AG2012/5654, Transcript of Proceedings [2013] FWCTrans 233 (27 March 2013)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Fair Work Act 2009 1047661-1

COMMISSIONER BLAIR

AG2012/5654

Sch. 3, Item 16 - Application to terminate collective agreement-based transitional instrument

Application by Canndo Earthmoving & Excavations Pty. Ltd.
(AG2012/5654)
CANNDO EARTH MOVING & BXCAVATIONS PTY LTD CIVIL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY EBA 2008-2011 EBA

[AC318368 Print ]]




Melbourne

9.35AM, MONDAY, 18 MARCH 2013

Continued from 15/06/2012

PN85

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning. Appearances, please?

PN86

MR R WAINWRIGHT: If it pleases the Commissioner, Wainwright, initial R, appearing for Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union.

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Wainwright.

PN88

MR N LAVER: Neil Laver, operations manager for the Canndo Earthmoving.

PN89

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Laver.

PN90

MR A CANN: Alan Cann, director of Canndo Earthmoving.

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Cann. All right. Now, the matter was lodged in May. I think we had a hearing on 15 June and, basically, at that point the Commission suggested, I think, that the company go away and talk to the union to see what their reaction was.

PN92

MR WAINWRIGHT: Yes.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand, Mr Wainwright, that the union has opposition to the termination of the agreement?

PN94

MR WAINWRIGHT: Yes, Commissioner. I've reviewed the transcript of 15 June, appearance by the parties. It was my colleague who represented the CFMEU. You had sought that the parties had some discussion at the appropriate level.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN96

MR WAINWRIGHT: It was judged that the appropriate person to talk to the company was our organiser for the region, Jerry Bernstead. Discussions, I am instructed, occurred between the parties, and we have not been able to come to an agreement about the status of this certified document.

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: What does that actually mean, Mr Wainwright?

PN98

MR WAINWRIGHT: Well, I think the company presses its request that we support the termination of the agreement we have decided not to support that request, so the application before the Commission today is formally opposed by the CFMEU.

PN99

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Now, as I understood it - correct me if I'm wrong - the last time we were together the company indicated that no-one is any longer covered by the agreement, is that right? Mr Cann?

PN100

MR CANN: Yes, thank you. In our opinion, we signed this old EBA back in 2007.

PN101

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN102

MR CANN: At that time it was never indicated to us that there was any expectation that it would go beyond its expiry date.

PN103

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN104

MR CANN: We assumed that the agreement would expire on its due date of 2011. We have been pursued by the union to sign a new EBA which we've declined to do. Why would the union be pursuing us to sign a new one if, in fact, the old one still has some relevance? In our opinion, it's null and void. And further to all that, we no longer have any employees anyway, so I wonder what the union's involvement is.

PN105

MR LAVER: The union did say that there was a clause in there saying that if you continue on there is no clause in this agreement.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: No, but it does under the Act.

PN107

MR LAVER: But it - - -

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: And that's why we're here.

PN109

MR LAVER: That's why we're here.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: That's right. The agreement carries on until such time it's replaced by another or it's by consent it's agreed that it no longer exists. Now
- - -

PN111

MR LAVER: We were told by the union person that it was in the agreement - written into the agreement, well, it's not written into the agreement. We weren't informed of that - - -

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

PN113

MR LAVER: - - - at the time of signing that the thing would continue on after this nominal expiry date.

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that might be - - -

PN115

MR LAVER: I mean, fair and - it's got to be fair to all.

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, no. Well, hang on, just a minute. What might be, but the mere fact is the Act says the agreement stays in place until such time as it is replaced by another agreement or by mutual consent it ceases to be an agreement. You don't have mutual consent.

PN117

MR LAVER: That's right.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: And so it hasn't been replaced by another agreement.

PN119

MR LAVER: No.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: So it still carries on.

PN121

MR CANN: Could I ask the question when that Act came into play?

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: What year was the agreement?

PN123

MR CANN: 2007.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the Act has been in place for a long time and the provision for the agreement to carry on until replaced by another has been in place for a long time.

PN125

MR CANN: Yes.

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: So even before this current government.

PN127

MR CANN: Yes.

PN128

THE COMMISSIONER: It was in place by a previous government. I think Mr Wainwright might correct me - it goes well back - I'm not sure it goes as far back as the Workplace Relations Act, but most certainly it goes back beyond when that agreement was made.

PN129

MR WAINWRIGHT: Commissioner, my memory of that provision is it came in at the advent of enterprise bargaining, so it came in in approximately 1993. Obviously, it's gone through various iterations with the different pieces of legislation but as you say it's an underpinning principle of collective bargaining since Laurie Bergin's day.

PN130

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. All right. Well, Mr Cann and Mr Laver, there's not much I can do about it, I'm afraid until such time as you strike an agreement with the union to replace it.

PN131

MR LAVER: Well, that's not going to happen, Mr Commissioner. I've got two things to say.

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN133

MR LAVER: When we had our first meeting with the union, we walked into the room and the first thing that happened was fingers were pointed to our heads and we were told we were naughty boys. I’m not very happy about that, it's a bit of intimidation going on here. Because we went by the book, as in putting the application through the Fair Work Australia and not approaching the union and speaking to them before we came to see this organisation, we find - I find that very intimidating and verging on bullying.

PN134

Now, a couple of weeks after we had the last meeting I ended up in hospital having by-pass surgery. Some of the stresses and strains and things that have gone one over the past few years, especially with some of the intimidatory and bullying tactics by shop stewards who are confirmed members of this union who have aspirations to become organisers and whatever, have put a lot of pressure on me physically and emotionally, and we're not happy with the way we've been treated over this.

PN135

I mean, the union basically says, "No, no, no." Where do we get a say in this? We no longer have any employees. The industry itself is in such a decline at the moment that it's actually hurting us and we're at the point of we're starting to sell up equipment to try and rescue ourselves. One of the things that this EBA does - and I think I pointed that out the last time I was here, is it makes us uncompetitive. We can't operate in a competitive way that we can survive and save our business and even possibly save our houses.

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Laver, I have some sympathy with you but sympathy unfortunately doesn't - is not covered under the Act. The conduct of the union official, although it might be offensive to you - and might be offensive to other people, that's a matter for the union to deal with their officers as they see fit.

PN137

If you think you've been bullied or there is some form of intimidation, you might have some recourse under common law but, unfortunately, I'm governed by the Fair Work Act not common law.

PN138

So currently you have, as you say, no-one employed under the agreement - - -

PN139

MR LAVER: We have no employees at all.

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. And so you're talking being uncompetitive, but if you have no employees what work do you do?

PN141

MR LAVER: Clean out dams and fix up farm roads and that sort type of thing at the moment, and I’m doing all of that work.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN143

MR LAVER: It's putting me under a great deal of pressure, especially physically, given that, you know, I'm - I've had three rounds of this by-pass surgery.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN145

MR LAVER: The first time I had it done was on 19 August 2011. It was then done again on 22 August 2011, and it was done again on 4 July last year.

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: Well - - -

PN147

MR LAVER: I don't need these pressures to continue. I - Al and I have both resigned from the union. We were union supporters. We worked within the system. We tried hard. We asked the union for help on a number of occasions especially with one particular big builder in Melbourne who tried to stitch us up for about $400,000. The answer we got from the union was, "They'll pay you." Well, guess what? We're $200,000 out of pocket at the end of the day. And after having to go through numerous mediations and tyring to utilise things like the Security of Payment Act, which unfortunately was a toothless tiger given the way it's structured in this State.

PN148

And, you know, with that same builder was where two shop stewards just absolutely bullied me to point of almost having a nervous breakdown. I didn't want to go to work. Allan found me hiding in the corner of the shed at home one day.

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN150

MR LAVER: I didn't want to go to work. These are the stresses and strains that I've had to put up with, you know, as part of this and now to be - we had signed this EBA, basically, to work for that company because it was a (indistinct) of working for this company. The company had been hit with redevelopment. Now, we were instructed, he we had to sign it to be able to perform our work. Now, we've done numerous jobs for them previously on an hourly rate. We won two contracts with them, and we were forced into signing these two.

PN151

What we weren't told was at the end of the day, when this expiry date does occur, we weren't information that, yes, it will continue on, so we need to sit down and talk and talk about a new agreement or whatever.

PN152

If we'd known that back then we would never have signed this in the first place. I would have foregone those contracts. Hindsight is a wonderful thing I know that but given - - -

PN153

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN154

MR LAVER: - - - the problems that we've had and also our last employee, some months ago, back in, I think, August last year - when the Grocon site - what happened, he came to me to one day, the particular chap and said to me, "I don't want to be party to this, how do I go about resigning from the union?" I mean, I don't want to be party to the union anymore either.

PN155

MR CANN: If I may?

PN156

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN157

MR CANN: Can I ask: Mr Wainwright is here representing the union today. Does have the power to make a decision?

PN158

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Wainwright?

PN159

MR WAINWRIGHT: Well, Commissioner, yes, I do. I'm acting under instructions. What I say is this: in the last listing of this matter, the company talking about doing work in domestic housing. Today they're talking about doing work on farm dams and roads - farm roads. None of those projects would be covered by the agreement, so the agreement has an application clause. It specifically states that work on domestic housing isn't covered by the EBA. We say that the EBA is there as a fair and reasonable level to ensure that two things can happen.

PN160

Employees are paid a living wage and companies are able to compete on an even basis, and they can compete on the basis of their guile and their wit and not on the basis of how little they want to pay their employees. Our job is to - and unapologetically, achieve these standards in the industry. So we're not in the business of giving up a standard once it's achieved.

PN161

So my instructions are very clear, we want to keep this standard in place and we do not consent to the agreement being terminated.

PN162

MR LAVER: Therefore, can I make a few more points to Mr Wainwright's - sorry, Commissioner, I'm finding it difficult to stand with my leg.

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: It's all right.

PN164

MR LAVER: Under the EBA it costs us approximately $75 an hour to employ somebody. Now, we have excavators, 25 ton excavators, right. The going rate, according to the industry is supposed to around $150 an hour, right, which is fine if we're getting it, we can live with those rates, we can - we can make some money. At the moment I'm getting offered $100 an hour on union sites, I suppose you can call them, by plant hires. I can get $100 an hour. When it's costing $75 an hour to employ somebody - and I'm taking into account all of their allowances, you know, $33 an hour as an hourly rate, site allowances which we've got to wear in most cases because the builders won't pay us site allowances - - -

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN166

MR LAVER: - - - because we're coming through the plant hire system. Subus, Co-invest, Infolink, travel, you know, holiday pay, sick pay, all the extras - when they're offering us $100 an hour, it costs us $20 to $30 an hour just in fuel to run that machine.

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN168

MR LAVER: All right. This is what's happening. And even the builders are doing the same thing. They are absolutely screwing down the price to all comers. Now, the thing is no everybody has signed these EBAs. There's lots of companies out there that haven't signed them and are working on these sites at $100 an hour, paying their guys 24 and 25, and even before we even signed this EBA we were paying our guys EBA rates. We were paying Infolink and Co-invest and, you know, the approximate 15 per cent super, not 9 per sent. We were doing the right thing, and we continue to do the right thing.

PN169

What we want is a fair shake here. We want to be able to move between the different jobs. Instead of being stuck doing, you know, farms roads, and dams, and whatever, we want to be able to move into the construction sector where we can be competitive. But, at least, we can strike a deal with our guys and we can look at, you know, at the job and say, "Well, okay, we might break even on this one but we can make it up on this one." But how do you go form shifting a guy from $33 an hour on this job, to $24 an hour on that job like some of our competitors are doing.

PN170

You know, they're paying $24 an hour on that construction job on the corner here with Hickory because they haven't signed an EBA, and they're paying $24 an hour on a Greenfields site down the road.

PN171

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN172

MR LAVER: Our guys - the guys that used to work for us wouldn't cop that. If I turned around and said to them, "Listen, guys, we're going onto a Winslow site, we're going to dig drains for them, but all we're going to pay you is $24 an hour." That was "See you later." They would have been calling the union up and saying, "Hey, they're not paying us the right money. They're not doing the right thing."

PN173

This is the dilemma we have, and this is the argument we have. As far as sitting down with the Jerry Bernstead and having a discussion, I didn't have a discussion with him. So whatever he's put in there - I wasn't there.

PN174

MR CANN: What date did Jerry have a discussion with you?

PN175

MR WAINWRIGHT: Well, Commissioner, I'm instructor, our organiser, Jerry Bernstead, met with the company. Those are my instructions.

PN176

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Mr Wainwright can only go by what he's instructions are.

PN177

MR LAVER: Well, no discussions with us.

PN178

THE COMMISSIONER: Well - - -

PN179

MR LAVER: Al and I - we had discussions with Ralph Edwards and Brendon Pitt at a union meeting over at Port Melbourne at (indistinct) Court. That was the first one; and then Allan had a subsequent discussion with Brendon Pitt at Swanston Street. I wasn't present and Jerry Bernstead wasn't present at those meetings either. That was the other question I had to ask.

PN180

MR CANN: It just seems to me that this is impasse and it's not going to be resolved. So at the end of the day we're just going to go out of business, and that's what we're going to have to do. It's crazy. Here we are, in a possibility were we can offer employment to people and yet the people that are supposed to be looking after the employees are forcing out of business.

PN181

MR LAVER: We're going to EA auctions this afternoon, and we'll put the machinery up for sale.

PN182

MR CANN: When we leave here we're going direct to the auctions over at auction EA and put our machinery up for sale.

PN183

MR LAVER: Get out of it the best way we can. That will be yet another company out of business.

PN184

THE COMMISSIONER: Out of business.

PN185

MR LAVER: Exactly. And the union will be very happy about that.

PN186

THE COMMISSIONER: What do you say about public test, Mr Wainwright?

PN187

MR WAINWRIGHT: Well, first of all, Commissioner, we're not happy is anyone goes out of business and I would have thought that if a builder owed me $250,000 I'd be looking at that builder. But I understand like to scapegoat the CFMEU in these matters.

PN188

What I say about the public interest test is a couple of things, and my colleague last time, Commissioner, pointed you to the decision of Commissioner Roe and numerous subsequent decisions following his consideration in the Australian Exhibition and Conferences Employee Collective Agreement 2006 application.

PN189

Commissioner Roe assisted us in defining the public interest test by pointing decision makers towards the better off overall test. You've head today talk about the difference between the EBA rate - it's important to note that the EBA rate, as it existed in March 2011 - obviously the EBA rate has moved along since then for companies that have entered into the new agreement. There's still a substantial difference between the EBA rate 2011 and the award rate today.

PN190

We say that employees who would be engaged under the award as against under the 2011 protected conditions would, clearly, be worse off on the submissions of the applicants and, therefore, incorrectly following the decision of Commissioner Roe, the public interest test could not be satisfied.

PN191

A couple of other things to say about the test in the Act, Commissioner, and that is you have an obligation to take into account the views of the employees, each employer, and each employee organisation. So our view is crystal clear. There's not any real evidence of employees - - -

PN192

MR LAVER: Can I interject there?

PN193

THE COMMISSIONER: No, hang on.

PN194

MR WAINWRIGHT: You heard the first time that the matter was before you that there were six employees, you've heard something else today, but there's no evidence before you as to what the level of employment is, so it's impossible to say that that requirement of your consideration in section 226(b)(i) has been satisfied.

PN195

Further we say, Commissioner, that we say that there is - whilst it's the tradition of this place that you're not bound by precedent, that it is good judicial practice to follow a precedent and that we rely on the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Telstra Corporation v Treloar (2000) where Justice Bransten and Finkelstein said that that the advantages of following precedent are certainty, equality, efficiency, and the adherence of justice.

PN196

We say that it's important in all of the practitioners in industrial relations to know what then you come here you're going to get a particular result for the particular consideration, and that consideration will turn on the facts of the matter, but the principles behind the consideration remain the same.

PN197

So, therefore, we see that in the exercise of your consideration in this matter it falls fair and square within the precedent as set down in early 2012, and we seek that you dismiss the application.

PN198

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Laver?

PN199

MR LAVER: Mr Wainwright is obviously a lawyer, I'm not, and neither is - - -

PN200

THE COMMISSIONER: Neither am I. Neither am I.

PN201

MR LAVER: All this legal jargon. I mean, we're lay people. We're here to - we're out there trying to earn a living, trying to make our lives better, and somewhere along the way we were providing employment for other people. I'm the only employee of Canndo Earthmoving now. I'm pretty happy with the deal I get except for the fact that I'm working long hours every day. I'm doing everything.

PN202

I - you know - I mean, at some point in the future if we survive all of this, yes, we may re-enter into an agreement, but right now this is do or die for us; it's make us or break us. At the end of the day, we've got a hell of a lot of lose and if we - you know, we're going to EA Auctions regardless anyway of what happens today because we have to. We haven't got a choice. We're going to lose probably in excess of half a million dollars by putting our machinery through the auction because we'll get next to nothing for it. It could even be more.

PN203

As for the union, well, we've been proud supporters of the union for a long, long time, and many, many years, but at the end of the day, they've really done nothing for us when we did ask for help when we were having trouble with builders not paying. We got nothing from them. We've had - a plant hire went bust owing us some $10,000. We've had a couple of other builders that just don't pay. They've rolled over. One was Momentum Builders, a company recently. Fortunately, we managed to get some of our retention back from them.

PN204

Hickory Developments, $400,000. We managed to get $200,000 out of them. It cost us $100,000 in legals. We went to Slater and Gordon, they didn't help us much, you know, all they wanted to do was just charge us like wounded bulls. We ended up engaging another solicitor who really did look after us price wise. Had we gone through Slater and Gordon, who are the union's solicitors, it would have cost us a hell of a lot more.

PN205

We asked the union for help. It didn't come. We've participated in union endeavours such as return to work programs and this type of thing. So we have supported the union, we've paid our union dues, our guys have all been members of the union. At the end of the day, why would we want to continue when we can't even reach an agreement? You know, we walk into a room and fingers pointed at our heads telling us we're naughty boys because we went by the book to do this - go through this process.

PN206

You know, because we believed that that expired. We're not - like, I said, we're not lawyers. We don't understand the judicial system to that point. We're not going to go out and read the whole Act and find, "oh, hang on, that does continue on." We were told that it was contained within the - you know - - -

PN207

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN208

MR LAVER: - - - when we asked the question recently in the recent year - that it was contained within the agreement. I sat down and I read the agreement and I read it again, and again, and again. It's not in here. It didn't realise it was in the Act.

PN209

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN210

MR LAVER: So we're at a disadvantage here because, like I said, we're just lay people. We've spent some money, we've bought some machines, we've employed people, now we can't employ anymore. We've come to a fork in the road to so speak. For us to survive means we need to knock this thing on the head, get us going again, and at some point in the future, yes, we'll reconsider it when we start to employ again.

PN211

You know, we'll talk to our people, and that's one thing that we have always done with the people who did work for us. We talked to them about where we're at. We even approached the union about, you know, we spoke to our guys when we were starting to hit a well. We spoke to our guys and said, "Listen guys," you know, most of the time they were sitting doing nothing and we're still paying them.

PN212

We went to the union and said, "Look, the guys are happy to take a bit of a pay - having their pay and whatever so we can get through this period. What do you say?" You know what we were told, "Stand them down." So that's your answer with my comment. Just stand them down. I want to hand onto these guys. I want to try and keep them so that we can get our business going again. You know, reduce our costs a little so that we can get going again and get over this hurdle, not "stand them down."

PN213

So where are we at? The question I want to ask?

PN214

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Mr Laver, unfortunately, we're at a position where the Act says:

PN215

If an application for the termination of an enterprise agreement is made under section 225 FWA must terminate the agreement if (a) FWA is satisfied that it's not contrary to the public interest to do so.

PN216

And Mr Wainwright has addressed that issue:

PN217

(b) FWA considers that it is appropriate to terminate the agreement taking into account all the circumstances including (1) the view of the employees, each employer, and each employee organisation, if any, covered by the agreement; and (2) the circumstances of those employees, employers, and organisations, including the likely effect that the termination will have on each other.

PN218

And, again, to some degree, Mr Wainwright dealt with that, saying that if the agreement was terminated, and they fell back to the award, they would be far worse off under the award than what they would be under the existing enterprise agreement.

PN219

MR LAVER: Those people are working for other people now. Anybody that comes along after this - - -

PN220

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you asked the question; I'm giving you the answer.

PN221

MR LAVER: Yes.

PN222

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Wainwright points out, correctly so, that the rates in your agreement are, in fact, 2011 rates, not 2012 or 2013. So they haven't moved, and the allowances haven't moved in that period. And they won't move whilst that agreement in place until such time as, I've said earlier, you negotiate another one to replace it.

PN223

But at this point, the CFMEU are opposing the termination of the agreement. They've addressed the public interest test, and they've addressed the test that what would be the likely effect had on employees, if any, that would be covered by the termination of the agreement.

PN224

Taking all that into account I'm going to have to reject your application, I'm afraid. There's not much I can do about that.

PN225

MR CANN: If - okay, we hear what is said here. I find it interesting though that the State and Federal government consider that we code compliant with all these guidelines and if were to sign the EBA we would not be code compliant with the guidelines, therefore, we wouldn't able to get work on a government site.

PN226

MR LAVER: We've actually had meetings with the Victorian State Code Compliant Unit - Compliance Unit, as well as Fair Work instruction.

PN227

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I understand that that might be a matter that's before the Courts. Is that right, Mr Wainwright?

PN228

MR WAINWRIGHT: Well, with regard to the so called State code.

PN229

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN230

MR WAINWRIGHT: As you know there is no State industrial system, so I'm not sure what the State government is doing with the code. But with the Federal Code, as you know, Commissioner, that once an agreement is certified in this place, it's deemed to be automatically compliant with the Federal Code.

PN231

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN232

MR WAINWRIGHT: So the State code is a document that, as you say, is before the Courts now. It's listed tomorrow in the Federal Court and the day after, and I’m a witness in that matter. The Federal Code - there is no issue with agreements specified by this place with compliance with the Federal Code.

PN233

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. So whatever the State government does is a matter for the State government that - Mr Wainwright is correct, when we do certify agreements they are deemed to be in compliance with the Federal Code. And as I did indicate, Mr Wainwright has confirmed that the State Code that's introduced here in Victoria, is now subject to Federal Court proceedings.

PN234

So one can only - and some companies, as I understand it - and this is why it's before the Court - a major company has signed an agreement which the State have said is not in compliance with their State Code, and that now is part of the proceedings. Is that right, Mr Wainwright?

PN235

MR WAINWRIGHT: Yes. The two companies involved in the proceedings are Lend Lease.

PN236

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN237

MR WAINWRIGHT: And the second company called Echo Recyclers had made an application to vary their agreement, so they were involved in the case as well, but they have subsequently removed their application.

PN238

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. All right. Mr Cann, Mr Laver, I'm going to have to reject your application, I'm afraid.

PN239

MR CANN: Okay. Thank you.

PN240

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll stand adjourned.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [10.06AM]