AG2011/12522, Transcript of Proceedings [2011] FWATrans 1526 (30 December 2011)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Fair Work Act 2009 65275-1

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

AG2011/12522

s.217 - Application to vary an agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty

Mermaid Marine Vessel Operations Pty Ltd
and
Maritime Union of Australia, The
(AG2011/12522)
Mermaid Marine Vessel Operations Pty Ltd Integrated Ratings, Cooks, Caterers and Seafarers (Offshore Oil and Gas) Enterprise Agreement 2010

(ODN AG2010/11717)
[AE879860 Print PR500382]




Perth

10.04AM, TUESDAY, 20 DECEMBER 2011

Continued from 19/12/2011

PN703

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Blackburn.

PN704

MR BLACKBURN: Good morning, Commissioner. I call Mr Geoff Bull.

PN705

THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.

PN706

MR BULL: Geoffrey Edward Bull, (address supplied).

<GEOFFREY EDWARD BULL, AFFIRMED [10.05AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR BLACKBURN [10.05AM]

PN707

MR BLACKBURN: Mr Bull, it's John Blackburn here. Do you have a copy of your statement with you?---I do.

PN708

Is it a two-page statement comprising 12 paragraphs, signed by you on the second page above the date which - is that 18 December or 15 December?---The 15th, yes. I do have that, yes. It's two pages, 12 paragraphs.

PN709

Is that statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?---It is.

PN710

Commissioner, I tender the statement of Geoffrey Bull.

PN711

THE COMMISSIONER: That's contained in a document we've yet to mark as an exhibit. That being the case, let's mark the file which is headed Applicant's Witness Statements in Reply, which includes the statement of Mr Bull, Mr Llewellyn and Ms Vivian, as exhibit A11.

EXHIBIT #A11 FILE HEADED "APPLICANT'S WITNESS STATEMENTS IN REPLY", INCLUDING STATEMENTS OF MR BULL, MR LLEWELLYN AND MS VIVIAN

PN712

MR BLACKBURN: Mr Bull, do you also have with you a copy of a document titled - if I could hand this up, please - Company Pty Ltd Integrated Ratings of Cooks, Caterers and Seafarers, Offshore Oil and Gas Enterprise Agreement 2010 Explanatory Table?---I do.

PN713

It's a four-page document?---Yes.

PN714

Can you tell the commission what this document is?---Well, for the purpose of the Fair Work Act there was a requirement to advise all the employees who were about to vote for or against the proposed enterprise agreement what the changes were. So on behalf of the employees in the industry I drafted up an explanatory table to include the salient changes to the agreements, whether they be benefits or detriments, so that the workers would have before them a complete understanding of what we were voting up or not voting up. If I drafted that up, it may have been changed slightly since I had originally drafted it, I'm not sure. But I do recall drafting that explanatory table.

**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XN MR BLACKBURN
PN715

What then happened to it after you drafted it, as far as you're aware?---I sent it out to all the vessel operators, so they could it in their agreement voting process where you would have to provide a notice of the changes - 21 days to consider it and so forth.

PN716

Was it also provided to the MUA?---I can't recall exactly whether I personally provided it to the MUA but I certainly know that it's certainly not a confidential document and had they asked for it or - I'm sure they would have been aware of it. I would have heard - I never heard any issue being taken with it so I would confidently assume that the MUA would have seen a copy of it.

PN717

Mr Bull, was there any costings done in the 2010 negotiations in relation to any proposal to increase manning?---In the initial claims by the MUA which were proposed on an industry basis there was about 194 claims. Amongst those claims there were a number of issues that related to manning increases. The costing in respect of those was never done because at the end of the day there was never any agreement in respect to increasing the manning. The only costing that I'm aware of that was ever done to any great degree was those costs that result from the increases that are explained in the explanatory table. There's the wage increases, the increase to the PAB, increase in respect of a swing-off day, and the increase in respect of late crew change. The manning claims that were originally made were never made with any force or debated to any degree.

PN718

Thank you, Mr Bull. I've nothing further, thank you, Commissioner.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDMONDS [10.09AM]

PN719

MR EDMONDS: Good afternoon, Mr Bull. I think it's afternoon over there, isn't it?---It is indeed.

PN720
**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS

I might just take you through some parts of your statement. You're currently employed by AMMA - - -?---That's correct.

PN721

- - - in Sydney as the director of workplace relations?---That's right. Workplace police, the proper title is, but yes.

PN722

That's a relatively senior position over there?---It is, yes.

PN723

You've been with AMMA now for about five years?---That's correct.

PN724

So you started with AMMA around 2006. Is that correct?---It's five years ago, yes.

PN725

Prior to that you were with the WA Chamber of Commerce Industry for about 15 years?---That's correct.

PN726

Can you explain very briefly the position that you held at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry?---Prior to leaving there I was the managing director of CCI Legal and Migration Services. Prior to that I had a number of varying roles as an IR consultant of working policy.

PN727

So for about the last 20 years you've been involved in IR consultancy involved in issues around bargaining, drafting of agreements, those sorts of things?---That's correct.

PN728

There's probably few people in the industry with as much experience as you. Is that correct?---I'm not sure what industry you're referring to.

PN729

Industrial relations type industry?---I'm sure there's plenty around.

PN730
**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS

You're certainly one of the more senior people in Mines and Metals. Would that be correct?---In Mines and Metals, that's correct, yes.

PN731

Mines and Metals is one of Australia's premier organisations for assisting companies with industrial relations?---We are the national employer association for the resources industry, yes.

PN732

So it's a very significant position to be one of the more experienced people in that organisation, isn't it?---You could say that.

PN733

I do say that, Mr Bull. As part of your responsibilities as the director of workplace policy, you're assisting Mines and Metals Association members with their agreement in the offshore oil and gas industry?---Yes.

PN734

That was in or about 2008 that those negotiations commenced?---That's right.

PN735

How many people were you acting for as the bargaining representative? How many companies, I mean?---I'm not aware of not acting for any of our members. All our members gave us, in the initial stages, authority to be their bargaining representative. So I'm not sure how many that is. It might be about nine or 10, or eight or nine.

PN736

Right?---Companies come in and out of the industry.

PN737

So a reasonably significant number?---Yes.

PN738

At the time at you were representing them, did you act for each company individually in terms of discussions with the MUA. Did you have a separate meeting for each company?---I did, but not all of the companies because the MUA didn't get around to negotiate with all of the companies individually but Go Offshore, Offshore Marine, Total Marine Services, Mermaid Marine I certainly did individually when the industry negotiations broke up.

**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS
PN739

But in terms of the industry negotiations, you were acting for everybody. Is that correct?---That's right.

PN740

And an agreement was produced and indeed exhibit I think it was A12 represents I suppose the industry agreement, doesn't it?---I don't know what A12 is, sorry.

PN741

Sorry, is that the explanatory table? Was that A12? Sorry, I'm not sure if that was marked.

PN742

MR BLACKBURN: I'm sorry, Commissioner, I intended to tender it. It was the very last document.

PN743

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, now you've got me with the numbering. Just a moment, Mr Bull, we'll just clarify the documentation here in Perth. So, Mr Blackburn, you want to tender the document that Mr Bull identified, which is headed Company Pty Ltd Integrated Ratings, Cooks, Caterers and Seafarers Offshore Oil and Gas Enterprise Agreement 2010 Explanatory Table, and we'll mark that as exhibit A12.

EXHIBIT #A12 DOCUMENT HEADED "COMPANY PTY LTD INTEGRATED RATINGS, COOKS, CATERERS AND SEAFARERS OFFSHORE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT"

PN744

MR BLACKBURN: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN745

THE COMMISSIONER: Does that help you, Mr Edmonds?

PN746

MR EDMONDS: It sure does.

PN747

Have you got that document in front of you, Mr Bull?---Yes, I do.

**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS
PN748

That's now exhibit A12?---Right.

PN749

That document I suppose represents the agreed position of the industry. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN750

And those - - -?---I'm sorry, let me just rephrase it this way: what happened was there was industry negotiations. The document that you have in front of you was the final settlement for the first individual company to reach an agreement, being Total Marine Services. Then after I'd met them I think, with the vessel operators, the industry in general agreed that they would adopt the same position and the MUA accepted that same position as the rest of the operators.

PN751

So as far as Mermaid Marine goes, they simply adopted the agreement that had been reached with Total Marine Services?---That's my understanding, yes.

PN752

Right?---Despite having, you know, previously been involved in individual negotiations.

PN753

So essentially what was agreed with Total Marine became the industry standard for want of a better phrase?---In terms of what's in the explanatory table, that's correct.

PN754

You said in relation to this explanatory table the purpose of it was to advise what changes had been made - - -?---Yes.

PN755

- - - so that workers could understand what they were voting for?---That's correct.

PN756

Did that reflect all the changes that were made to the documents or just some of them?---Well, it may not have reflected some typographical changes or other miscellaneous insignificant changes but that was the substantial changes.

**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS
PN757

Right?---Otherwise you might have a much longer document.

PN758

So it's just some of the changes, it's not all of the changes in here?---The changes that would make a difference to employees in terms of either remuneration or any other benefit that they may receive.

PN759

Did employees also get a copy of the agreement, the proposed agreement, when they were voting?---It was my understanding it was either given to them personally or it was put on the noticeboard or sent out to a vessel, and to their home address but, yes.

PN760

So they were given access to a copy of the proposed agreement?---Yes.

PN761

This explanatory table though was not prepared with the MUA's assistance?---No.

PN762

Because the voting process is a process that's run by the company, isn't that true? The approval process is run by the company, not by - - -?---By the employer, that's right, yes.

PN763

So the employer prepares this document, sends it out with a copy of the proposed agreement. Are you aware if the MUA held separate discussions with their members in relation to the proposed agreement?---There was at one stage a meeting - I'm not sure what the date is - but early in February I think it was for the union to be given time to meet with their members, but I'm not sure that that actually ever eventuated.

PN764

So you're not aware whether any particular meetings occurred between the MUA and its membership in relation to this proposed agreement?---No.

PN765
**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS

And you don't know whether the MUA were provided with a copy of this explanatory table?---I can't say that as a matter of fact, no.

PN766

Right?---But I would dare say that as every employee would have been given a copy, that the MUA would have found a copy.

PN767

Sure?---It would have found its way to the MUA. We would have been contacted if there was something in there they disagreed with.

PN768

You say in your evidence that in your involvement in the negotiations involving TMS and the other operators, the MUA did not at any stage ask the definition of "support vessel" be changed. Is that correct?---That's correct.

PN769

You also say there was no discussion about changing the approach to manning, compared with the previous 2006 to 2009 agreement?---That's right.

PN770

And the other then existing industrial agreements applying to other operators. So there was no discussions about increasing manning?---No, that's not it. What I meant was - it's not clear - changing the approach to manning; that is, changing the manning based on the function of the vessel as opposed to the capability of a vessel. There was certainly claims in respect to increasing manning. I think claim number 153 of their 194 log of claims had a general increase on supply vessels to have four IRs and there was a general one for every vessel to have an increase by one IR. There was an increase in benchmark catering argued for. There was an increase in manning for (indistinct) changes. There was a whole host of manning claims but there was no claim based on the concept or approach to manning being based on function as opposed to capability of a vessel.

PN771

Sorry, was the claim for the supply vessels, was that that it be increased to four IRs or was it that it be increased to five IRs?---No, the original log of claims I'm sure I remember distinctly said supply vessels to have four IRs or three IRs and a cook.

**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS
PN772

Right?---Because, as you'd appreciate, there was no requirement at all for IRs on supply vessels.

PN773

How are supply vessels crewed at the moment, are you aware of that?---I'm not personally across that, other than that I've always been told that it depends on the function of the vessel and the individual requirements of that vessel.

PN774

But there was certainly a claim for increased manning on supply vessels in particular and on other vessels more generally?---Yes.

PN775

There was also a claim to move seismic supply/support, FPSO off-take supply/support and support vessels away from schedule 2. Was that into schedule 1, was it?---No, I don't think that's quite right. I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

PN776

I'm just looking at the last paragraph of your witness statement?---Yes.

PN777

If those vessels were to be taken away from the heading Schedule 2, where was the proposal to move them to?---Okay. What happens under the current agreement - - -

PN778

Yes?---I'm sorry, let me retract that. In the previous agreement there was no such title of a vessel, Seismic Support or Supply, or FPSO Off-Take Supply or Support. So there was simply no recognition of those vessels in the agreement, despite the fact that they were actually recognised in the AMAU or AIMPI Agreements, and they were in schedule 2 of those agreements. So the vessel operators said, "Look, we have these vessels. There is no recognition of them in the agreement. They should go into schedule 2." So we put them in there and then I had a joint phone call from Chris Cain and Will Tracey saying those classifications or those vessels should go into schedule 1. I wasn't 100 per cent across it at that time and I got back to the vessel operators and they said, "No, we're only putting them into the agreement because they're not in the agreement currently and the current manning is as per schedule 2; that is, manning depends on what type of work and what is required but there's no minimum manning on the support vessels." So they weren't moved from one schedule to another. They weren't in the agreement at all. They were just put in there to cover a gap.

**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS
PN779

So the claim made by Mr Tracey and Mr Cain was to move them into schedule 1?---That's correct.

PN780

The implications of which would have been that each of those vessels would have required five IRs?---That's right.

PN781

Did you attend every bargaining meeting between the Maritime Union of Australia and Total Marine Services?---No.

PN782

And some of those bargaining meetings were conducted by Mr Llewellyn with the MUA directly?---Yes.

PN783

Without your involvement?---Certainly.

PN784

Out of that process came the new definition of "support vessel"?---Yes, independently Mr Llewellyn, I subsequently found out, had made a number of changes to his agreement to reflect what he thought were things that needed to be fixed up. One of those was the definition of "support vessel", which in his view didn't read correctly because of the way it was worded it meant that no vessel could meet that definition. So he unilaterally decided to make the changes so it would make some sense and have some function.

PN785

So that - - -?---I had no part in that at all. I don't understand that the MUA had any part in it either but I may be wrong.

PN786

Presumably those discussions were had with the MUA directly?---I'm not sure there were discussions. I think he might have unilaterally, independently, just made those changes himself. That's what he told me.

PN787
**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS

So he didn't run them past anyone?---No.

PN788

And you just picked up his agreement and sent it out to everyone else in the industry and said, "Well, I think this is tickety-boo. I think everyone should pick this up"?---No, I didn't say that. What happened was, around that time I got this job here in Sydney and I was handing the work over to a colleague of mine, Mark Wakelin, and there was some meetings later up at the Mermaid Marine office where there was a committee group that went through the fine detail of the changes to the standard template agreement. The only involvement I had really was the substantial matters which are in the explanatory table; that is, the 30 per cent pay rise, the (indistinct) increased to $215 and the swing-off changes and crew shift changes, (indistinct) crew changes. In terms of the wording of the support vessel, I never - it was actually never brought to my attention to any degree at all so I haven't noticed it and had no input into it.

PN789

So you didn't have any discussions with Michael Llewellyn about those changes?
---No, he made the changes and advised me why he'd made the changes and I accepted that he was the expert in the area, knew what he was doing.

PN790

You didn't feel the need to check the wording of that particular clause yourself?
---No, I didn't check the wording.

PN791

You say he was the expert - - -?---What I do say is that there was a committee meeting which Will Tracey was a member of, and Treena Vivian. I'm pretty sure Michael Llewellyn, when he was not ill, was attending. (indistinct) Carmel and Mark Wakelin from our office was certainly in attendance, and there might have been some other people.

PN792

Were you there?---No, I never attended. No, I didn't attend because I was handing over to Mr Wakelin.

**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS
PN793

If you can just try and confine your evidence to the things that you know, the meetings that - - -?---Well, I do know that.

PN794

- - - you were present at?---Yes.

PN795

But you weren't there?---No.

PN796

So this change to support vessel was drafted by Mike Llewellyn?---That's correct.

PN797

Not by you?---No.

PN798

It came about through negotiations between Mike Llewellyn and the MUA?---I'm not sure whether it came about through negotiations with Mike Llewellyn and the MUA.

PN799

But it formed part of the template agreement that was agreed between TMS and the MUA?---That's right.

PN800

Which then became the template for the industry, didn't it?---Yes.

PN801

You didn't include it in the explanatory table that you sent out though, did you?
---No. I wasn't aware of it at the time.

PN802

So when did you do the explanatory table?---It would have been in early February, I would have thought I would have started drafting that up. Then I think it was finalised by Mr Wakelin, I think, at the end of the day.

PN803

It's got a date on it at the bottom, 3 May 2010?---Yes.

PN804
**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS

So you didn't become aware of the changes to the definition of "support vessel" until after 3 May 2010?---I couldn't tell you. 3 May - I mean, this would have come out in a number of versions or drafts. This one you have there dated 3 May was probably the final one. But at that stage I was well and truly - I was in Sydney and had nothing to do with the industry - not that I didn't have anything to do with it but I wasn't involved in the process.

PN805

So you don't know if this was the final document that was sent out to employers then?---My records say this is the final copy because it was sent to me by Mr Wakelin.

PN806

But you didn't provide it to the employees to say this is the final copy you need to send out. This was prepared by Mr Wakelin?---The very final one - see, what happened was is that the various vessel operators went through the voting process at different stages. So at one stage I would have given a copy to company A and at the end of the day Mark Wakelin may have given a copy to company Z.

PN807

So is this the explanatory table that you kicked off?---Yes, that's correct.

PN808

Was it the same explanatory table that got sent out every time?---My understanding is it's the same one but I can't guarantee that some things did change but I can't imagine what would have changed.

PN809

So you really don't know what was the final document sent out?---Well, this document here is the last one that was sent out on 30 May. What would have been sent out earlier is if someone who might have voted a little bit earlier or needed to have the information earlier on. It would have depended on what company received the document.

PN810

You didn't become aware of the change to the definition of "support vessel" until these had already been sent out. Is that correct?---That's correct, yes.

**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS
PN811

Okay?---Other people may have known about it but I certainly didn't.

PN812

Did you check the document that Michael Llewellyn prepared?---No.

PN813

You just trusted him to prepare it?---I didn't have a role in him and his organisation in preparing the agreement for his own workforce. I wasn't involved in it. I didn't get the opportunity to check it and I didn't check it.

PN814

So it's only after the fact, after this has gone out, that you ask Michael Llewellyn why he changed the definition of "support vessel"?---That's correct, yes.

PN815

When do you think you became aware of the change to the definition of "support vessel"?---Well and truly after the event.

PN816

When after the event?---I think when it became an issue as to what it actually meant.

PN817

When did it become an issue as to what it actually meant?---I would have thought in the last, say, six months ago.

PN818

So you only became aware from your discussions with Michael Llewellyn of the purpose of those changes in about the last six months?---That's correct, yes.

PN819

Which is, what, about June this year?---Yes, that would be six months ago - whenever it became an issue. I was asked about it and I didn't even realise there had been a change. Mr Llewellyn provided the explanation as to - he changed it himself because he went back and checked his records.

PN820

So not at that time but in June 2011 you became aware of the changes to the definition of "support vessel"?---Mike made numerous changes to his agreement in his mind to improve the reading of it and I never questioned any of it.

**** GEOFFREY EDWIN BULL XXN MR EDMONDS
PN821

And Mike Llewellyn is pretty experienced, isn't he?---My understanding is he's very experienced, yes.

PN822

He certainly knows what he's doing when he's drafting changes to these agreements?---Well, I know he's very experienced but I wouldn't say he knows what he'd doing when he's drafting these changes to documents.

PN823

The only time you really became aware of this was in June 2011. So between when this agreement was finally settled in, what was it, February 2010 and June 2011, you're not really sure what happened between then?---No, I was - - -

PN824

That didn't involve you. That was Mr Wakelin, Mr Llewellyn and others?
---That's correct. Yes, that's correct.

PN825

Right?---All I can say, as I've said in my evidence-in-chief, I wasn't involved in any discussions about increasing manning where the employees of an industry or individually made any agreement to increase manning.

PN826

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

PN827

THE COMMISSIONER: Any re-examination, Mr Blackburn?

PN828

MR BLACKBURN: No, thank you, Commissioner.

PN829

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you for your evidence, Mr Bull. You're discharged and we're going to hang up on you?---Thank you, Commissioner.

PN830

Good bye.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.31AM]

PN831

MR BLACKBURN: I call Ms Treena Vivian.

PN832

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN833

THE ASSOCIATE: Could you please state your full name and address.

PN834

MS VIVIAN: Treena Jennifer Vivian, (address supplied).

<TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN, SWORN [10.32AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR BLACKBURN [10.32AM]

PN835

MR BLACKBURN: Good morning, Ms Vivian?---Good morning.

PN836

Do you have a copy - I will hand you a copy of your witness statement. This two-page document, nine paragraphs, is this your witness statement?---Yes, it is.

PN837

Is it true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?---Yes.

PN838

Commissioner, I think that's been tendered as part of - - -

PN839

THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit A11.

PN840

MR BLACKBURN: Thank you, yes. If the witness can be shown exhibits A9 and A10, please.

PN841

Ms Vivian, are you familiar with these documents?---Yes.

PN842

Can you advise the commission what they are and what use, if any, was made of them. Start with - - -?---A9?

PN843

Whichever one?---A9 was the heads of agreement that was drafted up once we came to an agreement on the main issues, the changes of the EBA.

PN844

When you say it was drafted up, who drafted it, who provided it?---The draft was provided by AMMA, if I recall, to each of the companies. The name of the company was just altered on each of it. That was the same for everybody.

PN845

And the other document?---The other document was later on, I believe, and it highlighted the changes to the EBA to make it easier for both the employers and the employees to understand what was actually changed in the EBA.

**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XN MR BLACKBURN
PN846

And where did this document come from?---I believe that came from AMMA as well.

PN847

What did you do with it once you got it?---We went through it to make sure it was correct and then, from what I recall, it was attached to the main EBA when it was sent out to the crew for voting.

PN848

Thank you. I've nothing further, thank you, Commissioner.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDMONDS [10.35AM]

PN849

MR EDMONDS: So you're currently employed by Tidewater as their human resources manager?---Yes.

PN850

You've been in that position since 28 July 2011?---Yes.

PN851

Prior to that, you were the general manager of human resources at Mermaids from 23 August 2004 to 31 January 2011?---Correct.

PN852

Did you work for anyone between 31 January 2011 and 28 July 2011?---No.

PN853

As part of your role at Mermaids you were involved in discussions with the Maritime Union of Australia for a new enterprise agreement - - -?---Yes.

PN854

- - - to apply in the offshore oil and gas industry. Initially those discussions occurred on an industry basis. Is that correct?---That's right.

PN855

And they were led by Geoff Bull from AMMA?---Yes.

PN856

You were involved in the committee that was part of those discussions?---When you say "committee" - - -

**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS
PN857

Committee of employers?---Yes.

PN858

Was there a committee of some sort?---It was just representatives from each company, yes.

PN859

So you were there?---Yes.

PN860

Michael Llewellyn was there?---Yes.

PN861

Geoff Bull was there?---Yes.

PN862

Other company representatives there?---Yes.

PN863

How many people would you say were there? 10, 12?---Yes, 10, 12.

PN864

So the discussions started off on an industry-wide basis?---Correct.

PN865

Geoff Bull representing the companies, Will Tracey and Mr Cain representing the companies?---Correct.

PN866

You attended those negotiation meetings on an industry basis - - -?---Yes.

PN867

- - - with the MUA?---Yes.

PN868

So was all 10 or 12 of you there or just you, Mr Bull and the MUA?---The industry?

PN869

Yes?---No, it was all of the operators.

PN870
**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS

And those initial claims - we've heard evidence today there was some 150-odd claims. Was that right?

PN871

MR BLACKBURN: 194.

PN872

MR EDMONDS: 194 claims initially?---Yes, I think - - -

PN873

Something like that?--- - - - originally it was more than that.

PN874

So a big long shopping list of claims?---Yes.

PN875

Included in those claims was claims for increased manning on vessels?---Yes.

PN876

Including a claim that all vessels performing supply work should be manned with at least five integrated ratings?---I don't remember the specifics of that, no, but it could have been. It was a long time ago.

PN877

Because you say in your evidence that, "The MUA claim that all vessels performing supply work should be manned with at least five integrated ratings." So now you're saying you don't recall that being the case?---I thought that was in discussions with the MUA. I don't - - -

PN878

So that was afterwards, was it?---Yes.

PN879

So that was on an industry - sorry, that was on an individual basis?---Enterprise.

PN880

Okay. I apologise?---But I don't think it was in the enterprise claim.

PN881

So it wasn't in the initial 194 claims?---It could have been.

PN882
**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS

Right?---I can't remember.

PN883

So as those discussions narrowed down and the discussions were had with Mermaid individually, they said, "We want five IRs on all vessels performing supply work"?---It was a verbal claim. I don't believe that it was in the written claims for Mermaid.

PN884

But you're quite clear that that claim was made?---It was discussed, yes.

PN885

Was Mr Bull there when those discussions occurred?---He was at some of the meetings but I can't recall which ones.

PN886

You say you didn't agree to it. Are you aware if those discussions occurred with other companies as well?---I wasn't at any of the other meetings with the other companies.

PN887

Did you discuss the negotiations with the other companies?---Yes, I don't remember specifically discussing that one as a big issue. It has come up before.

PN888

But certainly it would be true to say that the MUA were seeking to have a common agreement apply to all employees in the industry?---Yes.

PN889

So it's likely that if the claim was made against, the claim is made against everybody?---I can assume so.

PN890

When that was rejected, you would assume that there would be a common position for all the employees in the industry?---I assume so. I think the question was asked as to which operators manned their supply vessels with five or more and which operators had less, depending on work scope.

PN891
**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS

Ultimately the MUA settled with Total Marine Services first. Is that correct?---I think so.

PN892

And then that settled agreement was then passed on to everybody?---Yes.

PN893

Was that passed on by Mr Llewellyn or by Mr Bull?---Mr Bull.

PN894

So he said, "Total Marine have settled an agreement. Everyone else needs to pick this up"?---He didn't say we had to.

PN895

No, but he says, "This is a settled agreement. You can pick this up if you want. The MUA will cop this"?---Yes.

PN896

So Mermaid has agreed to pick it up on that basis?---Yes.

PN897

So you agreed to accept all the changes that had been made by Total Marine in order to get a settlement?---The original - it wasn't me who accepted it. It was Jeff Weber.

PN898

Right?---Discussion was had with him.

PN899

So Jeff said to you, "We're going to pick up the Total Marine agreement"?---Yes.

PN900

Do you know if Jeff Weber spoke to Mr Bull or did he speak to Mr Llewellyn? Do you know who Jeff Weber spoke to about that?---To be honest, Jeff and Dave Ross because it happened over a weekend apparently, and I think they may have spoken to Glenn Trigg, not Mike, from what I recall.

PN901

Glenn Trigg is the - - -?---He was the - - -

PN902
**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS

- - - general manager of Total Marine?---The MD, yes.

PN903

And Dave Weber is?---Dave Ross, the COO of Mermaid.

PN904

And Jeff Weber is the?---CEO/MD and Dave Ross is COO, chief operating officer.

PN905

So they speak to Glenn Triggs?---Yes.

PN906

Glenn Triggs says, "This is the agreement we've signed off on. I've spoken to Mr Llewellyn. I think it's pretty good. We think you should pick it up too." So on that basis you were instructed to pick up the - - -?---Yes, I think there was a lot of discussion and then we were sent a document by AMMA, if I recall, by email.

PN907

That document was a copy of the Total Marine agreement or that copy was the Total Marine agreement with the words "Total Marine" taken out and "Mermaid Marine" put in?---Straight after I - I think it might have been the heads of agreement we received well and truly before the actual document.

PN908

The heads of agreement is exhibit A9?---Yes.

PN909

So that was prepared by AMMA and sent to you on the basis that this represented the agreement between Total Marine?---From what I recall, yes.

PN910

So in terms of how you reached an agreement with the MUA, it was almost an agreement by proxy, wasn't it? The agreement that was reached between Total Marine and the MUA then became the agreement that you just accepted?---Yes, but meanwhile all the issues that we had discussed in enterprise discussions with the - because there were many, many meetings we had with Will Tracey, we had pretty much covered every claim that was in there and we were almost ready to settle. It was only basically wages that was left.

**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS
PN911

Then you took the Total Marine agreement and made changes to it or did you just accept it as it was?---From what I can recall, we received it from AMMA. I went through it, it matched, from what I recall, the heads of agreement, and the main issues.

PN912

Yes?---I had to change a few little things in there because we had a dry-docking clause that was different from everybody else's.

PN913

So you changed the dry-docking clause?---Yes, I put ours in, the Mermaid one, because we had a slipway; we're the only company that did. So the dry-docking clause that was in the other agreement didn't apply to us but there was a drafting committee set up.

PN914

Who was on the drafting committee?---Myself, Will, Mike Llewellyn, Brad George.

PN915

So AMMA didn't send you a settled agreement. AMMA sent you a heads of agreement?---Yes.

PN916

And then everyone said, "Well, we'll cop that. Let's sit down and draft - - -"?
---Yes, draft the agreement.

PN917

So you were actually involved in the drafting then?---Yes.

PN918

You were involved in the preparation of the definitions?---There were a couple of meetings I missed that Nikki Carter stepped in on my behalf.

PN919

So she was involved in drafting the definitions then?---No, I don't believe she was with the definitions specifically. I can't remember. I know I was on the drafting committee and I think the first meeting we had was at Mermaid's office.

**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS
PN920

When was the first meeting of the drafting committee?---I can't recall exactly. Like - - -

PN921

Right?---But I believe it was in Mermaid's boardroom.

PN922

Was it after you'd settled on the agreed heads of agreement?---Yes, I believe it was.

PN923

But it would have to be before - - -?---Before the final document was - - -

PN924

Before the final document was put out to the workers?---Yes.

PN925

Which was in June-July?---Yes.

PN926

So it was sometime between when it was settled around the end of February and in June the agreement itself was drafted?---Yes, and there were a few meetings with the drafting committee to go through as many clauses as possible.

PN927

The changes that were made were looked over by yourself, Mike Llewellyn, Mr Tracey on behalf of the MUA. Was Geoff Bull involved in that drafting committee as well?---I can't remember.

PN928

Mark Wakelin?---Yes, Mark was.

PN929

So Geoff Bull probably wouldn't have been there. Mark was there on behalf of AMMA?---Yes.

PN930

Right?---He took over from - - -

PN931
**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS

From Geoff?---Yes.

PN932

Yes?---Towards the end.

PN933

But you were happy to agree to whatever agreements had been reached?---In the heads of agreement.

PN934

Sorry, not just in the heads of agreement but everything that had been accepted by TMS became things that you were prepared to accept as well?---Well, the only things that were I believe changed or accepted by Total Marine were in the heads of agreement.

PN935

Did you ask Mike Llewellyn if he'd put all the changes in here, in the heads of agreement?---I didn't, no.

PN936

Did you ensure that all the changes were inserted in the explanatory table that got sent out to the employees?---I remember checking it off.

PN937

Did you go through and do a comparison of the agreement side by side to check everything that had been changed?---No.

PN938

However, you were involved in drafting the agreement and you were quite particular and you checked everything that got drafted?---No.

PN939

So who checked everything that got drafted then?---Mark was I think in control of the document, along with Will Tracey. So the many drafts were sent backwards and forwards between them.

PN940

You say ultimately the MUA didn't pursue their claim for five integrated ratings on all supply vessels?---No, not in writing.

**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS
PN941

Is it possible the reason they didn't pursue the five integrated ratings on all supply vessels was because the definition of "supply vessel" was changed such that it would capture more vessels - sorry, the definition of "support vessel" was changed so it would capture more vessels?---Not that I recall, that discussion wasn't had. I believe the reason that they didn't pursue it is because they understood our argument that supply vessels can't have set manning because it depends on steaming time, location, how much cargo, the size of the deck. Mermaid Marine had very small vessels. Some vessels who did supply work couldn't even fit five integrating ratings on it.

PN942

But of course support vessels is a different story, isn't it?---Yes.

PN943

Support vessels can definitely fit five integrated ratings, can't they?---They can but Mermaid worked under schedule 7 a lot of the time, which covered support work, and the manning was less than five on some of those.

PN944

But as far as any vessels that fitted into schedule 1, every vessel that fitted into schedule 1 was required to have five integrated ratings, wasn't it?---Yes.

PN945

So in the end there was no pursuit of five integrated ratings on all supply vessels?
---No, they wanted that but our - - -

PN946

But they ultimately gave up on that part of their claim, didn't they?---I don't think they verbally gave up or gave in. It just went off the table.

PN947

It couldn't - - -?---Yes, it never came up again because it was never in the original claims.

PN948

So ultimately five integrated ratings on supply vessels was not pursued?---Yes.

**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS
PN949

Around the same time there was a change to the definition of "support vessel"?---I don't recall there was a change. I wasn't aware that there was a change when the drafting was done.

PN950

When did you become aware that there had been a change to the definition of "support vessel"?---Well after we got the final document and it was already lodged - registered.

PN951

Perhaps sometime in the last six months you've become aware there was a change to the definition of "support vessel"?---No, it would have been - I was still at Mermaid.

PN952

So you were still at Mermaid when you became aware there was a change in definition?---Yes.

PN953

And you left Mermaid 31 January 2011?---Yes, but I was on leave before that, from since November.

PN954

So when was the Mermaid agreement approved then?---Way back in June, July, August, was it?

PN955

June, July, August - - -?---I can't remember.

PN956

- - - of 2010?---I think so.

PN957

So shortly after it was approved you became aware there had been a change to the definition of "support vessel" - a couple of months. If you left in November, you were still at Mermaids and you would have been aware before you left?---Sorry, when you say "the definition of 'support vessel'" - - -

**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS
PN958

Yes, when did you become aware that there had been a change to the definition of "support vessel"?---Well, to be quite honest, I didn't know that there was one. I thought you were referring to the fact that there were new schedules in the agreement, FPSO support and supply.

PN959

No, not that issue. When did you become aware there had been a change to the definition of "support vessel"?---I will be honest then, I didn't realise there has been.

PN960

You must know there has been now because you're here giving evidence, or are you not aware that there's been a change to the definition of "support vessel"?
---Not specifically, no.

PN961

So you're working for Tidewater now?---Yes.

PN962

Are you aware there was a change in the definition of "support vessel" from 2006 to the 2009 agreement to the 2010 agreement? Are you aware there's been a change in the definition of "support vessel" across those two agreements?---Not that I know of.

PN963

So that was never discussed with you by anyone?---No.

PN964

You never spoke to Mr Llewellyn about it?---No.

PN965

Mr Wakelin never drew that to your attention?---Not that I recall.

PN966

You just signed off on the agreement that was finally presented to you by AMMA and said, "Yes, let's send that out"?---Yes.

PN967
**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS

And then you applied to have that approved by the tribunal?---Yes.

PN968

At the moment at Tidewater, how many AHTS vessels do Tidewater run?---Four or five.

PN969

Right?---In Australia.

PN970

Sorry?---In Australia.

PN971

How many in the offshore oil and gas industry?---Around the world?

PN972

No, in Australia?---In Australia we have - I think we have nine vessels working at the moment.

PN973

But how many of those are AHTS vessels?---I don't actually know what the class of vessel is. They do different types of work.

PN974

So you don't know how many of your vessels are designed or equipped to do anchor handling - - -?---No, not off the top of my head.

PN975

- - - tug supply?---No.

PN976

So you couldn't say with any certainty whether those vessels that you do have that are equipped for AHTS, anchor handling tug supply, are operating with five integrated ratings, four integrated ratings, three integrated ratings. You couldn't say with any certainty how many they've got at the moment?---Yes, but I could pretty much guess what they're running at.

PN977

I'm not asking you to guess. I'm asking you to say with certainty how many integrated ratings those ships that you've got which could be classified or which are designed or equipped to be anchor handling tug supply, who are involved in the offshore oil and gas industry, how many integrated ratings are they operating with at the moment?---If you want exact, no, not every single vessel.

**** TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN XXN MR EDMONDS
PN978

Right?---I know some.

PN979

I've got no further questions for this witness, sir.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACKBURN [10.54AM]

PN980

MR BLACKBURN: Ms Vivian, taking you back to the drafting committee that you were on and you mentioned that the heads of agreement came first and that the agreement was drafted later?---Yes, from what I recall.

PN981

Did the drafting committee have the heads of agreement?---Yes.

PN982

Were there any changes discussed that were not in the heads of agreement?
---Spelling errors were discussed because they pretty much wanted to clean it up because there were some bits and pieces that were incorrect in the old agreement, but it was only the main issues that were of concern mainly, and they were in the heads of agreement.

PN983

Thank you?---So things like dry-docking clauses and that were altered.

PN984

Thank you. Nothing further, thank you, Commissioner.

PN985

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you for your evidence, Ms Vivian. You can step down, thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.55AM]

PN986

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Blackburn, I think that's the end of your witnesses at this stage, except for Mr Llewellyn.

PN987

MR BLACKBURN: Yes.

PN988

THE COMMISSIONER: Unless there's anything else, that leaves us with the potential for discussion about programming for the future.

PN989

MR BLACKBURN: Yes.

PN990

MR EDMONDS: Is it - - -

PN991

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Edmonds.

PN992

MR EDMONDS: Is it perhaps worth going off the record and try to thrash that issue out?

PN993

THE COMMISSIONER: Thrash it out?

PN994

MR EDMONDS: Thrash it out, so to speak.

PN995

THE COMMISSIONER: Trust me, that won't be necessary. Yes, I'm more than happy for us just to have an informal discussion about that. Let's just adjourn this matter on the understanding that we will continue the matter at a date to be advised.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.56AM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

GEOFFREY EDWARD BULL, AFFIRMED PN707
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR BLACKBURN PN707
EXHIBIT #A11 FILE HEADED "APPLICANT'S WITNESS STATEMENTS IN REPLY", INCLUDING STATEMENTS OF MR BULL, MR LLEWELLYN AND MS VIVIAN PN712
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDMONDS PN719
EXHIBIT #A12 DOCUMENT HEADED "COMPANY PTY LTD INTEGRATED RATINGS, COOKS, CATERERS AND SEAFARERS OFFSHORE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT" PN744
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN831
TREENA JENNIFER VIVIAN, SWORN PN835
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR BLACKBURN PN835
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR EDMONDS PN849
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACKBURN PN980
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN986