C2007/2498, Transcript of Proceedings [2008] AIRCTrans 528 (10 September 2008)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 19093-1

COMMISSIONER GAY

C2007/2498

s.170LW - prereform Act - Appl’n for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)
Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union
and
Holden Ltd
(C2007/2498)

MELBOURNE

10.02AM, TUESDAY, 12 JUNE 2007

PN1

MR S SACHINIDIS: Commissioner if I may.

PN2

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sachinidis.

PN3

MR SACHINIDIS: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, the union has requested the relisting of matters which we have in relation to Holden and we thank the Commission for listing the matter today for that purpose. Now, the issues relate to several matters that have been before the Commission, namely the down time matters or the issues in connection with clause 4.3.3 of the current agreement. And also issues concerning sick leave and in particular the issue of capping. Now, as you would appreciate Mr Georgiou has dealt with the sick leave matters I understand before you previously and whilst the down time issue has been before you as well it was scheduled for previous directions.

PN4

It's fair to say that throughout the period the parties have explored propositions for seeing whether a consent position can be reached in relation to both of the applications and both of the issues and significantly I think one of the propositions from the company to resolve both the down time and the sick leave issue incorporated, if you like, was incorporated in a single proposition to resolve both of the issues. That's fair to say. Now, unfortunately or at least as I'm speaking today the parties have not been able to reach a settlement to both of the issues and therefore the significance of today really is to confirm that situation and also map out a course via directions for both of those matters to be dealt with by the Commission consistent with our agreement which requires determination.

PN5

What I would like to also note, Commissioner, is that we see both of these matters as mutually exclusive. So in that regard both of the matters need to have directions in terms of their ultimate determination. In other words they need to be separated out and I'm happy to hear what the company may think of that, but I think that would be the most prudent course to adopt because they are, in a sense, stand alone issues.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks Mr Sachinidis.

PN7

MR SACHINIDIS: Thank you.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes Mr Winnet.

PN9

MR WINNET: I agree with what Mr Sachinidis said in relation to the efforts that both the company and the union have gone to. We haven't wasted the period between our last appearance before you and now. There has been a number of different meetings at various levels in a considered attempt to try to settle the dispute, however that's been unsuccessful. I also agree with Mr Sachinidis in that the disputes are separate and so therefore the determination of the question in relation to clause 4.3.3 does need to be given a separate hearing and separate directions as does the dispute in relation to the application of clause 49. The other thing the company has done is in trying to settle the dispute is to come up with a global settlement and that's where that comes from.

PN10

So I think if there is no further issues with respect to what I've just said, I suppose we can set unfortunately down the dates for hearing and directions.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. I guess we'll talk about these things in conference. We'll go off the record now.

OFF THE RECORD
<NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RECORDED [10.07AM]