C2007/3699, Transcript of Proceedings [2007] AIRCTrans 649 (4 December 2007)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 17772-1

COMMISSIONER GAY

C2007/3699

s.170LW - prereform Act - Appl’n for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)
The Australian Workers’ Union
and
Vestas Blades Australia Pty Ltd
(C2007/3699)

MELBOURNE

10.02AM, THURSDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2007

THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE AND RECORDED IN MELBOURNE

PN1

MR B DAVIS: I seek leave to appear on behalf of the Australian Workers Union.

PN2

MR T GREENHALL: I seek leave to appear on behalf of Vestas Blades Australia Pty Limited.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Greenhall.

PN4

MR GREENHALL: I seek leave of the Commission for a legal representative.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think that's right, Mr Greenhall. Thank you.
Now we have an official of Vestas Blades able to hear and who is that, Mr Greenhall?

PN6

MR GREENHALL: Yes, is Soren linked in at the moment? Soren Damgaard?

PN7

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

PN8

MR GREENHALL: Linked in. Okay. Yes, Soren Damgaard is the general manager of the Blades factory down at Portland and the authorised representative of the company.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. Mr Damgaard, can you hear the proceedings?

PN10

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I haven't rung him yet.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, perhaps we will go off the record and we will have Mr Damgaard come on board. Thank you. Go off the record now, reporter.

<OFF THE RECORD

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well now Mr Damgaard is on this telephone link and can hear but it might be necessary, Mr Damgaard, for you and Mr Greenhall to speak up a little bit, but we will see how we go.

PN13

Yes, Mr Davis.

PN14

MR DAVIS: Thank you, Commissioner and good morning Soren. On 21 August 2007 Vestas Blades announced the closure of their Portland operations and they were due to close and are due to close around Christmas. In response to that the parties, including Mr Greenhall, negotiated a memorandum of agreement regarding how and what payments would be made to employees when they were made redundant, by way of severance payments.

PN15

It was agreed as part of that memorandum of agreement that the certified agreement that applies at Vestas Blades, Agreement 839958 Vestas Blades Australia Pty Limited Portland Greenfields 2005, would continue to apply and underpin that memorandum of agreement.

PN16

The argument today or the difference of opinion today revolves around clause 10 of that agreement, the redundancy clause, and in particular within that redundancy clause whether pro rata long service leave is payable to all employees, given that all employees of the site have up to but not more than about three and a half years' Service. So under the Act they don't meet the criteria obviously for gaining accrued pro rata long service leave. However this agreement, as is not unusual in manufacturing agreements in a redundancy situation, in my view obligates the employer to pay it regardless of length of service.

PN17

Clause 10.1:

PN18

If the employer terminates this agreement by reason of redundancy the employer shall pay to the employee -

PN19

Dot point 3:

PN20

Accrued pro rata long service leave.

PN21

Again, in my view that clearly obligates the employer to pay that employee point eight six weeks per year of service, pursuant to the Victorian Long Service Leave Act, irrespective of their length of service; because the agreement doesn't set out any qualifying period - - -

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Have you got a copy of that please, Mr Davis?

PN23

MR DAVIS: Yes, I have. I'm sorry, I can hand that up.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Have you got a copy of that, Mr Greenhall?

PN25

MR GREENHALL: Yes, I have. Yes, that's the certified agreement the Vestas Blades Australia Pty Limited Portland Agreement2005.

PN26

MR DAVIS: I note that's the agreement as varied.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: When was it varied, Mr Davis?

PN28

MR DAVIS: The variation took effect - I've actually got another copy of that document.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: I note for the record this is an agreement which was certified on 23 March and came into force on - 23 March 2006, I should have said - and came into force on 20 March 2006 and continues in force until 19 April 2008.

PN30

MR DAVIS: The variation was actually done on 23 March 2006 by Commissioner Hingley. So it looks like there were concurrent hearings. The first certified the agreement, the second varied it, unless I'm mistaken. Can you - - -

PN31

MR GREENHALL: I wasn't present.

PN32

MR DAVIS: No, neither was I.

PN33

MR GREENHALL: I do have that order of Commissioner Hingley made
23 March.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, it's here.

PN35

MR GREENHALL: But I have no background on it.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: The print number of the order is 970484 and it's on the material you handed up, Mr Davis?

PN37

MR DAVIS: Yes, it is.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: So the dates that I gave were in fact the dates of the variation and the Commissioner - perhaps it would be as well to read this onto the record. The 23 March order is given as its head:

PN39

Variation of certified agreement - rotating shift work. Further to the decision issued by the Commission on 23 March 2006 -

PN40

and that's in PR970482:

PN41

- the above agreement is varied by replacing in toto with attachment A of this order. This order shall come into force on 20 March 2006 and remain in force until 19 April 2008.

PN42

Attachment A is something that you will be able to tell me about, Mr Davis. It's not readily apparent to me what - - -

PN43

MR DAVIS: Attachment A is in fact the whole of the agreement that's contained in the bulldog clip. If your associate would like to, I'll fax you up a copy of that. There's a stamped copy on the second page that demonstrates that's attachment A. Those two documents are identical I suspect.

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I might give you back the original.

PN45

MR DAVIS: Thank you.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: But I'm going to hold this up for you to see, Mr Greenhall, because in what's likely to be the Commissioner's hand there is a document marked attachment A and this is attached to - - -

PN47

MR GREENHALL: It appears to be the same copy that I've got here in front of me.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN49

MR GREENHALL: Yes. thank you.

PN50

MR DAVIS: Thank you, and whilst it's all a bit complicated varying certified agreements, I don't think the facts are disagreed insofar as that this is the agreement that applies; that that is the redundancy clause that applies. The only difference of opinion between the employer, Mr Greenhall and myself is how that clause should best be interpreted. I don't want to be seen to be putting words into Mr Greenhall's mouth in saying that.

PN51

So the question before you today, Commissioner, is does that redundancy clause obligate the employer to pay a pro rata long service leave irrespective of length of service in the redundancy situation. If the Commission pleases.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. What do you say about that, as a launching position, Mr Greenhall?

PN53

MR GREENHALL: What I say about that is that the clause only obligates the employer to pay accrued pro rata long service leave, and that is a well known term with a well known meaning deriving directly from the Long Service Leave Act. I might just go back just a little bit, back to the certified agreement if I could, Commissioner. I take you to appendix 2 and 3 and I don't think Ben will have any objection to this but I'm sure he will say if he does. Appendix 2 and 3, Employees Wages and Conditions, clause 18. There are two, appendix 2 and 3, different types of employment relationships but very similar terms. Clause 18 under both deals with long service leave.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there a page number for these?

PN55

MR GREENHALL: Is there a page number?

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. You are referring to this?

PN57

MR DAVIS: 37.

PN58

MR GREENHALL: Yes.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN60

MR GREENHALL: Yes.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: 18 is appendix 2?

PN62

MR GREENHALL: That's right.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN64

MR GREENHALL: Well what it does, the agreement sort of - the appendix set out the terms and conditions of employees depending on whether they are, I think a weekly cycle or whether they are - yes, if you look at the front. Appendix 2 is for weekly cycle employees' wages and conditions and appendix 3 is continuous cycle employees' wages and conditions.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: What page is that on?

PN66

MR GREENHALL: That's page 3, and that's the introduction of the contents is on page 3 but then if you look at clause 18 for both, clause 18 specifically deals with long service leave. I take you to page 37, which would be the one dealing with, of the two - and as I said, they are in identical terms. The provision is:

PN67

Vestas shall provide long service leave in accordance with the provisions of the relevant long service leave Act.

PN68

So when we read the redundancy clause we need to read it in the context of what is mandated in a certified agreement itself. What is mandated is long service leave in accordance with the provisions of the Victorian, as it turns out here, Long Service Leave Act.

PN69

So then we go to clause 10 and it talks about accrued pro rata long service leave. Well, under the Long Service Leave Act there is no doubt in my mind that that is quite capable of meaning - and it would preclude employees who have got less than seven years' service from taking pro rata long service leave. Pro rata long service leave does exist under the Long Service Leave Act. It applies for employees with over seven years' service. It doesn't apply for employees with up to three and a half years' service.

PN70

If I quickly take you to the relevant provision in the Long Service Leave Act, as amended too, which obviously the entitlement in Victoria was uplifted.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: It was? When was that?

PN72

MR GREENHALL: Yes, 1 January last year, Commissioner. So it was only recently it was uplifted. So of course we are applying the up-to-date rather - yes, I think this actually is the certified - it is certified. Was this last year?

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: Several months later, Mr Greenhall.

PN74

MR GREENHALL: Yes, and that's fine. There's no issue with that whatsoever. I've got a current version of the Act here, provided from the Commission's good library, and section 57, Long Service Leave - I'm happy to hand these pages up. Sorry, I've only got one copy with me, but it sets out the basis entitlement to long service leave and of course it is long service leave we are talking about here in the primary. So it's long service leave as leave, not money. It's leave.

PN75

Section 56:

PN76

13 weeks' leave after 15 years and four and one-third weeks for every five years thereafter.

PN77

Section 56A:

PN78

An entitlement to long service leave after 10 years.

PN79

Again, that's an entitlement to leave after 10 years. That was one of the uplifts that was introduced from 1 January last year, and then we move to section 58:

PN80

The entitlement to long service leave if employment stops after seven years. This section only applies if the employee's employment is ended and the employee has completed at least seven but less than 15 years of continuous employment with one employer. In that instance the employee is entitled to an amount of long service leave equal to one-sixtieth of the period of his or her continuous employment, which as we know is then taken contemporaneously with the termination, such that the employee on termination is deemed to have taken their long service leave and is paid the pro rata entitlement. It is otherwise an offence under the Long Service Leave Act to pay out long service leave.

PN81

Again, giving sanctity to the idea that we are talking about long service leave and payment as a pro rata entitlement, provided seven years' seven has been reached.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: It's for the same effect, Mr Greenhall. If someone resigns and there's no complication with misconduct or something, if someone leaves employment, say after nine years, if I've understood you correctly, the period of pro ration is paid out as if they - - -

PN83

MR GREENHALL: Correct. Correct, and the Act actually says that. I can take you to - - -

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: So the effect is the same?

PN85

MR GREENHALL: Yes, and it's a different formula. There's a pro rata formula. The pro rata formula is one-sixtieth of the period of service.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN87

MR GREENHALL: Which the accountants actually get their heads around a lot quicker than the lawyers I find. But it's quite a different calculation to when you take the leave.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN89

MR GREENHALL: The leave is 13 weeks 15 years. The calculation for the pro rata entitlement is one-sixtieth of whatever you have got. You used to have to get 10 years' service to have that pro rata entitlement, you now need to get seven years' service.

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN91

MR GREENHALL: Now in negotiating the memorandum of agreement, which I'm happy to hand up to the Commission, if you would like to look at it in terms of the redundancy of the workforce and the closure of the Portland factory, which is regrettable but we have had long and detailed conversations and consultations with the union.

PN92

The outcome of that is the memorandum of agreement which is a substantial enhancement on the - I mean, there were redundancy provisions in this agreement that the company of course was always going to honour, but has significantly enhanced in the interests of industrial peace, and also to mitigate - in fact, more importantly to mitigate the effects of the closure of the factory on the local workforce. I mean, to give you an example of that, the company had lined up some sort of private outplacement and career restructuring for the affected workforce.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN94

MR GREENHALL: We advised it on the first stage to the members and the union that we were going to do that and the union said, "Look, that's fine but we've got something that we think would work much better without WorkForce and we'd much rather you use it". The company straight away, "Of course. If that's your preference, you've got good experience with them". That is one of the terms of this memorandum of agreement that Ben referred to, outplacement, financial planning and training.

PN95

As I said, there's also significantly enhanced severance payments on what was already provided for. It was never factored in and nor could it be, on the legislation before the company, that this would apply. I mean, the company has sought to compensate and mitigate the employees as much as is possible but this is not within the parameters of legislation, so it was not factored into the package that was put together for the employees.

PN96

Really, we would have liked much more negotiation in good faith about this issue, prior to being called into this hearing or dispute this morning. This came as a surprise to the company and myself, which you will know through your office.

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think I know that.

PN98

Mr Damgaard, how are you going with hearing what the advocates are saying today?

PN99

MR DAMGAARD: Well, I've got this of course, the agreement, and it's quite clear looking at the agreement, that has been also from the start of the negotiations that long service leave wouldn't come into effect into the - with the agreement and also the dispute that we are having here and we have not made any provision in our budget for that. We have put, as Mr Tim Greenhall said, a significant amount of money aside for redundancy payments.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN101

MR GREENHALL: Can I just say briefly, Commissioner - - -

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Not now, Mr Greenhall.

PN103

Mr Damgaard, my question really was how are you going hearing these advocates? I understand you have got a view and I certainly will want to hear that, if it's to supplement what Mr Greenhall has been saying. But my question is a simple one; can you hear them satisfactorily?

PN104

MR DAMGAARD: Yes. Yes, I can.

PN105

THE COMMISSIONER: Good, all right. Well if you can't at some stage, you can whistle or if you - I think this phone cuts out. I don’t know whether it's really a two-way radio, but anyway if there's a problem along the way please let us know because I don't want the conference or the proceedings to be ineffective. All right.

PN106

MR DAMGAARD: It hasn't but it's a bit scratchy but it's - I'll speak out if I've got any problems.

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. All right. That's good, Mr Damgaard. Did you want to add something else, Mr Greenhall?

PN108

MR GREENHALL: I just wanted to say that in accordance with the legislation, even if Vestas was not closing its Portland blade factory, as a company it has not made provision for accrued long service leave when the operation is only up to about three and a half years, I think it is. I mean, there's no requirement in any accounting standard to start to accrue long service leave before five years. Under the legislation it's seven years. The accounting standard is about five years and the legislation is seven years. So this really, in our terms, is a claim that comes from left field.

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Greenhall.

PN110

Perhaps I will just make it clear. We are on the record. The matter is coming on from hearing. This is a transcribed conciliation proceeding. If there's to be any change in that I will let you know, so I don't want anyone to be under a misapprehension about what is happening. This is pursuant to clause 8.5, The Disputes Procedure. I will have something to say in a moment about what Mr Greenhall has said, but this is a conciliation proceeding. I'm not arbitrating at the moment.

PN111

Mr Davis, do you want to say something?

PN112

MR DAVIS: Yes, I'll make a couple of points. I actually concur with most of what Mr Greenhall has said, if not all of it. I'm disappointed that both the company and Mr Greenhall see this as a surprise, the proceedings. Soren and I, Mr Damgaard and I spoke about this on a number of occasions and I asked him to seek advice and come back to me, and waited for three weeks before chasing it up and informing Mr Damgaard that I would be doing this, lodging these proceedings in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure.

PN113

THE COMMISSIONER: When did you tell him that, Mr Davis? I mean, what was the end of the three week hiatus period?

PN114

MR DAVIS: About a week before I notified the dispute.

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. So it's about a week before.

PN116

MR DAVIS: Yes.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: So it's about a week before.

PN118

MR DAMGAARD: Could you please repeat? I couldn’t hear that, Mr Commissioner.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I will make sure you do in a moment, Mr Damgaard. So that was about a week before 19 October, is that right?

PN120

MR DAVIS: Yes.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN122

MR DAVIS: I - - -

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: I will just get you to pause there, Mr Davis.

PN124

MR DAVIS: Sure.

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: It's all a bit fuzzy this mechanism, but we will make sure it works. It would have been a lot easier to do this in Portland, one expects.

PN126

Mr Damgaard, what Mr Davis has said is that he - there's a bit of disappointment today; everyone is disappointed. Because Mr Greenhall has expressed some disappointment about the parties finding themselves here, and I took that to be disappointment being expressed on your behalf, certainly on the employer's behalf, by Mr Greenhall, that there had been in effect an acceleration through the disputes procedure and that there should have been more opportunity for discussion. That's how I understood Mr Greenhall's comment.

PN127

But Mr Davis has just said - and I think this is the bit that you didn't hear - that he is disappointed to hear that because he had spoken to you or other officials, I'm sure he said you, the transcript will show what he said, and then he had waited for three weeks. He told you that he was then going to institute proceedings, pursuant to the disputes procedure. He waited a week and then he did that.

PN128

Is that right, Mr Davis?

PN129

MR DAVIS: Yes, that's right.

PN130

MR DAMGAARD: I don't agree with that. It's correct Mr Davis and I, we discussed the long service leave and clearly, that's my ..... that it was the Long Service Leave Act didn't apply and then I was very surprised to - the 19th, to receive a fax which Mr Davis had not actually told me that he would lodge it with the Commission. That's why Tim, on my behalf, was expressing his disappointment that we are here today and I think Mr Davis should have consulted me before he lodged it with the Commission.

PN131

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN132

MR GREENHALL: Can I come in on that too, Commissioner?

PN133

THE COMMISSIONER: Well just a moment. We are going to conduct this proceeding in a slightly odd way ..... comment about everything but I'm going to refresh my memory because I looked it up a few minutes ago, the disputes procedure. Because it's clear the dispute procedures have to operate in a fluid sort of a way normally. But it steps up through the various stages of engagement in a way that's quite normal.

PN134

MR GREENHALL: So Commissioner it might help if I say technically I can't have any objection. I don't have any objection to what Mr Davis has invoked under clause 8.5. Technically he is within his rights, I'll concede that. But I will say that in the context of the memorandum of agreement - which is not certified so clause 8 is paramount.

PN135

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN136

MR GREENHALL: It overrides - - -

PN137

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN138

MR GREENHALL: In a situation like this it does anyway.

PN139

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN140

MR GREENHALL: But the additional comment I wanted to make, we have no technical objection to the lodging of the procedure in the sense that it is within power, within what clause 8.5 contemplates. But the memorandum of agreement does talk about:

PN141

If a dispute arises concerning application or operation of this memorandum of agreement -

PN142

and this is that, because of course we have enhanced redundancy benefits, which this accrued long service leave claim should not be seen in isolation of the redundancy package that the company has put on the table as paying, and has been ..... this binding agreement.

PN143

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN144

MR GREENHALL: But the real point is the parties can negotiate in good faith to resolve that dispute. Now the reason we put that in is that there was a tremendous amount of good faith negotiations, you would expect(sic). In terms of the dollars there's so much more money hanging off this agreement than there is the claim for the long service leave that what I was going to say is in reaching this memorandum of agreement, which essentially is the redundancy package, the deal that was done, we had correspondence at every point. Even if Mr Davis and my client have different recollections of who said what, when, I'm not aware of the union having issued any correspondence saying, "This is an important issue to us. If you don't comply with our request we are going to bring the matter on to the Commission - - -

PN145

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Greenhall.

PN146

MR GREENHALL: That's a letter I have not ever seen.

PN147

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thanks, Mr Greenhall. Now I want Mr Davis to have the floor. You go on, Mr Davis.

PN148

MR DAVIS: Yes. If it's germane to make this on another occasion because I don't have them with me, I will table the emails that were sent to Mr Damgaard on at least three occasions asking him whether he had sought advice on the long service leave issue, pursuant to both the memorandum of agreement and the certified agreement. I raised this issue with him on at least half a dozen occasions and if Mr Damgaard didn't understand me when I said that I would be initiating proceedings, then I'm not quite sure how I mis-communicated that. Because I remember - - -

PN149

MR GREENHALL: Do the letters refer to that?

PN150

MR DAVIS: Sorry? Yes, they do.

PN151

MR GREENHALL: In the emails do they say you would be issuing in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission?

PN152

MR DAVIS: I thin they did. I'm not sure. I'm not certain. However- - -

PN153

THE COMMISSIONER: We are going to conduct this properly. I must not have made myself clear and I'm becoming disappointed. I want Mr Davis to make his opening submission and that's what we are going to do.

PN154

Go on, Mr Davis.

PN155

MR DAVIS: However, I'm quite happy to acknowledge that other than this disagreement of opinion about the application of the long service leave in the event of redundancy, I think all parties have negotiated in good faith. I think that given the stressful nature of the closure, things have gone quite well. We came to the memorandum of agreement reasonably easily. There were a number of meetings to put it together. There were raised voices on a couple of occasions, nothing more than that. No threatened industrial action at all.

PN156

I thought until I got here today that the parties had conducted themselves, all parties particularly Mr Damgaard who is ultimately the meat in the sandwich, had conducted themselves quite well. None of which changes the fact that I disagree with Mr Greenhall's construction of the redundancy - - -

PN157

THE COMMISSIONER: Fine. Fine.

PN158

MR DAVIS: - - - agreement.

PN159

THE COMMISSIONER: Fine. Can I put this to you, Mr Davis and Mr Greenhall.

PN160

MR DAVIS: Yes.

PN161

THE COMMISSIONER: That if there's any useful purpose for further discussions, I would have thought not via Thomas Eddison's invention but with all the people together, then clearly - whether the grievance technically requires it or it just enables you to ask them to come on and quite obviously it doesn't; it allows people to come in at any stage of those steps - but putting all that stuff to one side, if there's any useful purpose in there being further discussions then that should happen.

PN162

The dispute itself, which I now have some reasonably firm grasp, won't go away in the sense it won't evaporate. It will be there so there's no attempt to obfuscate or delay for delay's purpose. Mr Greenhall and I think Mr Damgaard do express some disappointment about that and to the extent that I'm interested in that, it is because it might be dysfunctional to there being an agreement.

PN163

If the most effective way for this issue to be grappled with is by you guys meeting further, then that's what should happen. But that's not an attempt to delay it. I'm happy to call it on again. I'm happy to do it down there. I'm happy to send you guys down there. It doesn’t really matter.

PN164

Let me ask you, Mr Damgaard, when are you available to have a further discussion, a pretty focussed discussion one expects, with Mr Davis on this?

PN165

MR DAMGAARD: I'm prepared to have further discussions with this but it's not going to - the point is we haven't revised is that the long service statement has never changed. But I think we need, as Mr Greenhall said, this area was - the agreement was made in good faith and I think looking at the text in the agreement it's quite clear that it's - I think it's - I'm disappointed that Mr Ben Davis did keep - pursued this that far because we have been stretching very far, even we are paying people in lieu up to 31 December, even if we are closing down a bit before for the production. Still he is - yes, that he is not really supporting us in this but trying to fight against us.

PN166

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. How many employees are there involved, Mr Damgaard?

PN167

MR DAMGAARD: A hundred and thirty.

PN168

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well it might be easier I think to go to conference now so I'm going to go off the record.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.32AM]
<RESUMED [10.42AM]

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: We are now on the record. There has been a conference and I think it's useful to set out the parties' views. Essentially I'm going to adjourn the matter to a date to be fixed, subject only that Mr Davis asked for it to come back on. I do understand that time is pressing and it will be necessary for the parties to acknowledge that by having their meeting reasonably quickly and giving Mr Davis an opportunity then, if he wants to, to give effect to their application pursuant to the disputes procedure.

PN170

I will now adjourn to a date to be fixed.

<ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [10.42AM]