AG2012/13239, Transcript of Proceedings [2012] FWATrans 1235 (4 December 2012)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Fair Work Act 2009 1035139-1

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

AG2012/13239

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Application by Johnny Cool Darwin Pty Ltd
(AG2012/13239)





Sydney

10.07AM, THURSDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2012

THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED VIA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE AND RECORDED IN SYDNEY

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: This matter proceeds today for hearing via telephone conference. For the purposes of the record could those that are participating please identify themselves.

PN2

MS M. GALLEN: I’d like to announce myself. I’m Michaela Gallen from the Chamber of Commerce and also with me is Ms. K. HAYES from Johnny Cool.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Good thank you. Now, the purpose of the proceeding today is to advise you of certain concerns that exist in respect of this application for approval of an enterprise agreement. There’s a transcript taken of the proceeding. So that will assist in terms of being able to refer to the various concerns and issues that I raise. The usual process is that I run through these matters. Sometimes there might be an immediate explanation that can be given regarding one of the concerns and in other instances sometimes it’s necessary to consider the matter and then in due course respond.

PN4

What often happens is that after we run through the concerns and we make any clarifications that we can today, then after a period of time and some further consideration, sometimes undertakings are provided to remedy any of the concerns and if those undertakings satisfactorily address all the concerns, then the matter can be approved. So that’s the position that we’re in. I’ll run through these various issues. I’m quite happy to be interrupted. Don’t feel shy about that. If there’s something that immediately springs to mind that you want to say please just let me know. So if we just start with the application document, the form F16 and I’ll just try and run through this sequentially from the start through to the end and we’ll see to what extent we can make some progress of all of this. Now, from what I can gather we have Ms Hayes, Kylie Hayes. Is that the person that’s attending today.

PN5

MS K. HAYES: Yes, it is.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, I notice in the application there’s a John Hayes. Is that any relation to you.

PN7

MS HAYES: Yes, he’s my husband and the co-director of the company.

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: And he’s the bargaining representative?

PN9

MS HAYES: For the company?

PN10

MS GALLEN: No.

PN11

MS HAYES: No.

PN12

MS GALLEN: We have - - -

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: I beg your pardon?

PN14

MS GALLEN: Geoffrey McDonald was the employee that’s signed off on the agreement as a representative of the employees.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Well, I’m a little confused as to what Mr John Hayes’ role was but it’s probably not necessary to worry too much about that. But there were no nominated bargaining representatives from the employees if the answer to question 6.1 in the Form F16 is correct, is that right?

PN16

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, well, when we get to the agreement document I’ll raise with you a concern about some aspects of the technical nature regarding the person that’s signed off on the agreement. You’ll have to - - -

PN18

MS GALLEN: I think I can see that. In question 2.6 I think John Hayes was listed as employee representative. That should actually have been written as Geoff McDonald.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Where are you looking at?

PN20

MS GALLEN: Sorry, I’ve actually just skipped to the F17.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: You’re onto the F17 already?

PN22

MS GALLEN: Yes, sorry, apologies. I just looked at question 2.6 where it has listed that the employee representative was listed – it’s John Hayes as opposed to the correct representative which was Geoff McDonald.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, you’ve got me more confused.

PN24

MS GALLEN: Sorry, I’ll let you carry on, apologies.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, we’ll get to that in a moment. We might as well turn to the F17 which is a statutory declaration made by Ms Hayes, Kylie Hayes. When I get to the third page of the document I have great difficulty reading all the handwritten pieces that have been included there. The top bit is actually cut off. I don’t know, in the photocopy that I have I can’t – there is a piece of handwritten, there’s a couple of lines perhaps, I don’t know how many above this that are just not – I can’t read.

PN26

MS GALLEN: Yes. Can I just say at this point, Commissioner, it’s not normally the practice of the Chamber to handwrite these documents and that wasn’t Johnny Cool’s fault as I remember, at all, and we normally would have this all typed out. However, in Johnny Cool’s defence the Chamber have been going through a bit of a restructure at the minute and we have changed advisors a few times with regard to agreement application and we’d be more than willing to have it all typed and signed to you, again if that would be beneficial.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think it would.

PN28

MS GALLEN: Yes, I think it would and apologies and I agree with you that it’s hard to read the top two lines and I think it would be beneficial if we reviewed it and retyped it and resubmitted it to you perhaps.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Once you’ve got the full basket or full array of issues you can decide how you want to try and address this. I want to try and help you through and get your agreement approved.

PN30

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: But I’ve got to make sure that I discharge my statutory functions properly.

PN32

MS GALLEN: Thank you very much.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: So I’ve certainly been quite prepared to accept a further statutory declaration from individuals in order to address some of these matters. That’s certainly something that’s quite an acceptable proposition. But let’s have a look at the total array of issues and then work out where we go from there, I guess is the best way to describe it. While we’re still on this page and if we’re going to be looking at perhaps a further statutory declaration, in approved version, if I could describe it as such, this answer to question 2.7, there appears to have been one young person.

PN34

Now, this is a funny section of the Act, section 180(5). It talks about relevant employees and what I think it’s really trying to do is it identifies certain types of employees and I think it wants to make sure that those employees have been given a little bit of what you might call special treatment. By that I mean that particularly young employees who might not be familiar with the process of negotiation for an enterprise agreement, it’s the first time they’ve been doing this or something, that if necessary, they would be given an opportunity to have an older support person involved in any of this. Now, I think you’ve only got one from what I can gather.

PN35

I really think this probably only relates to people that are probably under the age of 18, rather than 21. I know the question in the document is 21. But I suppose really here what I’m trying to make sure is that if we had a person say, under the age of 18, that there was some means by which that person was told, “Look, as you’re a young employee, the Act says you’ve got to be given an opportunity to have an older person, a parent, guardian or some older person assist you in respect of this process.”

PN36

Similarly, non-English speaking background people, I don’t think you’ve identified any but fairly obviously the Act is trying to ensure that people that might be to some extent a bit disadvantaged in the process are catered for. That’s really the purpose, I think, of this particular subsection of the Act. So if you’re looking at this in a subsequent statutory declaration if some detail about the young person – if the person is between 18 and 21 most of my concerns are alleviated. If the person is under 18 I really think that there should have been some indication made to that person that if they wanted an older person to assist them, parent, guardian or otherwise that that would be made available.

PN37

MS GALLEN: We can certainly reflect that, Commissioner, and I can just notify you at this time that it was a 20 year old employee which is the son of John and Kylie Hayes, who (indistinct) since they were able to as it was inform him of the terms and conditions. However, I agree that it’s important that we should – should maybe put in there - - -

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think if you’re doing a lot of these things it just ensures that that part of the – I mean if you’ve got non-English speaking background people we usually look for something which gives a link to interpreter services or things of that nature.

PN39

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that’s what the Act is trying to do. I think if you’re telling me and you put this in another document that the one person was 20 years of age and they were the son of the proprietors of the company I’m not going to have any further concern about it frankly.

PN41

MS GALLEN: Okay.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s enough. But in the absence of that sort of information I think the legislation is trying to say members of Fair Work Australia should satisfy themselves that if there were people of this particular disadvantage that something is being done to try and address that disadvantage. I think if the person is 20 and they’re the son of the employer I don’t need to know anymore than that.

PN43

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: All right?

PN45

MS GALLEN: Thank you.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: The other thing, it’s not fatal, but the other thing that always concerns is when we get low voter turnout as I might describe it here and low numbers voting in favour. I know technically the legislation says the agreement is made when a majority of those that vote vote in favour of it. I know that. I’m always a bit concerned though when out of 19 you get less than a majority voting in favour of it.

PN47

There might be something that you can add that explains this that certain people have – were not interested in voting or something to that effect, I don’t know. But with that issue and if there were other matters as well it would potentially lead to concerns that I would have about whether it was genuinely agreed to. I know sometimes people just couldn’t care less. They just don’t participate in the process and don’t vote. If we have to at some subsequent stage get some further evidence about those voting and the voting process we may come back to that. But all I’m suggesting to you it always gives me some concern when we only get well here, seven out of a total 19 that are actually saying yes to the thing.

PN48

MS GALLEN: Yes, well, the only thing that I can say in regards to that is in the Northern Territory, technically I think a lot of employees have been there and they’ve been with Johnny Cool for a long time and it’s a very collaborative environment. And the workers there certainly have no qualms about saying what they want and they’re all very happy even before the agreement negotiation started. So in that they have a very laid back approach and “we don’t care, she’ll be right.”

PN49

They were encouraged to vote and once we have an agreement at length I think the attitude from a lot of the employees was just generally, “Well, we know what’s in it, so that’s fine, we don’t really – we don’t need to vote.” But certainly they were encouraged and that was much to the frustration of Kylie and John that a lot of them didn’t vote. But again, they exercised their right not to vote. But certainly I would say they would have no problem in coming back to us if we needed them to sign something or say that basically they were given an opportunity and they had no problem with the agreement. They just decided not to – so we can do that if that’s required, no problem.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, it’s not technically required. You’ve got a majority of those that voted and I appreciate and sympathise sometimes people just sort of have a very carefree attitude to all of this sort of thing. It’s certainly not going to be fatal to this. If we tidy everything else up it’s not going to be a matter that would stop the approval, put it that way.

PN51

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: Let’s just move on. And I have to say I recognise that your rate of pay, your hourly rate of pay exceeds the reference instrument considerably and I’ve done some calculations on that. But what I’m a little concerned about is when I turn over to question 3.6 and the answer to, “Does the agreement contain terms and conditions of employment that are less beneficial?” the answer is no. And I have to say that that is just incorrect. I mean you’ve got 56 ordinary hours at one point in this. You’ve got different span of daily and weekly hours to the reference instrument. You’ve incorporated all the allowances into it.

PN53

There’s no way frankly that that could be the correct answer. Yes, sure, you’ve got your rates higher and you’ve identified a couple of other things that are higher but a proper analysis would have to lead you to say, “Well, no there are some other terms which are less beneficial but when we put them altogether in the mix we’re confident that it’s better off overall.” I think that really is what the case would be but I think there needs to be a bit of care taken. This is a statutory declaration.

PN54

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: There needs to a be a bit of care taken with the answer to some of these questions. And perhaps at that point then we’ll move onto the actual agreement document and I’ll just go through some of the concerns and I think some of these can be addressed. And as I say I think when you look at the thing in total it’s going to pass the better off overall test but we just need to straighten out a couple of aspects of this. If we go to the agreement document I’m unclear about what’s anticipated here and this might simply be because I think there’s been a sort of approach adopted where there’s a template document that’s been used and incorporated with some local requirement.

PN56

Clause 1.1 says that the persons covered by the agreement are those employed in the classifications set out in the agreement. That’s okay. Clause 4 says the agreement will cover the employment of all employees throughout Australia and when we go back to the answer to question 4.2 in the statutory declaration, “In what state/territory will the agreement be in operation?” and all we’ve identified is NT, Northern Territory. Now, I really need to clarify are we talking about an agreement that’s going to operate Australia-wide or are we talking about an agreement that’s going to have application just in the Northern Territory. I think we really need to straighten that out one way or the other.

PN57

MS GALLEN: I see.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: So then moving on. Next concern, and this gets into some areas that I think might need to be addressed in due course by undertakings. If we turn to page 6 and 10 hours of work, here’s an example of the first aspect where that answer to the question back in the statutory declaration just can’t be correct because your hours of work in clause 10.1.B immediately encompass Saturday so in clause 24.2 of the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award that clause talks about Monday to Friday.

PN59

So you’ve immediately got Saturday into your ordinary hours mix. Now, as I say overall you probably aren’t going to have a problem but we need to do a proper analysis of this. I think in the – and this is probably the more troubling concern and that is you seem to be establishing ordinary hours of well it says here 60, and I’m not sure again whether it’s 60 or 56 because up in the schedule you’re talking about 56.

PN60

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Here you’re talking about 60 and 40 for administration workers. Section 62 of the Act deals with the 38 hour week and that in effect people can’t be required to work more than 38 hours in a week unless the requirements of establishing that it’s reasonable are met. So in any instrument where you’re talking about prescriptions that might be contemplating more than 38 ordinary hours in a week I think there has to be incorporated into the instrument a reference to section 62 to say that, well if a particular individual says, “It’s not reasonable for me to work more than 38 hours” they have clearly the rights that are established via section 62 of the Act.

PN62

And this varies from person to person because it might be fine for the majority of people but there could be an individual who, because of their personal circumstances or some other factor, says, “It’s just not reasonable to ask me to work 60 hours a week.’ Everyone else could be happy to do it, I don’t know. But you can’t have, I think, the instrument potentially at least operating to override this important provision in the Fair Work Act, where we’ve said for whatever reason the Act has said people can’t be required to work more than 38 hours if it’s unreasonable.

PN63

I think the way to address this without trying to disturb what would be your ordinary arrangements which most people are probably happy with, the best way to do this might be an undertaking which deals with the provisions of clause 10 and the hours of work and which says that obviously any requirement that an individual might have to establish or to enforce their rights under section 62 of the Act would of course be paramount. And that is something obviously you’ll need to give some consideration to.

PN64

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Clause 11.3, once again here it clearly is all the allowances that are in and there’s quite a few of them, I think, in this modern award, are incorporated into the rates of pay. Well, as I say, when I look at your hourly rate you’ve got plenty of scope to say, “Well, yes, even though all of these things have been put in, we’re well in advance with our $32 an hour figure or whatever.” But it just I think is important to recognise that there clearly are aspects of the agreement which are less beneficial. It’s taking away certain things and it’s effectively putting them into your higher hourly rate.

PN66

Over the page in clause 12 we’re dealing with junior apprentices and adult apprentices and your junior apprentice rates appear to be above. The percentage rates are above the modern award but you’re looking at electricians level 2 classification, there isn’t actually a classification of that specific nature in your appendix A. I think you’ve got electrical worker level 2, which is the electrician level and I’m assuming that’s what you mean there in 12.2 but you might be able to clarify that with a simple undertaking if that’s what is being referred to.

PN67

MS GALLEN: Electrical worker.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: See, electricians level 2, I think you’re talking about your electrical worker level 2.

PN69

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay, that would be easily fixed. The next one, clause 13, well, your rates are considerably lower than those that are contained in clause 16.4.B of the modern award. Adult apprentices in the modern award, I think your first year rate is 55 percent. Once again we’ve got this electrician classification. I think you mean the electrical worker but let’s assume that is the case.

PN71

You’ve got a first year apprentice at 55 percent. The modern award has got it at 75. And the second year apprentice you’ve got at 60. The modern award has it at 80. The third year apprentice rate you’ve got at 80 and the modern award has it at 84. And you’re dead even, you’ve come out even with the last one at 90 each. But there would be a problem, I think with the others: 55 percent compared to 75 percent. I don’t know how many adult apprentices you’ve got but they, I think, would be concerned about those lower rates.

PN72

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN73

THE COMMISSIONER: We also I think in clause 15 a little further down, this is once again, I think what you’re doing with getting – I don’t know whether it’s 56, 60 or there’s even 62 mentioned in clause 15.4 here. I’m familiar with the sort of concept of saying, “Well, look, we’ve got a flat hourly rate. Here it’s basically $32 or the TA rate is $27.50, and that’s going to apply for up to so many hours, beyond the 38 hour week, it’s going to apply for up to so many hours. That’s going to be the rate so that we don’t have to fiddle around with working out time and a half for the first two hours or whatever it is.”

PN74

I’m familiar with that concept and I don’t have any difficulty with it but I just can’t quite work out whether it’s at 56, 60 or 62 in all of this. So maybe that could be clarified with a bit of thought put into this. The relevant clauses are 15.2, 15.3 and 15.4. Just so we all know that if you do get above whatever it is, 56, 60 or 62 then you’re into overtime and if so what would be the rate then. Would you be getting double time, time and a half for the first two hours from 60 to 62 and then double, if that’s what’s happening, I don’t know. But whatever it is, I think it just needs to be clarified.

PN75

In addition to that, I suppose one of the things I was having some difficulty trying to work out is what the Sunday and public holiday rates are if they are anything. It seems to be a bit silent on Sunday and public holiday rates. Now, it might be that you work on a public holiday for that $32, I don’t know, but it would help me a great deal if we could clarify just what the position was in respect of any Sunday or public holiday rates.

PN76

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: Then moving on, over the page, clause 17, you’ve got 74 cents per kilometre. Clause 17.5.B of the modern award has it at 75 cents, so you’re a cent under. But look, in the scheme of things it’s just one of those things which probably should have been identified as a less beneficial term. Similarly, in the camping and travel, you seem to have a living away from home allowance at $50 a night. Clause 17.6 of the modern award has that figure at $430.64 per week which depending on – well, even if you divide it by seven nights it still comes out more than the $50 per night figure.

PN78

These are minor things I suppose but they’re all getting rolled into this hourly rate. And I suppose you start to wonder whether depending upon the amount of living away from home and extra hours and public holidays and Sundays you’re working is it conceivable that you are better off at the end of the day on $32, I don’t know.

PN79

MS GALLEN: We can review the living away from home allowance. The employees they also get an additional $5 per hour on all hours worked when they’re working away.

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, that might fix it, I don’t know.

PN81

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, I think you’re probably in front. My sort of gut feel with all of this is that the $32 is going to be in front and I can take you to some calculations you may have already done. But the other thing that we’ve also got to include I notice in clause 20 there’s no annual leave loading.

PN83

MS GALLEN: We’ve done quite an intensive analysis on the BOOT test however and there we have got a leave loading component added onto what the rate would be whenever we were analysing what the modern award allows for in comparison to the hourly rate that we’ve come up with. So whenever we would be resubmitting some of this to you we could send that BOOT test analysis to you which includes a lot of the allowances and the leave loading component.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: That would be helpful. I’m reliably informed that the 17.5 percent annual leave loading translates into 1.346 percent per hour. So you can take your hourly rate, whatever that might be in any circumstance and if you add 1.346 percent to it that will cover the annual leave loading on the standard four weeks of annual leave.

PN85

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s just a mathematical equation apparently. That’s how it will always work. And look, as I say, I think you’ve got plenty of, I’ve called it scope. Sometimes it’s been called by other people as fat, in your $32 an hour figure to make sure all of this is there. But if I’ve got some information which you’ve used as a basis for doing these calculations it’ll make it a lot more easier for me to be confident that that is the case.

PN87

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: So there’s no loading that’s in the hourly rate. A typo I think in clause 24, “Employees are entitled to long service.” Well, I think they’re entitled to leave for long service in clause 24.1. There’s a word missing, that’s all.

PN89

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: “Employees are entitled to long service.” They are entitled to the leave for long service, I think. Then moving on right up to clause 39, there’s a series of clauses here which – clause 39.6, clause 40.1 and 42.2 which all in respect of different circumstances deal with the employer deducting money from pay. Now, the Act has some provisions regarding what you can take out of people’s wages.

PN91

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: Clauses 324 and 326 of the Act. Whenever I see these clauses in agreements I suggest that it be a good idea for an undertaking which says that in respect of any of these deductions the employer will ensure that the provisions of section 324 and 326 are followed in terms of any arrangements for deduction.

PN93

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: Then I suppose the other thing I wanted to clarify, there are only two more matters. You’ve got your rates set out here in your appendix A and am I to understand that these rates and the other rates that are contained within the body of the instrument are fixed for the full four years of the life of the operation of the agreement?

PN95

MS GALLEN: No, we’re actually reviewing this as well. There are a few things here that we needed to change but the agreement, the rates will be going up in line with the increases that happen on July, the 1st. We have looked at the rates going up.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, I mean you’ll give me even greater confidence in terms of the approval if you’re going to give me an undertaking to say that the rate is going to be adjusted in line with the national wage decisions.

PN97

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s not there anywhere, but if you give me an undertaking like that I can assure you that I’m going to have much more comfort in respect of your wage rates. And the final point, and it’s a technical one but I’ve got to raise it because there’s a regulation called Regulation 2.06A. I need some explanation for the authority of the person that signed the document on behalf of employees. Now, I think we touched on this a bit earlier on back at the F16 and F17 but the Act and the Regulation actually require certain identification of an individual that signs on behalf of employees and an explanation for how they obtained the authority to sign on behalf of the employees.

PN99

MS GALLEN: I see. Well - - -

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: Have a look at Regulation 2.06A.

PN101

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Because it sets out there what has to be in the signing page if that’s the right way to describe it of your document.

PN103

MS GALLEN: Right.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: And this one doesn’t really contain enough information and look, it’s a technical requirement but the one way to address it, is that once we identify properly who the person is if that person wants to provide a statutory declaration telling me how it is they got their authority well that’s fine. And I’ve had statutory declarations which said things like, “Well, we were all standing in the shed and everyone took a step back and I was left standing in front, so I had to sign.” It can be as crazy as that frankly.

PN105

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: But the regulation says there has to be an explanation for how the person obtained the authority to sign.

PN107

MS GALLEN: Okay, no problem.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: So it’s just a matter of providing that information. And that’s it. Sorry to go through all that but I would be failing in my statutory duties if I didn’t raise these concerns. I did some quick calculations of your $32 an hour figure and if you’re going to give me an undertaking about its adjustment during the life it gives me a great deal of comfort. I did a calculation where if you took notionally 56 or 60 hours and applied the overtime penalties I think I got a figure of around about $25 an hour.

PN109

I hadn’t put in the annual leave loading and I hadn’t put in a few other things of course but as I said from the outset I think your figure is going to provide you with sufficient capacity to say that, “Well, yes, there are things that are removed, there are entitlements that are less beneficial but when you look overall that figure of the hourly rate encompasses all the less beneficial terms,” I think.

PN110

MS GALLEN: Yes.

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: So, sorry to go through all of that. It’s a little bit laborious but I’m sure that particularly with the benefit of the transcript that you’ll be able to access after today to go back and just check on the various points that have been raised, I’m sure then you can provide me with some further material and some undertakings and I’ll look at that and I’m fairly confident that that will address these concerns and if it does then there won’t be any impediment to providing for the approval of the agreement.

PN112

MS GALLEN: Thank you very much for your time, Commissioner.

PN113

THE COMMISSIONER: Did you have any questions or clarification about any of that?

PN114

MS GALLEN: No, it was all very clear and we appreciate your comments and they’re well-received and we look forward to getting the transcript and resubmitting it to you as soon as possible.

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, thank you for attending this morning and we look forward to getting that material.

PN116

MS GALLEN: Okay, excellent.

PN117

MS HAYES: Thank you.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much. On that basis the proceedings now stand adjourned.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.45AM]