kwinana on - - -

If I could just ask you about the - or this first question is leading, your Honour, but I don't think it's controversial. At the moment you're in the middle of negotiations with the CEPU and the AMWU. When did those negotiations commence?---Negotiations commenced at approximately April 2006.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

And who ..... [3:42:25] negotiations from the company's perspective?---It would be myself and the senior HR advisor who is well know, David Stewart. The Chemical Operations Manager, Mr Albert Romano, a despatch operations manager, Mr Mark Vinisivic and the Chemicals East Operations Manager, Mr Michael Rodriguez.

In terms of your involvement, how frequently or what role would you say you've had in the overall negotiations?---Part of the negotiating team so I would speak on behalf of the company at times in that meeting. However, Mr Albert Romano, it would be fair to say Mr Albert Romano did the majority of the speaking on behalf of the company at those meetings ..... I would say that we would meet certainly in the initial times on average of once in the initial days of negotiation.

And are you able to tell the Commission about the original position that was put by the - or maybe some of the key elements of the original position put by the CEPU and the AMWU and deal either with them together or separately according to their petitions? I might just clarify for the Commission, you're doing that .....?
---Probably worth dealing with them together as to the best of my understanding their positions were the same on what was being negotiated. The original, if I could outline the original wage claim in terms of they were seeking out a three year agreement of which year 1 was a seven per cent pay rise, year 2 was a seven per cent pay rise, year 3 was a seven per cent pay rise. The other main point of negotiation for the, both mechanical and electrical trades, is a matter we refer to as standby and that is an allowance that employees receive when placed on standby which is a requirement to remaining fit for work and within a 100 kilometre radius of the place of work, available to be contacted outside of working hours to return to work once contacted. That allowance, the union's seeking an increase from the current weekly rates of approximately ..... and the original claim was an increase to $15,000 per annum.

What would that convert into a week for a person ..... standby?---Maths was never my strong point, probably why I'm not an accountant, but - - -

Roughly how many standbys would a person work normally?---It would be fair to say 10 standbys in a year.

So if I were to tell you that 15,000 divided by 10 leaves 1,500 per standby?---I would accept that.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

Now, that was the original position. How long was that position maintained for in respect of those two conditions of employment?---Would have been at approximately October last year when - sorry. It would have been approximately October last year when the position did change from the union's perspective. It was somewhat confusing at the time. The unions came back with a list for the wage increases rather than level 7, under three years. It was a claim for between six and a half per cent up to just over 15 per cent for the four classification levels that they were seeking.

In terms of your CSBP Enterprise Agreement, what were those four classification levels, what were their numbers .....?---They're currently levels 3, 4, 5, 6 and - they were requesting that they effectively be re-numbered levels 1 to 4.

So level 6 was going to become level 4?---Correct.

I wonder if I might hand the witness a copy of that page 56, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR DAVIES: If I can find it?---Sorry, level 7 would become level 4. Sorry, that's my mistake. Level 7's become level 4, level 4 would become level 1.

And what about level 3, what can you say about level 3?---Level 3 would effectively be done away with. Level 3's effectively our introductory level 4 employees being mechanical trades people or electrical trades people - sorry, I'll rephrase. Electrical tradespeople at CSBP were bought in on level 3. They were then undergo a training module which we referred to as an A level training module and then they would progress to level 4. The claim was for ....., for level 4 to become the starting level for a mechanical tradesperson and it would be compulsory for them to complete level A at that level. For an electrical tradesperson they will typically have an electrical/instrument qualification and hence - which is a certificate 4. They would come in automatically, a mechanical tradesperson, an electrical tradesperson would come in at level 4. Once they did that training they would go to level 5 and again, ..... from the Electrical Trades Union was that we will do away with level 4, make level 5 the base classification. It's compulsory then to do your ..... module at level 5 before you can progress through to ..... classifications.

So to see if I understand, paraphrasing you, both unions, there was to be the doing away with the introductory level of rate of pay and those people were to go straight on to the next level of rate of pay?---Correct.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

Plus there was to be an increase in that next level, if I understand correctly, you've said at that first level it was a 15 per cent increase?---Correct.

Was it a twelve and a half per cent increase for the CEPU rather than 15, because they were one level up?---That would be a fair assessment, yes.

In terms of allowances, when those wages were put as the new wage offer, what was the standby allowance that was put at that stage?---The claim for standby decreased from $15,000 per annum and it was then referred to on a weekly rate and this was for $800 per week of standby plus a week's annual leave.

Now, in terms of that, what month was that made in approximately?
---Approximately .....

And who put that to them?---Typically the meetings were - were joint meetings with Mr Tracey and if you'd like me to elaborate on the employees, the negotiating committee on behalf of the workers, I can do.

Well, if I can get you to turn your mind as best you can now with the passage of time to the day where that particular offer was first put to the company, can you recall that date?---I couldn't give you the date.

No, not the date, but do you recall a meeting where the offer was first put taking place?---I seem to recall that - time frame around which it happened. I couldn't give you we were in meeting room such and such at this point in time but - - -

Do you recall who was speaking from the union when the offer was put?---Yes.

Who was that?---That would have been Mr Tracey.

And when he gave you the wage figures, did he give them to you as percentages or did he give them to you as dollar figures?---The - sorry, I'll take a step back for a second. Mr Tracey confirmed the union's position on the matter of standby, it's $800 plus extended leave. I couldn't categorically say it was Mr Tracey who put forward the table of figures. I believe that was a table put together by the negotiating committee on behalf of the employees so when that table was tabled, at the meeting, I couldn't categorically say that was Mr Tracey who put that table forward.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

Was Mr Tracey at that meeting?---Yes, Mr Tracey was at that meeting.

Was that table handed around to everyone at the meeting or most people at the meeting?---Correct. A copy of the table was provided to the company as part of the negotiation.

Did you - at that meeting do you recall making any calculations with the table?
---Yes. I immediately calculated - because there was not percentage processed. It was just an annualised salary for each level proposed and based on what the current annualised salary is, I calculated that the percentage difference that they were requesting was percentages that we've already referred to being 15 - being just over 15 per cent, 12, 10 and 6.

And did you say anything about those percentages?---Absolutely.

What did you say?---I said, look, we're quite surprised - or words to the effect that I was quite surprised that this has been tabled because in my assessment we were going backwards. The assessment was - sorry. The original payment was for .....  per cent and I said it would have been better off at seven per cent given we're now talking about between six and a half per cent, 15, and we're just over 15 per cent, so my assessment negotiations were going backwards.

Yes, and do you recall Mr Tracey's response to that?---Well, certainly it's no withdrawal of - or - of the figures or anything like that. It was just a case of, well, that's the offer.

Can I ask whether or not Mr Tracey said that those figures, that the union had said that those figures weren't realistic and they'd have to come down or words to that effect?---No. There was no reference to wanting to change the position, the figures at that point in time.

Do you recall whether, you know who Mr Barker is, I presume?---Yes.

And I don't think you'll mind me leading on this, he's a delegate for the CEPU?
---He is.

And he's been involved in the negotiations?---Yes.

Do you recall him being at that same meeting?---Yes, yes.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

Did he make any suggestion to you that those figures weren't realistic or that they were meant to come down?---No.

Do you recall a meeting on 18 January of this year?---Yes.

Prior to that meeting had the union's position changed at all from the position you've just told us?---No.

Who was at the meeting on the 18th?---It was myself, the General Manager for Operations, Mr Ross Martelli, Mr Greg Wilson, Mr William Wallace Tracey, Mr Glenn Barker and Mr Fairo Davies.

Do you recall any discussions at that meeting in relation to the standby allowance and in relation to the wages and classification structure?---Yes.

Can you - - - ?---Basically the crux of the meeting was we wanted to determine that - wherever the negotiations were headed, we were into the new year now, we wanted to find out where the union could see this heading and essentially discussions progressed to the - what the unions regarded as the two main issues for them, which was the standby allowance and the classification structure/wages. Mr Tracey reiterated the position on the standby which was $800 plus a week's annual leave, then proceeded on to say that, look, perhaps we can put an offer to you that employees, and if I can paraphrase, employees go on to standby, or sign up for standby for a 12 month period. If they sign up, they must agree to stay on standby for 12 months, after which time they can reassess whether or not they want to continue on standby. I then proceeded to ask, well, if that's the case, you're still fighting for $800 plus annual leave, to which the response was, yes. I then indicated, well, again, and we appear to be going backwards because we knew that $500 plus a week's annual leave, as the wording that we proposed, which was wording that we were quite happy with. Mr Tracey was now trying to put restrictions on that wording again. So again I emphasised the point, well, we appear to be going backwards because ..... $800 and a week's annual leave and now you're wanting to put restrictions on it, on the wording for that offer. ..... I really do think we're going backwards on this matter. We then turned - Mr Tracey said, "Well, look, thanks very much for clarifying that position" - sorry, we said that we would not be offering anything more than the $600 that had increased from $570.

In terms of that 570, can you just clarify for the Commission - and your Honour, I don't think this is disputed, so I might just quickly lead Mr Riordon - that you'd increased the standby allowance to 570 late last year during the negotiations?
---The standby allowance had actually been put at $570 reasonably early in negotiations and it was late last year that we offered to be ..... dollars a week.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

In terms of rate of pay you increased the electrical and metal trade workers' rates of pay by five and a half per cent late last year before - basically 5.5 per cent above your agreement rates before you had an agreement in place?---Our original position was that we would offer five and a half per cent and what we referred to as line movement and line movement is effectively an assessment of CPI and industry standard or industry changes so it would be five and a half per cent year 1 and line movements for year 2 and 3. Late last year at the same time that we offered that there be the standby from 570 to $600. We increased our offer to five and a half per cent plus a fixed five per cent and five per cent for year 3. It's ..... last year.

Now, coming back to 18 January, in relation to wages, where did you see yourself by the end of that 18 January meeting so far as the union's position was concerned?---Again, the union put the position that - and I think Mr Greg Wilton wanted to clarify ..... The notion of having a classification structure of level 1 to 4 putting a wage rises to one side for a second, are you adverse to the notion of discussion ..... and I reiterated the point that well, we can't consider that concept as long as it's asking for wage increases from six and a half to 15, you know, over 15 per cent. There was - wage rises of that level, we would continue to be adverse to considering the classification structure.

Did they indicate to you that they would reduce those claims?---There was no talk at that meeting of a counter offer on the wage claims that had previously been put to the company out of that meeting. There was no change from the original - sorry, on the most recent position that was put.

Did they indicate to you - sorry, I'll withdraw that, your Honour. And that position that you've just explained, you just explained who Mr Wilton is?
---Mr Greg Wilton is, to the best of my knowledge, is our union organiser for the Electrical Trades Union.

So on the 18th there were some parts of the offer that were being discussed by the AMWU and some were being discussed by the CEPU. How did you regard the overall position in relation to each of the two unions?---Whilst discussion was being had between Mr Tracey and Mr Wilton there was definitely a case of this is a joint position of both unions.

Has there ever been any suggestion other than the positions put to your joint positions?---No, they've maintained joint positions throughout negotiations.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

Do you recall receiving a piece of correspondence last week which was the withdrawal by the AMWU of an application for a protected action ballot?---Yes, it came through on our fax machine last week.

Were you contacted thereafter at all by Mr Tracey in relation to negotiations by any other official or organiser of the AMWU? Did you have any discussions with any delegate of the AMWU, since that time?---Since that time I have had a discussion with a gentleman by the name of Mr Fairo Davies and Mr Shaunum Pedersen(?), however it was quite plain that that discussion was me speaking on behalf of, certainly no behalf of the company. As such it wasn't the position of the company that we wished to put forward and similarly they made it quite adamant that they weren't speaking as a position coming from the union. It was just our personal thoughts in terms of how we would progress things.

What was the position expressed to you by Fairo Davies, his personal position expressed to you in those discussions?---He suggested a way I could see - my personal ..... of moving forward on this. I discussed with Mr Davies and at the time he said, "Well, look, I can't speak on behalf of the union or the members, but my personal position is this is worth considering, at least worth discussing this with the employee members of the negotiating committee and they would then come back to us, or come back to me to say whether or not it was worth getting together to hold a negotiating committee meeting."

Perhaps for the transcriber's assistance, your Honour, Fairo is spelt F-a-i-r-o. Sorry, when Fairo Davies said that, he was talking about the company's position, was he, it was worth discussing?---Not the company's position, no.

What position was that?---It was a position that I had developed which I thought for the - - -

A way forward?---My statement to Mr Davies was that if he thought it was worth pursuing, ..... I would go to the company's side of the negotiating committee and seek that they seriously consider before I did that.

And what position was that?---The changes were that we would - I'm sorry. The changes that I said were worth considering were accepting their ..... to the classification structure, ie. have a look at the wage rises Mr Davies had put forward, a personal position of having six and a half per cent for each of the wage - from level 1 through to level 4. I came back and said well, look, I would regard the wage rises of the company as something that the company would support, however I would certainly consider their classification structure. With respect to the standby I had suggested some different wording to accommodate some of their concerns which were essentially - onset was to have each maintenance team, that it would be a requirement for each maintenance team to develop a standby roster. Employees that put forward their acceptance of that standby - of going on to standby, would do that for 12 months. At the end of that, if they did not wish to continue with standby, the maintenance team would come up with - amongst themselves would come up with a new way of conducting standby, but essentially there will be a requirement to perform - sorry, for each maintenance team to do or to come up with a method of forming a standby roster.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

What sort of payment was that one that was under discussion prior to .....?---I reiterated the point that it's not going to be possible to get $600.

What about a week's annual leave?---No, we .....

What was Mr Davies' response to that?---Again it was his personal opinion
not - so he maintained the point that he wasn't speaking on behalf of the union but - so I couldn't hold him to, you know, what he was saying, essentially as a union position and I accepted that at the time. His response was that this was worth considering and going forward with. He would get together with Mr Barker and Mr Pedersen to discuss this further. I then had a similar - sorry. Do you want me to continue or - I then went and had a similar conversation with Mr Pedersen.

Did you have any discussions with Mr Barker?---Yes. With Mr Barker and Mr Pedersen up to my office late - yes, late Friday afternoon and where again it was - we're talking as individuals, not as - it was not on behalf of the company or on behalf of the union, but what we discussed was basically, look, if you think the wording I've suggested is worth going forward with, then you guys should go away and talk with the negotiating committee of employees and I'll go and put this to the company and we should get together to talk it through.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could you tell me, Mr Davies, I've lost track, when was this discussion?

MR DAVIES: In the last week, your Honour. There was an earlier application made by the AMWU on 31 of - 30 or 31 January for a ballot order. That was subsequently withdrawn and at page - and I'm going to make some comments to your Honour about these attachments. I've spoken with Mr Ellis about the attachments to my submissions. As I understand it, Mr Ellis will correct me if I'm wrong, the material that relates to the AMWU, he accepts as being correct without him needing to give evidence, albeit ask questions about it. But there's a letter that's contained in that material which was sent to the Commission. It's at page 45 of our submissions that were sent through in the matter where Mr Ellis asked for the application to be withdrawn and said the reason for our withdrawal is that they're now appear to be prospects to resolve the matter and we wish to exhaust these opportunities before we proceed to hearing. So it relates to discussions that took place after that letter, which was dated 29 January.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

MR DAVIES: Your Honour, I only have a couple of other areas to finish off, I should add.

Firstly, Mr Riordon, do you know what your retention rates currently are amongst tradesmen at the site?---They would be - well, tradesmen specifically, no, but I'd say it would be approximately around 13 to 14 per cent.

How does that compare with the market generally?---With unemployment rate where it is, I believe it compares reasonably favourably.

Do you have any reason to believe the retention rate amongst tradespeople is higher than amongst your operators?---No.

So far as your rates of pay are concerned, have you done any comparisons between the rates that you pay the tradespeople at your operations compared with similar work on similar arrangements, and by that I mean - and I don't think there's any dispute, your Honour, that the tradespeople work Monday to Friday day shifts, eight hour shifts on the basis of a 38 hour week, plus some additional hours which are agreed and then worked on planned and unplanned bases. Are you able to say anything about the comparison of your rates of pay with others with a similar structure for similar work in similar locations?---We did extensive benchmarking of salaries and conditions on numerous occasions, certainly prior to - sorry, early, very early 2006. We re-did the same survey around August 2006 and that survey we actually engaged a private company by the name of McDonald's who are essentially a salary survey organisation who compared industries in - it's a petro chemical and chemicals industry survey and they compared 29 similar companies - or sorry, petro chemical/chemical companies around Australia. In terms of the companies surveyed, whilst they don't provide specific data saying company X pays this, company Y pays that, they will say that all companies fall within A pay range to B range in terms of annualised salaries and we certainly compared favourably in terms of where we sat compared to those other companies, and when I say favourably, certainly above the 50th percentile.

MR ELLIS: Your Honour, we object to this evidence. We believe it's hearsay in nature. We believe if the respondent employer wanted to admit evidence in respect to these issues, they should table the report themselves or bring the expert, the author of the report into the Commission to deliver evidence.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, it's certainly not the best evidence of those matters, but Mr Davies, what I was going to ask you was tell me why it's relevant? Are you saying that it has some relevance to the fanciful aspect of your case?

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

MR DAVIES: I don't know yet because I haven't heard the arguments by my learned friends, but they've raised it as an issue, so I'm just wanting to make sure that I've got some - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It seems to me that a lot of the evidence that I've heard might relate to the merits of the various positions, were I to be arbitrating a wage claim here, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm hearing an application in relation to a ballot and I presume that those issues on which Mr Riordon might properly give evidence relate to some aspect of the matters you've raised, such as the genuineness or the fanciful nature of the matters that are being negotiated. I'm not sure that this evidence goes to those issues.

MR DAVIES: Your Honour, I'm in your hands. If the comparatives with other companies aren't relevant, then I'm more than happy not to examine Mr Riordon on it. I was merely doing that because I anticipated that the other two unions may say it is relevant to your assessment.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, they might. I mean, they might say that therefore what they're claiming is not outside what is the reasonable range and can't be fanciful, but I'm just not sure how much detail about that is in this evidence is useful, but I'm not so sure myself that I'd want to stop you. I just raise the issue for your consideration.

MR DAVIES: Well, I might go only to the same level as Mr Tracey and Mr Barker went and ask Mr Riordon.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you're found to be disadvantaged as a result of that, you can always make an application, Mr Davies.

MR DAVIES: Thank you, your Honour.

Mr Riordon, did you have a look at any other enterprise agreements when you were thinking about your wage rates?---Yes, we did.

What agreements did you look at?---We looked at what's being paid by Alcoa, BP ..... - I'm just trying to think.

Amongst those companies which are chemical or chemical related companies?
---Well, BP is essentially ..... PG Chemicals is a chemical manufacturing, New Farm is predominantly fertilisers, ..... is chemicals and fertilisers, Alcoa is aluminus, it's not a chemical or fertiliser per se.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XN MR DAVIES

Do CSBP make both chemicals and fertilisers?---Yes.

How do you regard your rates in the comparisons that you drew with those other agreements that you looked at?---Again, no - very comparable. Sorry, we were paying well above the 50th percentile again in terms of what other companies were paying.

Just bear with me, your Honour. I don't believe I have any further questions, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Any cross-examination?

MR EDMONDS: Yes, there is, your Honour. I'm sorry, if I could go first.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDMONDS [4.16PM]

MR EDMONDS: Mr Riordon, you said that the original offer that was put by the companies back in April was for a three year agreement for seven plus seven plus seven and a standby allowance of $1500 per week up from $240 per week, is that correct?---Sorry, is that - the offer put by the union to the company?

Yes?---It was seven, seven, seven and 15 for standby.

And did that also include - was there also a $13,000 parity payment or a jump up payment to bring CSBP in line with other similar operations, do you recall that?
---Yes.

So there was another $13,000 that was asked for on top of that?---Correct.

You say that that claim was maintaining till October when the union came back with essentially a new claim, I suppose, is that correct?---Yes.

What was the precipitating factor for the union coming back with a new claim?---I couldn't tell you what the union were thinking.

Well, isn't it true that you'd said to the union at that time that you couldn't countenance a wage rise at the top end of the sort that they were seeking and that any wage rises had to fit within the bands you had available to you?---I don't ..... what do you mean by the bands available to us?

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XXN MR EDMONDS

The wage bands?---What the company was saying the whole way along was, basically well, we have an amount of money that we've budgeted for for a wage increase and we would maintain wanting to fit within that realm.

Okay, and that caused the unions to go away and re-draft their claim, isn't that correct?---I'm not sure if that was a precipitating factor.

Well, I put it to you that that indeed was what the union went away and did. Do you have a comment in relation to that?---I would accept that. If you're saying that's the case, then, again I don't know what the union was thinking as to that .....

Now, isn't it also true that the unions more or less agreed that at the top level they were basically - there was basic agreement at the top level .....?---I'd still maintain the position that nothing is agreed until there's a vote on it.

Okay, but isn't it fair to say that the unions were saying, well, you know, broadly speaking we're kind of equivalent at the top level, the difference now is between the company and the union as to where the bottom level starts?---I would agree with the statement that it was certainly the case that during negotiating committee would state that they had concerns about our ability to attract employees at the bottom levels. I couldn't say that the ..... wages at the top levels.

Okay. Is it true that you've lost five out of your 20 electricians in the last six months?---To be honest I'd have to go and have a look at those figures, but I would say it would be - we've certainly had employees - electricians resign within the last six months, yes.

Do you know if those positions have been filled?---We have certainly recruited electrical tradespeople within that time but we certainly have outstanding vacancies.

Are you having trouble filling those positions?---We've had applications - we've had difficulty replacing electrical instrument qualified employees. Our position now is that we would seriously consider employing electrical employees and training them in instrument fitting and there doesn't appear to be a great ..... attracting people with that qualification.

So you've got no problems attracting electricians, but you've got problems attracting dual traders, that's correct, isn't it? I mean, I suppose it naturally follows from the fact that you've lowered your stands to simple tradespersons rather than the dual traders, that you've got problems attracting dual traders, wouldn't that be true?---We - there's certainly not dual traders knocking down our door and queuing up to …. We're still recruiting .....

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XXN MR EDMONDS

And the proposition that's being put by the unions is that the reason we're having trouble filling those positions is because your entry level is too low and people don't want to come to you through an entry level that low. Do you agree that that's the case, or what do you say about that?---It would be remiss of me to say that people aren't coming to CSBP because the wages are too low. I couldn't tell you why electrical people aren't - I couldn't tell you what's going through someone's mind as to why they don't want to submit an electrical application.

Well, I put it to you that CSBP is not a terrible place to work, it's actually quite a good workplace and the only reason you have trouble attracting people to CSBP as a workplace is simply that you're not offering enough pay at that lower level?
---The first part of your comment is on your transcript, but I'll repeat it, CSBP is a good place to work. Again, what's going through people's minds as to why they don't want to work at CSBP ..... What would probably assist you in your line of questioning is for us to say that - well, for me to say, is that we have put forward that in terms of hiring electrical instrument people, we will bring them in at the level 5 with a requirement that they do some A module training as part of that. I don't know if that helps you.

Okay. Now, you said that in a meeting, and I'm not sure whether this was in January or in late October, that Mr Greg Wilton said to put the wages to one side for the moment and consider whether you're prepared to accept a change to the levels, to reduce the levels from seven levels to four levels?---That was January.

That was January, okay, and you said that there'd been no specific offer from the unions to lower the wages. Doesn't it follow from what Mr Wilton said, which is to put the wages to one side and address the concept, surely it would follow from that, that as long as you could agree on the concept the union could then look at a rationalisation of its wages claims?---No.

You don't think that follows?---No.

Are you prepared to consider the truncation of the levels from seven levels to four?---It would be fair to say that in my conversation with Mr Barker on Friday, that's exactly what my personal suggestion was and we would be happy to go through and look at.

And that discussion was held on this Friday, was it?---Last Friday, correct.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XXN MR EDMONDS

So the Friday that's just been?---Yes.

And his response was that he still hadn't considered those sort of options?---He said that he couldn't speak on behalf of the union, but his personal opinion was .....

Okay. So there's still talks going on at the moment between the unions and the company?---No.

Well, you just said on Friday that they're willing to talk about that matter further?
---The - there's been absolutely no conversation between the unions and the company that's been a personal conversation between me and Mr Barker to try and get this moving.

Okay, okay. Well, would you be prepared to sit down with the unions to discuss that matter further?---I had that very conversation with Mr Wilton and Mr Tracey prior to this.

Okay. And did they indicate that they were willing - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And the answer was? And the answer was?---The answer is that they would rather push on with this proceeding. I asked if we've been open and honest, I asked they'd consider an adjournment so that we could continue those discussions and the decision was made to proceed.

MR EDMONDS: Okay. But they didn't say that they wouldn't participate in discussions though, did they? They just said that before today that there was no agreement to adjourn off so that further discussions could occur?--- .....

Okay. Do you feel that as a result of those discussions held on Friday and this
---I'm not about, given the length of time that this negotiation has taken, I'm not about to second guess the outcome of the union discussions.

Okay. But there's certainly been some movement, would you agree, between Friday and Monday?---No. I've just said it's all personal opinion and until we come back and discuss this with the union and have their position, there's been no movement since January 18, or overall.

Do you know if the employee at Esperance - sorry, I withdraw that question. The standby allowance that's currently being paid by the company are up from $570?
---It's up - - -

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XXN MR EDMONDS

Sorry, 240 to 570?---Correct.

And the proposal is that the offer is to move that up to $600 a week?---Correct.

Okay. So there is a difference of $200 a week between the parties, is that fair to say?---No.

Sorry, a difference of $200 per week and the payment of one week's annual leave?---Correct.

And how far apart are the wages in terms of the offers being made there?---Well, considerable, 5.5 per cent, five and five, and again I raised with Mr Barker the concept of a five year agreement on Friday, so 5.5 per cent, five, five ..... personal positions. I'm not about to suggest that the unions agreed to it or the company has agreed with it. But that is a long way 6.5 per cent through to 15 per cent.

The 6.5 per cent is only - sorry, the 15 per cent would only be applicable to someone coming in at an entry level right now, isn't that true, someone who'd come in at level 3? Someone who would come in at level 3 of course if levels 1, 2 and 3 get truncated into level 4 - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Edmonds, I'm not sure if this is taking me any further in the application I'm hearing.

MR EDMONDS: Yes, I'm sorry.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's very interesting for you but perhaps these discussions should be had separately. I don't know that it's assisting me.

MR EDMONDS: Yes. If you could bear with me for one moment?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will, for one moment.

MR EDMONDS: Thank you, your Honour, I have got no further questions for this witness.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ellis.

MR ELLIS: I do, your Honour, and I shall be brief, I promise.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XXN MR EDMONDS

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ELLIS [4.29PM]

End of April last year?---End of April last year.

And the union put a position to you at that time?---Yes.

And a position which you just appear to be discussing in some informal forum, what appears to be without prejudice discussions, is a different offer?---The person - my personal .....

The answer is yes or no. Is it a different offer now than it was in April last year?
---Yes.

So is it true to say that since April, the first offer, and the offer now as it exists and any particular analysis and consideration of the wage scales within the limitations of the budget, your budget, your company, represent a preparedness to consider seriously those offers?--- .....

Well, the process the union went through - - - ?---I'm not sure of your question.

Let me put it this way. The process the union went through to come to a four band wage structure?---Yes.

Okay, I put it to you that that represents the preparedness of the union to consider seriously the offers of the employer, particularly given that the four band structure is an attempt to fit together with the budgeting limitations which you set out earlier?---The four banding has nothing to do with ..... nothing to do with the budget in that six and half per cent.

Thank you. Now, since April last year your company has moved, hasn't it, in October/November last year it paid higher rates, didn't it? It began paying higher rates?---In ..... we provided a five and a half per cent increase across to our employees covered by our current enterprise agreement.

So the amounts that you're paying now, are they close to what the union offer
is - what the union is claiming?---Well, we're talking the difference between five and a half and six and a half, a fifth per cent, so you know, one and a half per cent through to 10 per cent, is the difference.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by that. The amounts you paid you've been paying since October or November?---Yes.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XXN MR ELLIS

Are they close to what the union is now claiming, the actual ..... [4.31.22]?
--- .....[4.31.23] no because we offered - we started paying five and a half per cent. Your claim is for between six and a half and 15 and a half, so six and a half less five and a half and 15 and a half is five and a half per cent, to one per cent through to 10 per cent.

I just want to ask you questions about the withdrawal of the previous application?
---Yes.

Is it true that you were having discussions with the LHMU?---Yes.

What were the discussions about?---Well, matters affecting the operators at CSBP.

Did they involve money? How much were they paying?---Just .....

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

MR ELLIS: My understanding is that Mr Riordon is considering his answer, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I apologise.

THE WITNESS: Sorry, the discussions were for operators primarily securing a 38 hour week over the life of the agreement.

MR ELLIS: I put it to you the reasons why the application was drawn was for those discussions to occur and so the outcome of those discussions, such that they may have been, may well have informed the decision the union took in respect of its own application. Would you agree with that .....?---Yes. We're still continuing discussions with our - - -

I put it to you this way, that the outcome of those discussions you were or may have had at that time could well have influenced the decision of the AMWU and maybe the CEPU on whether or not they would continue with their application?
---I disagree. You know, you've maintained constantly that you want a separate wage structure, a separate salary increase and standby - your position on that hasn't changed, hasn't been influenced by discussions with the LHMU at all.

**** ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON XXN MR ELLIS

I have no more questions of this witness, your Honour.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DAVIES [4.33PM]

MR DAVIES: Mr Riordon, what was your position or what was your occupation prior to commencement with CSBP?---I was an Employee Relations Advisor with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of WA.

And from your experience in that role, are you able to give us any information about the labour market in Western Australia and generally - - -

MR ELLIS: Your Honour, I'm not sure how these questions arose out of examination.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, no, I'm not sure either, but I'm going to give him the chance to find out.

MR ELLIS: Thank you, your Honour?---The industrial ..... major resource construction projects and at that time those projects were finding it very difficult to recruit labour. Hence the development of ..... certainly know there was a large reliance by projects on things like these .....

No further questions, your Honour.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.34PM]

MR DAVIES: Your Honour, in relation to the other information that we say is relevant, I mentioned it before, but perhaps for the record I should formally tender the submissions that were emailed and faxed to the Commission on behalf of our client yesterday. There is attached to our submissions documentation that relates to these matters. In particular there's documentation that relates to the transitional registration, the AFMEPKIU of workers and confirms that Mr Ellis is the legal officer of that corporate entity and that Mr McCartney is the president of that entity and there's also attached some related information in relation to that matter.

There is also attached to the documentation the letter from the AMWU to the Commission withdrawing bargaining period. There is attached some extracts of relevant provisions from the CSBP Enterprise Agreement. I should - there is only one document which I should withdraw from that because I have not put into evidence, and it's a company document, that the unions would not be in a position to respond to, and there's a table there of some people who are on leave. The information about who's on leave is in oral evidence anyway. So that would be the only thing that would not go into evidence but I understand from my discussions with Mr Ellis that otherwise he's content for the material to go into evidence without - or in particular I would have needed to ask him some questions.

EXHIBIT #CSBP1 SUBMISSIONS FAXED AND EMAILED TO COMMISSION BY MR DAVIES

MR EDMONDS: Sorry, if I could just make a comment about that - - -

MR DAVIES: Sorry, the submissions themselves are just to be taken as submissions. It's only the attachments that we'd be relying on as evidence in that regard.

MR EDMONDS: Yes, thank you, yes.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that what you wanted to comment upon, Mr Edmonds?

MR EDMONDS: I was simply going to comment that the submissions themselves appear to contain a great deal of information that ought to have properly been put in evidence and not everything that's contained in the submissions have been put in evidence by CSBP, so we'd simply ask that that be taken into account and that no weight be - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll take it into account if you draw my attention to it in the submissions, document by document. Is there any reason why this - I notice the timetable is one anticipating orders would issue today and that you would seek - and that the timetable starts from tomorrow on that basis. I would prefer to stand this matter over for submissions till tomorrow. Is there anything about this matter, the urgency of this matter, that could persuade me not to do that, but would not enable me, were the application granted, to make the orders altering the dates by one day, if that was to be the case? I'm not drawing any conclusion about my issuing them, simply the matter of timing.

MR DAVIES: Other than to say that the actual Commission has provided a minimum timetable, but we'd be happy to shift what's been provided in the minimum timetable that's been provided by them by one day, if it's necessary.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, it would be preferable. This matter has only come to me today and I have a very, very pressing personal commitment this evening that I don't think I can avoid.

MR DAVIES: Yes.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So I would stand the matter over for submissions early in the morning, it would be preferable to me. Do you have anything to say about that, Mr Davies or Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS: No, your Honour, we're happy to comply with your request - - -

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I can attend to my commitment and come back late this evening, but I'd prefer not to.

MR ELLIS: No. We think it best if we reconvened tomorrow. What time is a suitable time for the Commission tomorrow?

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You pick. I've had somebody take my other matters off me tomorrow, so I'm free, so you pick a time.

MR EDMONDS: I suppose it depends upon the availability of the video link as well, your Honour, so provided it's available, any time is convenient in the morning, 9, 9.30.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 9.30 your time?

MR EDMONDS: Yes, that's fine.

MR DAVIES: Thank you, your Honour, that's certainly fine by us.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, in the meantime of course the personal views of Mr Riordon and the views of other persons, might actually become the views of the parties and the organisations involved and discussions might occur. You never know. What do you think?

MR DAVIES: Thank you, your Honour.

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll see you at 9.30 tomorrow Perth time, thank you.

<ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY 6 FEBRUARY 2007 [4.39PM

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

WILLIAM WARREN TRACEY, AFFIRMED PN57
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR ELLIS PN57
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DAVIES PN127
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ELLIS PN278
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN297
GLENN BARKER, AFFIRMED PN302
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR EDMONDS PN302
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DAVIES PN349
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR EDMONDS PN459
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN466
ANTHONY JOHN RIORDON, SWORN PN466
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DAVIES PN466
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDMONDS PN557
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ELLIS PN605
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DAVIES PN628
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN634
EXHIBIT #CSBP1 SUBMISSIONS FAXED AND EMAILED TO COMMISSION BY MR DAVIES PN636