AG2014/5121, Transcript of Proceedings [2014] FWCTrans 390 (21 July 2014)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Fair Work Act 2009 1050317-1

COMMISSIONER WILSON

AG2014/5121

s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

Application by Metropolitan Fire & Emergency Services Board
(AG2014/5121)
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, United Firefighters Union of Australia, Assistant Chief Fire Officers Agreement 2010

(ODN AG2010/14661)
[AE881004 Print PR501989]]




Melbourne

10.06AM, FRIDAY, 18 JULY 2014

Continued from 17/07/2014

PN7181

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning. Before we commence, I’d like to welcome to the commission precincts some delegates of the Transport Workers’ Union who are attending the commission as part of the commission’s stakeholder relations program, and I thank the parties for making some seats available to the delegates this morning. We’re very grateful for that. My understanding is that the delegates will be here for about half an hour and then they will leave and then obviously the seats will become available again for the people attending either on behalf of the MFB or the UFU. As I said, I do appreciate the consideration given by the parties in that respect. So welcome. All right, if we resume, please, Mr Wheelahan or Mr Parry.

<MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY, ON FORMER OATH [10.07AM]
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WHEELAHAN [10.07AM]

PN7182

MR WHEELAHAN: Mr Tisbury, I won’t be long. I’ll just a few outstanding matters in some of the reply material. You don’t have your statement with you?
---No, sorry.

PN7183

If you could turn to paragraph 105. This is where you’re dealing with issues to do with the ladder platform appliance and you then made a conclusion where you state that it’s only through consultation that employees learnt of the problem, raised an objection, and it hasn’t been fixed and remains in the sheds. Mr McQuaid in answer to that in his reply statement, he quotes you saying it’s only through consultation process that employees learnt of the problem and raised an objection, and he says this: “The risk would have been identified during the mandatory risk assessment detailed in the appliance development process manual.” If I can just stop there, are you aware of the appliance development process manual? You’ll have to say yes for the transcript?---Sorry, yes.

PN7184

You’re aware that that manual encompasses a mandatory risk assessment process?---Which is developed by consultation, yes.

PN7185

So that’s a yes?---Yes.

PN7186

Yes, and so it’s incumbent upon the MFB to carry out that risk assessment?---Yes.

PN7187

He concludes and I put it to you given that process that once identified the problems would have been picked up by the risk assessment process?---They weren’t. They were identified during the consultation process.

PN7188

Yes, I know you say they were identified during the consultation process, but what I’m putting to you is that they would also have been identified in the risk assessment carried out of the appliance?---If it’s still in place, because it was developed by consultation.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7189

You say if it’s in place. Is that manual, the appliance development process manual, no longer in place?---It currently is, like our workplace agreement is.

PN7190

It currently is?---That’s correct.

PN7191

It’s currently in place, all right. Paragraph 107 of your statement dealing with the wildfire training, Mr O’Connell has filed a reply statement. Now, you’ve amended your statement in chief to say that an accident could have occurred rather than had occurred?---Yes, that’s correct.

PN7192

When did you determine to make that amendment to your statement?---When I read the statement.

PN7193

When you read your statement?---It was emailed to me.

PN7194

Yes?---Like I explained, I’ve been away. It was emailed to me. I was reading it by this and when I got to it I saw the word “had” as opposed to “could have” .

PN7195

So you hadn’t been directed in advance. Mr O’Connell at paragraph 54 of his reply statement, he attests to conducting a search of MFB records, for want of a better word, used to register all injuries, and he said he couldn’t find any record of the injury that you referred to in your first statement?---I haven’t been directed - - -

PN7196

That wasn’t brought to your attention?---Like I said, I’ve been out of contact for three weeks, mate.

PN7197

Mr O’Connell then deals with your paragraph 112 where we’re dealing with the Jonah capsule and vital sense for the measuring of core temperature. Mr O’Connell says, “At the EBIC meeting on 4 June Mr Marshall of the UFU agreed that core temperature monitoring was necessary. Are you aware that Mr Marshall in your meetings at BCOM held the view that measuring of core temperature was necessary?---Yes.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7198

Yes, all right?---And we still hold that view.

PN7199

At your paragraph 113 when you dealt with issues raised by the brigade medical officer, Mr O’Connell says in response to that that the brigade medical officer planned to issue a questionnaire during the pre-course medical exams and that that would be used to identify any person with a pre-existing bowel condition. Are you aware that that was the case?---That is correct.

PN7200

All right?--It would bumped off half - - -

PN7201

Then he - sorry?---That would have bumped off 50 per cent of the workforce being eligible to hold that qualification.

PN7202

You’re not aware, are you, that 50 per cent of the workforce had bowel conditions?---With the letter that Dr Jane Wadsley produced - I say 50 per cent. A heap of people, current BA operators, within the job would be knocked out because of the history, any bowel history, like family history. If you’ve ever had any bleeding at all from the anus, that - if you’ve got that document we had yesterday it had all the list of conditions. That’s what our major concern was, because our members who are at 38 station, which is a BA station, were contacting us and saying, “If this is fair dinkum and we’re going to be forced to have this tablet inserted into us, then we’re going to - I’m not going to be able to be a BA operator.” We’re there to represent our members and they are experienced BA operators.

PN7203

You don’t know the medical history of your fellow firefighters in any detail, about whether they have bowel conditions or otherwise?---No, I don’t.

PN7204

At paragraph 59 Mr O’Connell then states with respect to this issue that he clearly recalls, “Mr Marshall asking me to provide information about the Jonah capsule to a doctor at the Epworth Hospital for an independent opinion. I recall that Mr Marshall asked me to obtain the doctor’s details from the UFU representatives and then he emailed, following that up.” Subsequently he says that that was never provided. Are you aware that they were Mr Marshall’s statements to Mr O’Connell?---What I am aware of is Mr Marshall said to Mr O’Connell, “Go and seek some independent advice from the Epworth Hospital.” Mr Marshall never once said that the UFU had a doctor at the Epworth Hospital. We’re not that flash with funds, mate, where we’ve got our own doctor on call 24 hours a day.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7205

So were you present when this discussion occurred, were you?---That’s correct.

PN7206

So you’re in dispute with Mr O’Connell as to his recollection of what Mr Marshall said?---That’s correct, yes.

PN7207

But Mr Marshall won’t be called to give evidence to put it in dispute?---I don’t know. I’m here representing myself and the members.

PN7208

All right. You then make some criticisms about training materials not being complete. Mr O’Connell agrees with you that training materials were not complete, but then he sets out the reason why, and he says that it was because he couldn’t get agreement on what needed to be in them until you agreed on the training content. That’s correct?---That’s absolutely garbage. I’m not the subject matter expert in long duration breathing apparatus. I can’t tell them what to put in the training manual. It’s his job as the project coordinator to go in, develop the training material and present it. It’s not my job to tell him what to put in it.

PN7209

But it’s your job on the committee to provide your approval to that material?
---After it’s been completed, mate.

PN7210

Yes, and it’s your job to approve it?---That’s correct.

PN7211

That’s your position?---Yes.

PN7212

He agrees that the course can’t commence until that material is completed. You agree with that?---Yes.

PN7213

You add not only completed but approved by you and your sub-committee?
---Yes, who comprise both MFB management and the UFU.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7214

So that’s a yes?---Yes.

PN7215

No further questions, Commissioner.

PN7216

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Wheelahan. Mr Harding, any re-examination?

PN7217

MR HARDING: Yes, Commissioner. Just bear with me for a moment.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDING [10.17AM]

PN7218

MR HARDING: Mr Tisbury, you were asked some questions yesterday about down time during an ordinary shift and you gave some evidence about the kind of work that firefighters performed other than simply attending to emergencies. Do you recall that?---Yes.

PN7219

You’re a senior station officer. Can you tell the commission whether these non-emergency duties are required duties of a firefighter or not?---Yes, they are, definitely.

PN7220

You were also asked some questions yesterday about the amount of time in your experience that firefighters would devote to operational, on the one hand, and emergency responses on the other. Are you able to say to the commissioner whether or not there’s a difference between operational work on the one hand and emergency work on the other, in your view?---Our core role is emergency response, obviously, but in order to be able to do that, undertake that task and achieve safe emergency response, there’s a lot of skills maintenance, there’s a lot of skills acquisition, there’s a lot of training, that is part of that role. I remember an ex chief fire officer, Mr Godfredson, once saying - he used to repeatedly say, “Every fire we attend is a failure.” That was his view on the world, and I agree with him. We’re there to protect life and property, and every time a fire occurs means we haven’t been able to prevent it from occurring in the first place. So all the fire prevention work that we do and all the training that we do, all the community education that we do, the fire eds, the education we give to the school kids, everything we do is about that piece of - that smaller chunk of actually turning out and putting the fire out.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7221

The prevention roles that you’re referring to, are they part of the required duties that you mentioned earlier?---Yes, that’s correct.

PN7222

Mr Tisbury, you were asked some questions about your involvement in the dispute concerning the MMR radios. Do you recall that?---Yes.

PN7223

In answer to a question from my learned friend you said that it did raise a safety issue. What was the issue, Mr Tisbury?---There were a multiple number of issues. During that period we did some testing in the CDB and these windows, even though they just look like glass, they’ve got some metal, aluminium based - - -

PN7224

Mr Tisbury, can I stop you there. Can you just tell the Commissioner what the MMR radios were?---They were digital portable radios and hand-held radios that were used for communications for firefighters on the fireground to VKN8 control centre, communications centre. In the majority of the high-rise buildings that we tested inside, we couldn’t get a signal from our portable radios out of the building. So our comms were cut off between inside the building and outside the building. We then came up with a solution, and that was to use trunk fireground channels as opposed to the local fireground channels that they were using. The trunk uses the digital mobile network repeater system which allowed us to get our signal out there.

PN7225

Was the problem that you identified a significant safety issue or not?---Most definitely a very significant safety issue. In actual fact, the solution that we identified – there was a fair bit of pushback by both state government and Motorola itself because we would be the only fire service or emergency service in the world who has used the trunk fireground channel system. We ended up doing that and, subsequently, other fire services around the international community who are using the Motorola digital technology have now gone to that.

PN7226

When you raised the safety issue with the MFB what was its reaction, Mr Tisbury?---Right at the very start they didn’t want to hear about. Right at the very start was, “This must be in before the Commonwealth Games. This must be in before the Commonwealth Games. Just roll out the training and let’s get them on the trucks. We’ll sort that stuff out later.”

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7227

How was the safety issue that you identified resolved?---Through here. The union lodged a dispute, ended up going to the – back then it was the IRC. The MFB took the UFU to the IRC alleging some fancy section of the Act - - -

PN7228

THE COMMISSIONER: It’s a technical term.

PN7229

MR HARDING: It’s a technical term, yes, Commissioner?---Trying to get orders issued against the UFU saying it was illegal industrial action. In actual fact it wasn’t. It went to Commissioner Foggo. She ended up ruling in favour of the UFU, not the MFB, and we then got out there, started identifying the issues. Other issues that were referring – all the electronic equipment in the MFB was being affected by the RF, the radio frequency interference coming out of the radios. Our breathing apparatuses were digital BA, gauges were going into alarm every time you transmitted. The pump gauges on our pumpers were going through the roof every time you transmitted. It was just causing a lot of difficulties. One of those difficulties was overcome just by knowing – because we had to test every bit of electronic equipment in the MFB. Stickers were placed on that equipment saying, “If you’re transmitting, expect interference within five metres,” or two metres. Other pieces of equipment weren’t affected at all. We ended up having to put RF shielding behind all of the pump gauges in the pump panels. It was reinserted into the training manuals to say the radios, whilst transmitting, can affect this equipment. It just means you weren’t relying on some piece of equipment for a result, just having that awareness, knowing that you can’t rely on this if you’re transmitting. If you want to take a reading make sure you stop transmitting before you take a reading.

PN7230

Did the radios have an alarm button?---Yes, a duress alarm.

PN7231

Was there a problem or not with that alarm button?---Yes. It wasn’t a problem. It was designed into it but we didn’t know that it would occur until we started trialling it. Had we have gone with MFB’s proposed model of using local fireground channels only as opposed to the trunk fireground channels, we were under the impression if you hit your duress alarm you’d go straight back to VKN8, the signal would go to VKN8. It would flash on the computer screen and you’d have priority over the airways, the alarm would be raised. If you’re on the local fireground channels the signal didn’t go to VKN8, didn’t go to our control unit, command centre.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7232

What’s VKN8?---Sorry, that’s the communications centre.

PN7233

Right?---Wouldn’t go it. It would only go to the local other portable radios operating on that local channel.

PN7234

Moving on to another topic, Mr Tisbury, you were asked some questions about the desirability of using GPS tracking in emergencies such as Hazelwood. I think your evidence was that it would have been useful to overcome some of the difficulties facing firefighters in terms of knowing where they were. Are you aware of the proposal by Deputy Chief Youssef to enable GPS tracking in July 2013?---Yes, I am.

PN7235

He gave some evidence of some attempts to divide some protocols around the use of GPS tracking. Are you aware of that?---Yes.

PN7236

Does the UFU agree or disagree that GPS tracking be used to locate firefighters and appliances on the fireground?---We are a hundred per cent in agreement. We want it in sooner rather than later.

PN7237

Was that your position in July 2013?---Yes.

PN7238

Mr Tisbury, you were asked some questions about the terms of reference dispute. Do you remember that?---Yes.

PN7239

It was put to you that the UFU had refused to attend meetings until that dispute was resolved. It was then put to you that if the UFU refused to meet, that there was no prospect for change to be progressed and you agreed that that was so. Are you aware of any MFB concern at that time about the progress or otherwise of consultation whilst the dispute was being resolved?---No. In actual fact, Sean Hogan probably spent more time at the union office than he did at the MFB headquarters working on the terms of reference for the subcommittee.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7240

If I could ask you to have a look at this document, please. Commissioner, just for the record, this is an email I’m about to show the witness. It’s in the evidence to be given by Mr Lee at Lee26.

PN7241

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN7242

MR HARDING: Have a read of this email, Mr Tisbury.

PN7243

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you know what page it appears in Mr Lee’s?

PN7244

MR HARDING: No, not off the top of my head, Commissioner, I don’t. I can find out for you, though.

PN7245

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Found it.

PN7246

MR HARDING: Perhaps you could assist me by telling me the page number, Commissioner.

PN7247

THE COMMISSIONER: 590.

PN7248

MR HARDING: There you go. Do you know Mr Burns?---Yes, I do.

PN7249

Does this reflect your understanding of the position at the time that the terms of reference dispute was ongoing?---That explains why I couldn’t remember a dispute about this particular issue yesterday when asked.

PN7250

Thank you. Commissioner, I don’t propose to tender the email at this stage in light of the fact that Mr Lee can deal with it.

PN7251

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, thank you.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7252

MR HARDING: Mr Tisbury, you were asked some questions about clause 88 of the enterprise agreement. It was put to you that the things that are listed in clause 88 concerning appliances, clothing and station wear had to be the subject of agreement with the UFU. Do you recall those questions?---Yes, I do.

PN7253

Then you were asked about how that compared with the position under the 2005 agreement. Do you recall that?---Yes.

PN7254

Perhaps if I can hand up a copy of the 2005 agreement for you to have a look at. Commissioner, I’m handing up a copy of the relevant clause. It does have some yellow highlighting on it but, if my learned friend want to see, it’s just highlighting.

PN7255

THE COMMISSIONER: Which clause is it?

PN7256

MR HARDING: Sorry, it’s clause 9, Commissioner. It’s on pages 5 and 6. Do you see that? Can I just direct your attention to a couple of things, Mr Tisbury? Firstly, on page 5 you’ll see there’s a definition of “change”?---Yes.

PN7257

Do you agree or disagree that change at that time encompassed the introduction of new appliances, changes to PPC and station wear?---It is my understanding. That’s correct.

PN7258

If you then look at clause 9.2.2 – just read that for a moment – you see that it says that decision-making will be by consensus?---Yes, I can.

PN7259

Is it your understanding that change in the form of new appliances, PPC, station wear, was subject to consensus pursuant to this clause?---It is my understanding.

PN7260

Can you tell the commission what your experience, if you have any, was of how these things were done under the 2005 agreement?---Exactly the same way as how it’s being done under the 2010 agreement.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7261

Mr Tisbury, you were asked some questions by my learned friend yesterday about Mr O’Connell’s proposal for what has been termed the Jonah pill and you’ve been asked some questions about it today too. You said in answer that the MFB had withdrawn that proposal?---Yes, that is correct.

PN7262

Can you tell the Commissioner how that came about?---We were out at that EBIC committee meeting and, given the last piece of information from Dr Jane Wadsley about all the side effects and the people who would be knocked out or wouldn’t be allowed to participate in the training if the Jonah pill was made compulsory – Mick Walker who was chairing that committee meeting said, “The MFB can’t endorse that proposal,” and the UFU said, “We can’t endorse the proposal unless it become by a voluntary nature.” Mr O’Connell said his position was it was to be compulsory or nothing, and that’s where it rested. The training did end up going ahead without the use of the Jonah pill being compulsory and our operators are now trained, they did the course. Dr Jane Wadsley actually went up to see the first course to see what kind of – whether it was justified to have to swallow this tablet and she said, “This is not what I was expecting to see,” or words to that effect. Given the levels of physical exertion, she wouldn’t be recommending that it’s compulsory.

PN7263

Now, you referred to Mr Walker?---Yes. He was the acting chief fire officer.

PN7264

Who was he representing on the consultative committee at that time?---The MFB.

PN7265

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you just clarify his first name for me, please?
---Michael Walker.

PN7266

MR HARDING: I think Mr Walker has given some evidence.

PN7267

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I thought I heard a different name. That’s why I queried it.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7268

MR HARDING: I think the word Mick was used.

PN7269

THE COMMISSIONER: I heard something else. It’s my hearing.

PN7270

MR HARDING: Now, Mr Tisbury, have you got your statement there?---Yes.

PN7271

If you go to page 4, you might recall that this – there was a long conversation yesterday about the road to Craigieburn?---Yes.

PN7272

Paved in gold, that road. In paragraph 19 you gave some evidence about the Burnley site. Do you recall that?---Yes.

PN7273

You say in your statement it turned out to be heavily contaminated?---Yes.

PN7274

You were asked the basis for that and you referred to some documents that you had seen. Do you recall that?---Yes.

PN7275

If you bear with me for a moment, Mr Tisbury, I’m just going to hand you up a document to have a look at. Just have a moment to read through those, Mr Tisbury, and tell me when you’re done?---Read through them?

PN7276

No, not the whole way through. My question is, really, are those the documents you were referring to?---Yes.

PN7277

Thank you. I tender those documents, Commissioner.

PN7278

THE COMMISSIONER: Before you do, Mr Tisbury, how have you seen these documents before?---I was shown this document by one of the CFMEU blokes down at the site at Burnley.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7279

So there are three documents which have been provided to you. Which one are you referring to?---So I’ve seen this one.

PN7280

Can you tell me the names on it and the date?---Connelly Environmental, 17 February 2003.

PN7281

That’s a spare, I think. So there’s two, is there?---Yes, there was only two.

PN7282

MR HARDING: I think Mr Tisbury has only identified the first?---Yes.

PN7283

Not the second.

PN7284

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN7285

MR HARDING: I tender the first, not the second.

PN7286

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you.

PN7287

MR HARDING: That’s the one, isn’t it? You’re looking at the one that you saw. What’s the date?

PN7288

MR WHEELAHAN: I’ve got one 1994, Commissioner. The other one is stapled in whole – 2003?---Just let me have a quick squiz and I’ll tell you which one I saw.

PN7289

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tisbury, can I just ask you to look at the front page of this? So this is a facsimile message from Connelly Environmental dated 17 February 2002, and 2002 is crossed out and handwritten 2003. That’s the document you’re looking at?---Yes.

PN7290

That’s the document you say you’ve seen previously?---Yes.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7291

That’s the one you wish to tender?

PN7292

MR HARDING: That’s the one I wish to tender.

EXHIBIT #UFU15 FACSIMILE FROM CONNELLY ENVIRONMENTAL DATED 17/02/2003

PN7293

MR HARDING: If you just put that aside for the present time, Mr Tisbury. I’m not going to ask any further questions about it. You were taken to the statement of Mr Rau, the reply statement, which is MFB 8, Commissioner, and I’m going to hand you up a copy so you can look at it. If you can go to paragraph 77 of that statement which is on page 16?---Yes.

PN7294

You might recall that you were asked some questions about this paragraph yesterday, in particular the last sentence, “The windows did not shatter.” Can you tell the Commissioner what happened?---Mr Rau ordered us to stop, to turn the water off, because he said he’d seen enough, and if we went any further the windows would shatter, and he didn’t want the windows shattering. So he told us to stop.

PN7295

You also gave some evidence about perspex shields to be fitted?---Yes.

PN7296

Were they?---Yes.

PN7297

If you jump through your statement to paragraph 88 - sorry, Mr Rau’s reply statement, to paragraph 88. You were taken through this chronology by my learned friend yesterday. Do you remember that?---Yes.

PN7298

You were asked about whether you had seen the WorkCover report referred to in (vii) down there at the bottom of page 18. Do you see that?---Yes.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7299

You said you hadn’t, and then your evidence was also - you agreed with my learned friend that the matter became the subject of a grievance in the commission?---Yes.

PN7300

You mentioned that you had seen a WorkSafe prosecution document?---Yes. I had to give a statement to WorkSafe, to the prosecution - to the enforcement section for a prosecution that was being - that’s still currently going on.

PN7301

During the course of the grievance as it emerged in the commission, can you tell the commission whether or not the MFB revealed to you the existence of the WorkSafe report referred to?---No, they did not.

PN7302

Was it disclosed to you that it had a report confirming that the site unsafe - confirming that the site was safe?---No, not a report, only a letter from Jarrod Edwards who now - or who worked at WorkSafe. I don’t know whether he still does, but he was an ex-MFB employee. That was the only letter that was ever - with WorkSafe that was ever produced as evidence that the joint was safe. I had a whole boot-ful of documents that we obtained through FOI saying exactly the opposite and at 2007 at CFA when Mr Rau was the OIC at Fiskville he deliberately introduced (indistinct) that toxic bacteria - - -

PN7303

MR WHEELAHAN: I object, your Honour. First, it’s not re-examination. Secondly, the evidence he’s already accepted - and I put to him that he wasn’t the OIC and this witness accepted it, and now he’s just verballing Mr Rau, and Mr Rau is not - - -?---Sorry, in 2007.

PN7304
PN7305

THE COMMISSIONER: Excuse me, Mr Tisbury - - -

PN7306

MR WHEELAHAN: Sorry, I’m making objection. This is new evidence that has not been put to Mr Rau and it’s unfair for this witness in re-examination to be essentially denigrating the chief officer.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7307

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think the objection may well be founded. I’m not sure about the last sentence. What do you say, Mr Harding, about the question itself?

PN7308

MR HARDING: There’s nothing wrong with the question, in my submission. It was a matter that came out of cross-examination and I’m simply asking Mr Tisbury to clarify his understanding of what occurred during that dispute process which he was asked about.

PN7309

THE COMMISSIONER: I agree. I’ll allow the question.

PN7310

MR HARDING: Mr Tisbury, during the discussions concerning the resolution of that dispute you gave - I think your answer was that the MFB withdrew its proposal to use Fiskville. Is that correct?---That’s correct.

PN7311

Did they disclose to you the reason for why they were withdrawing that proposal?---No.

PN7312

Bear with me for a moment, Mr Tisbury. Mr Tisbury, you were taken to Mr Davies’ reply statement yesterday, and in particular paragraph 7 which concerned - yes, I might hand it up to you. It might be simpler for you. If you go to paragraph 7 on page 2 and you’ll see that Mr Davies says in the second sentence, “The (indistinct) BA pod does not expose MFB firefighters to risk, because the BA pod is not a time critical response appliance.” Do you see that?
---Yes.

PN7313

It was suggested to you that that was so and you said no?---That’s correct.

PN7314

Why?---Because if the BA pod is called on to attend an emergency in the MFB it’s always response code 1, which is lights and bells, which indicates - which is like all of our pumpers. We go lights and bells because it’s time critical.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING
PN7315

You were taken to the reply statement of Mr McQuade and it was suggested to you that the three-metre gap, if I can put it that way, in the ladder platform would have been picked up anyway under the appliance manual that the MFB has for commissioning appliances. Do you remember that?---Yes.

PN7316

I believe your answer was that the manual was developed as part of the consultation process?---Yes.

PN7317

Are you able to explain to the Commissioner more about that?---Like the fire station design guidelines, there was a joint process to develop manuals for signing things off so you didn’t end up here all the times having blues over everything. There was like an agreed process to follow to get things commissioned and sort it out sooner rather than later.

PN7318

Thank you. I have no further questions, Commissioner.

PN7319

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Harding, I’m a little bit confused about the tabling of this document.

PN7320

MR HARDING: That wasn’t tendered, Commissioner.

PN7321

THE COMMISSIONER: So what am I to do with it?

PN7322

MR HARDING: Well, hand it back.

PN7323

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr Tisbury. You’re now released. Thank you for giving your evidence and please pass my thanks to your family for releasing you back from your holiday. I’ve had to break holidays previously myself and I understand the difficulties which that creates. So thank you for your evidence?---Thanks, Commissioner.

**** MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY RXN MR HARDING

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.50AM]
<DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON, SWORN [10.51AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HARDING [10.51AM]

PN7324

MR HARDING: Mr Hamilton, is your name David William Hamilton?---Yes.

PN7325

Is your business address 450 Burnley Street in Richmond?---Well, I’m currently at VEMTC, the Craigieburn training college. That’s my work address, so Craigieburn.

PN7326

You are currently the president of the United Firefighters Union?---Yes.

PN7327

And have held that position since 2009?---That’s correct.

PN7328

Is it correct to say you regularly sit on the consultative committee established under the 2010 enterprise agreement?---Yes.

PN7329

When you do so you chair for the UFU, you say?---That’s correct.

PN7330

Have you made a statement for the purposes of these proceedings?---I have, yes.

PN7331

Have you read that recently?---Yes, I have.

PN7332

Does it consist of 21 pages?---That’s correct.

PN7333

And a number of annexures?---Yes.

PN7334

Are there any corrections you wish to make?---No, no corrections.

PN7335

Is the statement true and correct, Mr Hamilton?---Yes.

PN7336

I tender that, Commissioner.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XN MR HARDING

EXHIBIT #UFU16 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID HAMILTON

PN7337

MR HARDING: Mr Hamilton, can I take you to paragraph 93 of your statement where you refer to some of the items which you say were completed through the consultative process, generally within one to two meetings, and you set those out?---Yes.

PN7338

On the next page, fifth from the bottom on your list is a thing called a ceiling hook?---Yes.

PN7339

Are you able to tell the commission what that is and its purpose?---Certainly. A ceiling hook is a piece of equipment, Commissioner. For example, if we look around the room – firefighters use this piece of equipment in a rather robust fashion. It’s a piece of equipment we use to pull down ceilings at structure fires, for example, maybe a house fire or a high-rise fire, for example, to check for the spread of fire. As a fire officer myself, when you attend a fire you need to – it’s your responsibility to make sure the fire is completely extinguished and firefighters in that process need to, vigorously on some occasions, pull down ceilings, perhaps walls, to look into cavities, et cetera, roof spaces for example. This took is very important in performing those duties. As I said, it can be quite a physical activity which our firefighters do at times and it’s used, as I say, to investigate and understand that the fire is extinguished and to confirm that the fire is out in certain areas of a structure.

PN7340

Why would it be necessary for it to be the subject of consultation with the MFB?
---As I said, it’s a piece of equipment that is used quite vigorously. Firefighters inherently need to have confidence in their equipment. They need to understand that it’s fit for purpose. They need to understand that it will complete its purpose. They need the confidence to know that it’s compliant with any standard and it will do the job that it does, because firefighters in a dynamic fire response expect and certainly appreciate equipment that doesn’t fail when needed. The replacement project for the ceiling hook came through consultation to make sure that it complied with those processes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XN MR HARDING
PN7341

Now, Mr Hamilton, can I show you a document. This is MFB45, Commissioner, which is a set of minutes. I’m just going to hand it up to you?---Yes.

PN7342

I’ll just wait for the Commissioner.

PN7343

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. We’ve got it.

PN7344

MR HARDING: Mr Hamilton, if you can describe what this document is as you understand it?---As it is titled, it’s the consultative committee meeting – it’s the agenda, is it? Yes, for the meeting of 1 August 2012.

PN7345

You’ll see in the box Attendees that there’s a heading, UFU Representatives, and your name is there?---That’s correct.

PN7346

Do you recall being at that meeting?---Yes, I do.

PN7347

If you can turn to the second page, please, under the heading proposals and papers, the third item is headed, “Water Tanker Replacement, Darren McQuade, paper received, yes,” and there’s a series of action items?---Yes.

PN7348

Number 1, it says, “UFU endorses the replacement of water tankers with pumpers and/or Pumper Tankers.” Do you remember that?---I do.

PN7349

Do you agree that the UFU endorsed the replacement?---Yes, certainly. As stated at dot point 1, the UFU endorsed the replacement program.

PN7350

Are you able to tell the commission, from your personal knowledge, what further action has been taken in relation to the pumpers?---Well, it’s my understanding that the replacement of the water tankers, firstly, has not taken place. This was endorsed back in 2012. The discussions were that the water tanker fleet, its life expectancy – they were fast reaching their expiry date and it was the MFB intention, with the UFU’s blessing, to replace those with appropriate appliances through the appliance replacement program at these dual appliance stations with either pumpers or Pumper Tankers.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XN MR HARDING
PN7351

Have you any involvement in this proposal beyond the - - -?---No.

PN7352

Mr Hamilton, if I can show you a statement, please. I’m going to show you a statement filed in the commission from Commander Darren McQuade, MFB28. If you go to paragraph 15 of Mr McQuade’s statement?---Yes, I’m currently there.

PN7353

As you can see from paragraph 14, he’s responding to paragraph 96 of your statement and in 15 he says, “Mr Hamilton states that a caller may not be able to differentiate between a bin fire on the street, a Dumpmaster fully engulfed or whether a neighbouring building is on fire.” He goes on to say, “That notion is ridiculous and ignores the fact that we rely on members of the public to report all kinds of emergencies, providing relevant details and what precisely is on fire.” That response to what you say in paragraph 96 concerning whether a caller is able to differentiate, do you have anything to say about what Mr McQuade says in 15?
---Well, in reference to – well, in my experience as a fire officer, certainly (indistinct) fire station and now currently as a senior officer in the MFB, it has been over 25 years, certainly the information we get from the public can vary. Certainly the information we receive when we respond as firefighters and fire officers can vary en route to the fire or incident. It can be updated, changed at any time. Firefighting inherently is a dynamic workplace and I’ve certainly seen over my journey and my experiences that from the get-go the information given for a fire, for example, can change, whether that be – or could be misinformed or the information may not be correct. It could be the wrong address. It could be the wrong information. It can be right, of course, and it could be of a lesser extent. It could be a small bin fire, yes, or it could be a Dumpmaster fire.

PN7354

What does that mean in terms of the firefighters’ response, in our experience, when you get to the incident?---Certainly I’ve been trained in the greater alarm response that the MFB use to attend fires. We use the greater alarm response. When we reach the fire and/or incident the appropriate wordback is given and appropriate resources deal with the fire. If it’s a small bin fire my dynamic risk assessment or the assessment of the situation and wordback will either escalate or de-escalate the fire, as per the greater alarm.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XN MR HARDING
PN7355

Finally, Mr Hamilton, some evidence has been give about a proposal from a firefighter by the name of Benjamin Morris concerning a proposal for fire hydrants. If I could perhaps hand you a copy of his statement which is volume 2, tab 42 of the materials – the UFU materials, Commissioner?---I now have that.

PN7356

Well, if you can turn to the first page at paragraph 4, it speaks about a project to place fire hydrant information flyers on all MFB appliances to engage the community. Do you see that?---Mm’hm.

PN7357

Then he says in paragraph 12 he put the proposal to the consultative committee in September 2012. Do you recall that coming to the committee?---I do recall that coming to the committee.

PN7358

He says, “At that meeting I presented my idea to the members of the committee, including a full proposal and example of the flyer and survey.” Turn the page, paragraph 15, he refers to a trial which commenced on 16 January 2013 and completed on 18 January 2013 which has been endorsed by the resource deployment allocation panel?---Yes.

PN7359

Are you able to tell the commission about the trial and where it was?---Ben, or leading firefighter Morris, was a firefighter – I can’t remember the platoon as such – at 26 station which is Croydon fire station. This is a great initiative. It’s a good story, I thought, of initiatives coming from the firefighters at grass roots level. This was a young firefighter. I’m not sure how many years in the job but he was a young leading firefighter out of Croydon fire station, saw an opportunity and a chance to engage with the public, community engagement, which firefighters do on a regular basis and do it very well, to engage with the communities of Croydon about their fire hydrants.

PN7360

Well, was the trail across the whole MFD or - - -?---No, it was specific to that area of Croydon fire station.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XN MR HARDING
PN7361

What was the purpose of the trial, Mr Hamilton?---The purpose of the trial, the way I look at it, I look at it more as a development and progression of the project. He respected the consultation process, firstly. Secondly, he gained support from both UFU and obviously the MFB which gave him the resources and the opportunity to grow his idea and conduct a trial which ultimately was phased across the MFD, the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, which was a great initiative. The actual process assisted to develop an effective tool of engagement which was well received in the Croydon fire maintenance area and it gave the opportunity for the MFB to resource it, get the appropriate – we have a P number to order stationery. It’s a P number process. It became allocated into the normal P number process. Therefore, when it rolled out across the fire stations it encompassed the whole process of how firefighters – systems of works, knew how it would work. The firefighters could access more flyers when they needed and videos were about the process and the engagement was also resourced and it was a really positive process.

PN7362

In relation to the project itself, being the flyer and the survey, was there a purpose that you can tell the commission about that the trial itself served for that project, the project itself?---Yes, the trial was to see community acceptance. I believe of the 100 - sorry, Commissioner, of the 100 flyers that went out, 60 per cent were returned, all in a positive fashion, which is good for firefighters, because it engaged the community to take ownership of their fire hydrants, to maintain their fire hydrants, and thirdly, to understand the importance of fire hydrants for firefighters. Obviously hydrants are very critical when we respond to access water for obviously firefighters to get to work and mitigate any fire incident. So it was a really positive process.

PN7363

Thank you, Mr Hamilton.

PN7364

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Harding. Yes, Mr Parry?

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XN MR HARDING

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PARRY [11.11AM]

PN7365

MR PARRY: If the commission pleases.

PN7366

Mr Hamilton, have you been refreshing your memory about this flyer issue about fire hydrants, have you?---I remember the process, yes.

PN7367

What, you’ve refreshed your memory recently?---No, just - - -

PN7368

You seem to have a very good memory of what’s a fairly - not a hugely significant matter, is it?---Well, I engaged personally with the firefighter at hand, so I did have an investment.

PN7369

You are the president of the UFU. That’s, what, the most senior elected office in the union?---It’s the president of the UFU, yes.

PN7370

You have below you vice-presidents?---I currently have a vice-president, a junior vice-president.

PN7371

And BCOM?---A 15-member branch committee, yes.

PN7372

How often does that meet?---It meets as required, but generally, if you want a general figure, it would be once every three to four weeks or as required.

PN7373

That presumably sits and sets policies for the UFU?---We discuss many matters, yes.

PN7374

I’m assuming it’s overseeing the bargaining process at the moment, Mr Hamilton?---We discussed the bargaining, yes.

PN7375

Well, I assume it’s keeping a pretty close eye on it, isn’t it?---We discussed the bargaining process, yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7376

You’ve got a bargaining committee that’s been appointed by BCOM?---We have representatives, yes.

PN7377

They report back regularly to BCOM about progress in negotiations?---Yes, they do, as required.

PN7378

You yourself, are you involved in the bargaining committee?---I on occasion assist the bargaining team with operational experience.

PN7379

You sit on the bargaining committee regularly, don’t you?---I sit on most - well, I sit when I can, yes.

PN7380

Right?---I don’t know whether I’m actually a member of the bargaining team. I’m the president and I go as the representative - as president, and I go for operational experience.

PN7381

Presumably you go to attend as a representative of the UFU?---Yes.

PN7382

You go to advance the interests of the UFU?---Yes.

PN7383

You were involved in the previous bargaining process, as I understand, back in 2009, 2010?---Yes, I was.

PN7384

On occasions Mr Marshall attends bargaining?---He does.

PN7385

He’s the most senior employed official of the union?---That’s correct.

PN7386

He’s not giving evidence in this case, is he?---I don’t believe so.

PN7387

Indeed, when one reads bulletins and announcements from the UFU they’re either generally authorised by you or Mr Marshall. Correct?---Yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7388

You have, I think, given evidence on behalf of the UFU in a number of proceedings before Fair Work Australia and its predecessor, the Industrial Relations Commission?---Yes, I have. I couldn’t tell you which ones, but I haven.

PN7389

There’s been quite a number, hasn’t there?---I couldn’t give you a number, but I have, yes.

PN7390

You’ve given evidence for the UFU either in an application by the UFU or you’ve given it against the MFB in an application by the MFB?---I believe that would be correct.

PN7391

Sitting on the rostering committee and RADAP and the consultative committee, you are sitting there as a UFU representative, aren’t you?---Yes.

PN7392

Your statement starts off with, I think, some examples of where you say the system has worked well. I think you refer to the e-roster?---Yes.

PN7393

As I understand your evidence, that was a proposal for an electronic rostering system which was proposed by the MFB. Correct?---Excuse me, yes.

PN7394

It was proposed by the MFB back in 2009 and then it went into the consultation process, didn’t it?---Yes.

PN7395

It was the position of the UFU through that process that absent the agreement of the UFU to the introduction of the e-rostering system that it would not be introduced?---That it would not be introduced when, sorry?

PN7396

Without the agreement of the UFU?---It was in - well, it entered a consultation process.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7397

Yes, but let’s get to the consultation process and follow it through. This is consultation under the - I think in 2009 it would have been the preceding agreement?---Yes, I think for want of purpose it was under the EBIC consultative process.

PN7398

My suggestion is under the agreement as it stood then concerning rostering arrangements and so forth, absent the agreement of the UFU the system would not be introduced. Correct?---I don’t believe that’s right.

PN7399

You believe the MFB could have introduced that system under the preceding enterprise agreement without the agreement of the UFU?---I’m not sure I understand the question, because the system wasn’t ready.

PN7400

No, leave aside whether the system was ready. Back in 2009 the MFB had a proposal. My suggestion to you is under the industrial arrangements that existed back in 2009, absent the agreement of the UFU the MFB could not introduce that system?---I think that’s right.

PN7401

That’s right, I see. That power in the UFU came from the preceding industrial agreement, didn’t it?---The consultation model, yes.

PN7402

Yes, so your understanding of the consultation model under the preceding agreement was that in respect of a proposal such as this, absent the agreement of the UFU it could not be introduced. Correct?---Endorsement between the parties.

PN7403

Yes, endorsement between the parties, which necessitates agreement of the UFU. That’s right, isn’t it?---Through the process.

PN7404

Right, through the process. So this proposal was commenced by the MFB and I think your statement takes it through. It was referred to the rostering committee to investigate. I think you say the process took some time. In paragraph 14 you refer to, “Eventually, in 2011 the MFB presented their developed e-rostering proposal to the consultative committee.” Do you see that?---Yes. Can you just give the number of the paragraph, sorry?

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7405

14. Do you remember when in 2011 the MFB presented or developed the rostering proposal?---No, I wouldn’t have that on memory.

PN7406

But by then the 2010 agreement was in operation, wasn’t it?---Well, that would be right, yes.

PN7407

Can I suggest to you the position in 2010 continued to be that the UFU took the position that unless the UFU agreed to this proposal being introduced, then it would not be introduced?---The system itself was being developed. It’s my understanding and my memory of the process. This is going back five years.

PN7408

Well, I don’t want to go back five years. I’m back in 2011, you see?---Yes.

PN7409

Here in 2011 is a new EB in existence. You’ve already told the commission, as you understand it, the preceding enterprise agreement would have required the agreement of the UFU for this proposal to be introduced. Right?---Yes.

PN7410

I suggest to you that 2011 comes around, a new EB, and it remained the position of the UFU that the MFB could not introduce this proposal without the agreement of the UFU?---That’s the current consultation model, yes.

PN7411

That’s the current consultation model. So the position is that, according to your paragraph 14 – and we don’t know the date but probably halfway through the year or something like that – any ideas, recollections?---I would have to refer to minutes.

PN7412

Whatever, by this time the MFB had presented their developed e-rostering proposal to the consultative committee. As you say, it was advised at this meeting the program was ready for implementation and would run with Mintech maintained in the background. Do you see that?---Yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7413

So by this stage the project was, according to the MFB, ready for implementation and could have been implemented at that time?---No, that’s not correct.

PN7414

So you disagree with actually what you’ve written there, that they advised the meeting of that?---No.

PN7415

You do agree with it?---No. I’m happy to explain.

PN7416

Well, I’m just trying to work out whether paragraph 14 is correct or not?---Okay.

PN7417

You say the MFB turned up, presented their developed e-rostering proposal and said it was ready for implementation and would run with Mintech maintained in the background. That’s presumably correct?---Well, I think what I am saying is that the MFB, by their choice, ran the two systems parallel for a period of time to ensure that – if I may add, rostering is critical to the inner workings of the MFB. The MFB wanted to run the two systems parallel to make sure that all the vagaries and any systems – to make sure the system works to its optimum before they introduced it.

PN7418

The position is pretty simple, really. By mid or some time in 2011 that you can’t identify MFB was ready to implement the program. When we go over the page we find out that it was fully endorsed in December 2012, a year or two later. That’s a fair summary of your evidence, isn’t it?---That’s the period where they ran the two parallel to make sure, because of the critical nature of rostering - - -

PN7419

The long and the short of it is they couldn’t introduce the system until the UFU had agreed. Correct?---No, I disagree. The MFB chose to run the systems in parallel to make sure that the critical infrastructure or critical rostering component worked to its best possible – to be best practice, I guess.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7420

And unless the UFU agreed with that assessment of best practice, the system wasn’t going to be endorsed or introduced, was it?---Well, it was monitored, as I remember it, through the rostering committee.

PN7421

Commissioner, it’s a straightforward question?---Sorry, if you could repeat the question.

PN7422

Absent the endorsement and agreement of the UFU, the system was not going to be introduced, was it?---It had to complete the consultation phrase, yes.

PN7423

Your view of completing the consultation stage is that the UFU has to agree with what’s being put forward?---The parties need to agree.

PN7424

Absent that agreement, the proposal would not have been introduced?---It needed to complete consultation.

PN7425

All right. The next one you’ve put forward is the electronic recall system. Again, can I suggest the electronic recall system was a proposal developed by the MFB?
---Yes.

PN7426

Again, I think your position would be that it was not going to be introduced without the agreement of the UFU. Correct?---No.

PN7427

Again, was your answer that it would have to go through the consultation process?---It was a system that was introduced by the consultation phase which was enthusiastically embraced by the UFU. We saw a need for the process and we engaged in the process through consultation to again achieve a best practice product for the MFB.

PN7428

The best practice product you refer to, the position is that unless the UFU agrees that it’s a best practice product and agrees to its introduction, the system is not going to be introduced. That’s the position, isn’t it?---The system needed to complete the consultation.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7429

And your view of the consultation process – and again I’m repeating myself – is that unless the UFU agrees, the consultation process doesn’t get completed?
---There needs to be endorsement between the parties through consultation, yes.

PN7430

That’s the agreement of the UFU. Correct?---Part of it, yes.

PN7431

Part of it. All right. This electronic recall system, as I read it, a proposal was developed in – when, 2009 or 2010? Do you remember?---It came about – I’d have to check my statement.

PN7432

Well, it’s not clear from your statement. You see, there’s some varying dates. It starts at the bottom of page – down at paragraph 25, 26. It doesn’t really have dates. Over the page it refers to the development stage and then we get to 2010. There’s reference to “we”. Then it goes to 2011. The long and the short of it is this process was introduced in May 2013, as I understand it?---Mm’hm.

PN7433

So you’re referring to a period here of some three or four years from the development to the introduction of this system. Is that a fair summary?---It took a period of time, yes.

PN7434

These are your good examples of the consultation process, Mr Hamilton, are they?---Well, what I can tell you is that it’s a very effective system that achieved all its goals for the MFB in regards to efficiencies for the recall system.

PN7435

I’m certainly not suggesting that it’s not a good system, I’m just suggesting that it took a heck of a long time for the system to be developed and implemented through the various processes that you’ve described in your statement?---I think I describe there were some - I do describe that there were some reasons for that.

PN7436

Yes, and the long and the short of it is that with regard to projects such as this, unless the UFU agree, as you’ve said, the MFB can’t introduce them. Correct?

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY

---Ultimately, through the consultation process, but we assist through that process through the sub-committees.

PN7437

All right. Now, the next part of your statement deals with the transfer grievance committee?---Yes.

PN7438

Have you read the undertaking that the MFB propose in the event the EB is terminated?---The undertaking document?

PN7439

Yes?---I’ve read it, yes.

PN7440

So you’re aware that there is a proposal for the transfer grievance committee to continue in effect doing the work it does. Are you aware of that?---Yes.

PN7441

So the sort of numbers of grievances that are dealt with in a year could presumably still be dealt with by that committee. Correct?---They could be.

PN7442

You then deal with the RADAP sub-committee. I think you refer to station upgrades. The provision with regard to new fire stations and upgraded fire stations, presumably you’re fairly familiar with the existing enterprise agreement. I think it’s - and I’m happy to hand you a copy of this, but it’s clause - I’ll provide you a copy of the enterprise agreement. I suppose my question is going to be, just so that I’m up front about it, that is - - -?---Thank you.

PN7443

- - - in a practical sense, unless the UFU agree to the placement and building of a new fire station, then the position is that the MFB can’t proceed to do that. Is that your understanding?---The MFB generally enter into a process via the consultation model and the sub-committee, being RADAP, to work on such fire station changes and/or rebuilds, yes.

PN7444

Yes, and again, assuming it’s in the consultation process, presumably it is still the position until the UFU agree then the MFB can’t proceed?---Well, we do represent our members.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7445

No, I understand you represent your members, but the position is that unless the UFU agree on a proposal with regard to new stations or refurbished stations, those proposals can’t proceed?---They need to make - journey through the consultation process.

PN7446

Yes, we’ve been there. The position is that they make their way through the consultation process and unless the UFU agree during that process the proposal cannot be implemented by the MFB?---By endorsement, yes.

PN7447

By endorsement?---Between the parties.

PN7448

Yes, right, between the parties, and so if the MFB want something to happen with regard to a new station or a refurbished station and the UFU doesn’t want it to happen, your understanding of the enterprise agreement is that the MFB cannot make that happen?---We engage with the MFB.

PN7449

Yes, you engage - - -?---I’m not sure of the inference of if we don’t want it to happen. What does that mean?

PN7450

If the UFU oppose it it isn’t going to happen, is it?---If there’s issues arising and the member - and there are issues, as we represent our membership we try to engage and resolve.

PN7451

If they don’t agree and you oppose it, your position is it won’t happen?
---Generally we reach arrangements, agreement, yes, we do.

PN7452

You reach arrangements, I suggest to you, because without your agreement it isn’t going to happen. Can we accept that?---That’s possible.

PN7453

It’s possible you don’t reach agreement and it’s possible that if you don’t - well, it’s certain if you don’t reach agreement the proposal is not going to proceed. That’s correct, isn’t it?---Ultimately.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7454

Yes, thank you. Are you aware that - have you looked through the undertaking to see how it deals with RADAP?---If you could refer it to me, which - are you talking a clause?

PN7455

Well, no, you said you’ve read it. Have you looked through it to see whether it deals with RADAP?---The work agreement.

PN7456

No, not the work agreement?---Sorry.

PN7457

The undertaking. Are you aware whether it deals with RADAP or not?---The undertaking doesn’t mention RADAP. The undertaking - I’m happy to - do you have a copy? I’m happy to read it.

PN7458

All right. I’ll come back to that shortly once I find the piece of paper. Paragraph 54 deals with the proposals for change and then overseen by RADAP:

PN7459

However in these cases consultation happens directly with a representative from each shift at the station known as an end-user representative who are there to gather feedback and information from the firefighters on shift regarding a proposal and to resolve issues. Once all parties are satisfied each end-user will sign off.

PN7460

So the process now adopted is with regard to developments at stations that unless all parties are satisfied, there won’t be sign-off and the project can’t proceed. That’s the position, isn’t it?---That’s the process, yes.

PN7461

It’s the process. The ultimate result is unless the end-users sign off the project can’t proceed?---Well, it’s a healthy process, I believe, and, yes, it is the process.

PN7462

I understand. On occasions this means, doesn’t it, that new fire stations simply aren’t built, a new fire station at Northcote, for example?---Yes. There’s an example, yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7463

That’s an example, isn’t it? Also the Eastern Hill refurbishment. Without the okay of the end-users that refurbishment didn’t proceed, did it?---No, that never proceeded.

PN7464

Do you accept that those are bad outcomes overall for the MFB and firefighters, where a new station is not built or an existing station is not refurbished. They’re not good outcomes, are they?---In particular it wasn’t a good outcome for number 1, no.

PN7465

Not a good outcome – I’m sorry, I didn’t catch - - -?---It wasn’t a good outcome for the firefighters at number 1. As I understand it, the MFB ultimately withdrew the proposal because it wasn’t supported.

PN7466

Well, when you say it withdrew the proposal, it’s a fairly simple way to look at it. Absent agreement, there will be no - - -?---Well, the UFU in particular to the refurbishment of Eastern Hill, through the consultative process we agreed.

PN7467

Perhaps I’ll hand you the undertaking document, Mr Hamilton?---Yes.

PN7468

Were you involved in the proceedings involving Commissioner Roe where he made recommendations regarding the terms of reference for the operational committees and those that reported to them?---The terms of reference, no, I wasn’t.

PN7469

It’s on page 5 of the undertaking at clause 12. It’s headed Operational Committee. Do you have that?---I don’t have a page 5. Thank you.

PN7470

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Parry, I apologise for stopping your flow but can you remind me which bundle of documents the undertakings were provided in?

PN7471

MR PARRY: They were an exhibit.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7472

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, and I think they were in a folder at one stage.

PN7473

MR PARRY: They were, Commissioner. It’s exhibit MFB5.

PN7474

THE COMMISSIONER: I wouldn’t quite put it that we’ve lost it but – just a second. Thank you, Mr Parry, we have that.

PN7475

MR PARRY: So if I could take you to page 5 under the heading Operational Committee?---Yes.

PN7476

There’s a reference to effective operational communication throughout the MFB. Do you remember reading this particular clause, Mr Hamilton?---Yes. Well, I’ve looked over the agreement, yes.

PN7477

I’m not going too take you through each line by line of it but there is in 12.8 reference to the terms of reference established by Commissioner Roe by recommendation C20115542?---Yes, I see that.

PN7478

Are you familiar with those terms of reference?---I am familiar with the terms of reference, yes.

PN7479

The terms of reference, for the commission’s sake, are contained in the witness statement of Mr Stacchino at PS3.

PN7480

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN7481

MR PARRY: Those terms of reference make reference at 3.3, “The following subcommittees are recognised by the consultation committee,” and the first dot point has RADAP. Now, I don’t propose to taking you, unless the commission wants me to, through that.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7482

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

PN7483

MR PARRY: You’ve got no reason to doubt what I’ve just read out, really, Mr Hamilton?---No, I don’t.

PN7484

MR HARDING: Well, Commissioner, before we go further on this line of questioning, my learned friend has just taken Mr Hamilton to the terms of reference of Commissioner Roe and, as I apprehend the question, then asked him to say that they’re effectively the same, but - - -

PN7485

MR PARRY: No, I’m not going to make that submission. Ultimately we’re just talking about a committee - - -

PN7486

MR HARDING: Well, I’ll just finish the objection. The undertaking is in quite different terms in relation to the terms of reference and, as a matter of fairness to the witness, he ought to be directed to what the undertaking provides before we go to the terms of reference.

PN7487

MR PARRY: I don’t think this witness can really assist these matters.

PN7488

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN7489

MR PARRY: I don’t think his understanding of the document is sufficient to have a debate with him about it, without any disrespect to Mr Hamilton.

PN7490

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand, yes.

PN7491

MR PARRY: So I think that - - -?---Sorry, do I need this document?

PN7492

No, you probably don’t need it, Mr Hamilton. The next item in your statement is mechanical loader. That is, the MFB presented at consultative committee a proposal to replace a current mechanical loader with a new mechanical loader as the current one was reaching its operational lifespan. Now, Mr Hamilton, a new piece of equipment, a new appliance, such as a new mechanical loader, presumably – do you still have the EB there with you, the enterprise agreement?
---Is this it here? Yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7493

Clause 88?---88.1, Uniforms and Equipment?

PN7494

Yes, 88.1 where, “The MFB and UFU must agree on all aspects of the” – and then over the page 88.1.4 – “appliances.” Do you see that?---Yes.

PN7495

Now, I assume you would take the view that a new mechanical loader is an appliance?---It’s a mechanical loader. We refer to appliances as fire trucks or fire-fighting trucks, aerial equipment. I guess you could call it an appliance.

PN7496

Or would it be – 88.1.2 – equipment?---Sorry, I shut the agreement. I’ll go back there. Could you repeat the question?

PN7497

Yes, I was at clause 88.1.2 dealing with – and it’s reference is, “There must be agreement on all aspects of enterprise agreement, including PPE or appliances.” Now, I assume it would be the position of the UFU that a new mechanical loader would be caught by clause 88. Am I right in that?---Could you just take me - I’m just reading through - sorry, I was missing 88.1.4 which is applying, sorry, yes.

PN7498

So the position is that this new mechanical loader could not be introduced, on the UFU’s view, without the agreement of the UFU?---It entered the consultation phase, yes.

PN7499

Well, you see, clause 88 doesn’t refer to consultation at all. All clause 88 refers to is the parties must agree, right? So absent the agreement of the UFU there would be no new mechanical loader. Correct?---Through - but with it being - it’s progressed via clause 88 through the consultation.

PN7500

Where does one have to go to consultation via clause 88?---I believe it’s covered by the consultation clause.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7501

The long and the short of it is, though, no matter - whatever happens in consultation, absent the UFU agreeing, then there would not be a new mechanical loader. Correct?

PN7502

MR HARDING: Commissioner, is Mr Parry suggesting that is a question of law or experience? If he’s asking the question on the latter basis it ought to be put in that way, because plainly Mr Hamilton is not a lawyer.

PN7503

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I understood the question to be on that basis. I understood the question to be on that basis, but I accept the objection.

PN7504

MR PARRY: You accept - I’m sorry, what objection, your Honour? I’ve asked this witness is it the position of the UFU.

PN7505

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I accept that you are putting it in terms of the witness’s experience. Now, I might be wrong in that.

PN7506

MR PARRY: No, that’s - I’m putting it - it’s on the UFU’s table as to clause 88, whilst you might go into consultation, absent the agreement of the UFU there would be no new mechanical loader. That’s correct, isn’t it?---Via the consultation process such equipment progresses through and is agreed by endorsement, hence the mechanical loader.

PN7507

And absent the agreement of the UFU, the MFB cannot buy a new mechanical loader. That’s correct, isn’t it?---By agreement between the parties.

PN7508

The MFB wanted to introduce - they presented this proposal to introduce a new mechanical loader and they could only go through that process of purchasing a new mechanical loader with the agreement of the UFU. That’s correct, isn’t it?

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY

---They entered into a consultation process, yes.

PN7509

You’ve often this morning used the reference to the consultation process and I think I’ve asked you a number of questions about it. The long and the short of it is it might go into a consultation process, but your understanding of the consultation process is unless the UFU agrees the proposal being consulted about won’t proceed. That’s the position, isn’t it?---No, it’s by agreement.

PN7510

Yes, all right. Now, you’ve also given, I think, evidence about the consultative committee in paragraph 86 of your statement. Now, I think - does Mr Marshall attend the consultative committee on occasions?---Peter does, yes.

PN7511

I think you gave evidence in a diversity training matter a few years ago, didn’t you, where the MFB wanted to introduce diversity training? Do you remember that?---Yes, I do.

PN7512

That had been to the consultative committee, hadn’t it?---Yes.

PN7513

I think the MFB wanted to introduce diversity training for the staff and firefighters and the UFU were opposing that, weren’t they?---I don’t know whether we were opposing it. We had some outstanding matters.

PN7514

Well, because you had outstanding matters you’d raised a grievance and bulletins had been issued to the effect that people should not attend grievance training. That was the position, wasn’t it?---Well, there was a dispute. There was a dispute.

PN7515

You were in dispute, so the status quo was there would be no diversity training. Do you remember that?---Well, the training didn’t proceed.

PN7516

The training didn’t proceed. It was the subject of proceedings in the consultative committee, wasn’t it? Do you remember that?---That’s going back a while, but - - -

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7517

I’m happy to show you the minutes, Mr Hamilton. That’s where Mr Marshall turned up and said in respect of diversity training MFB’s going to get jack shit. Remember that?---I’d be happy to see the minutes if you have them.

PN7518

Okay, I’ll show you the minutes?---Thank you. 2008?

PN7519

Yes. See, it’s on page - that’s not the page. Under General Business from about page 5 or 6 in?---What’s it under, sorry? What’s the title?

PN7520

Under the heading General Business, Recruitment Review?---Yes.

PN7521

D. Smiley, that was the - do you have that, sorry? Do you have it?---Yes.

PN7522

D. Smiley, that’s Dalal Smiley. She was the lady that was to be presenting the diversity training to the staff across the fire brigade. Correct?---She was in that position, I believe, yes. Yes, that’s right.

PN7523

I think you were at this meeting, weren’t you?---I was.

PN7524

The UFU advised they would provide an alternative proposal. You remember they never did that, did they?---I don’t remember.

PN7525

“UFU indicated they will not support this matter until hard data is received.” “PM” - so if you go back to the start of the meeting, Peter Marshall was in attendance. He said, “MFB will get jack shit and nothing will happen for the next three years.” Do you remember him saying that?---I don’t remember him saying those words exactly, but I’m sure - there were discussions, yes.

PN7526

Do you remember being me - - -?---Robust discussion, I guess.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7527

Do you remember me cross-examining you about this in proceedings before the commission? I’m happy to show you the transcript. In fact, I have the transcript of the whole proceedings, but I hopefully won’t have to burden the commission with it. I’ll hand you up the - well, I’ll hand up my copy. It's got highlighting on it, I apologise for that?---Thank you. Yes, the highlighted section, yes.

PN7528

Yes, I was going to read to you the highlighted section. If you go back a page, you're giving evidence, and this was one of the cases I think you gave evidence for the UFU. These were proceedings, I think, before the commission to get orders to lift the bans on the diversity training?---Yes.

PN7529

So it's on 399, the commission pleases. Can I read this to you?---Yes.

PN7530

I think this is cross-examination of you and I think I asked you about this document, and I read to you at 399, "'The UFU indicated they will not support this matter until hard data is received.' PM, that's Peter Marshall, isn't it?" "That's correct"?---I assume so, yes.

PN7531

I'm just reading you a transcript and are you - - -?---Sorry, yes.

PN7532

Do you remember saying that under oath?---Obviously I did, yes.

PN7533

To read the next part, "'Stated that the MFB will get jack shit.' Do you remember him then using those words?" You said, "Words to that effect, yes." And I asked you, "He used those words, didn't he?" "Yes." "'And nothing will happen for the next three years.' He said that, didn't he?" "Yes"?---Yes.

PN7534

Right, and that's the evidence you gave, you gave it under oath and it's all true?
---Yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7535

Commissioner, I'm not going to tender that. I think the commission will have enough exhibits and the relevant parts have been read on the transcript.

PN7536

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN7537

MR PARRY: That's not a particularly cooperative attitude to the consultation process, is it?---Generally, that's - generally, the consultation process runs reasonably smooth.

PN7538

Well, it's a pretty serious thing to say, "You'll get jack shit for three years," isn't it, from the state secretary to the MFB in a consultation process?---There was some emotion attached.

PN7539

I'm just not sure why there's so much emotion attached about the training of firefighters in diversity. It was a matter that the UFU took the position it wasn't going to proceed and, unless it proceeded on their terms, it wasn't going to proceed. Correct?---I don't remember the full context; I would have to revisit that.

PN7540

Because Mr Marshall wasn't getting his own way, he descended to making threats for the next three years?---I don't remember being threatened.

PN7541

You don't think that's a threat?

PN7542

THE COMMISSIONER: Could you answer the question, please?---Is it a threat?

PN7543

That was the question?---Excuse me, sorry, Commissioner, the question, sorry, could you redirect the question?

PN7544

MR PARRY: What Mr Marshall said was a threat, wasn't it?---I don't believe it was a threat.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7545

You don't read that as a threat to the MFB?---I take it as emotional.

PN7546

Mr Hamilton, you go on with regard to the consultative committee and with regard to paragraph 92, you say, "I can think of very few occasions, less than a dozen, where the parties were simply unable to reach agreement."

PN7547

Well, the long and the short of it is: unless the UFU agree, nothing happens. Correct?---Well, the MFB have the opportunity to rework the proposal, I would suspect.

PN7548

Yes, and unless they rework it to the satisfaction of the UFU, nothing is going to happen?---Once again, consensus or agreement needs to be reached through the consultation process.

PN7549

Paragraph 92, also, you note that in the enterprise agreement there is a provision made for a circuit breaker dispute process if disputes should arise regarding consultation. This is clause 20. It was introduced in 2010 and the MFB have not sought to use this circuit breaker. We can quite readily agree, can't we, that that the UFU has never sought to use this process, have they?---We haven't used it, no.

PN7550

And, indeed, the UFU has never sought to agree a consultation officer, have they?---It hasn't been agreed between the parties, no.

PN7551

Well, there's been no discussions between the parties at all, has there?---It's my understanding that at the start of the agreement, 2010, we had a CEO being Graham Fountain. He exited the organisation and there was a new CEO, a Mr Nick Easy. He took over the role of CEO. And there was clearly - there seemed to have been a conversation between the secretary and the CEO that Mr Easy didn't wish to engage with the secretary.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7552

Well, this is Peter Marshall, the secretary who we're not going to hear from in this case. You're reporting a conversation he had with Mr Easy. That's what you're doing now, isn't it? Mr Marshall could easily come along and give this evidence, couldn't he? Well, that's a shrug. I don't know whether the transcript recognises shrugs. I assume you accept that he could come along and give that evidence very easily?---I believe Mr Marshall isn't a witness.

PN7553

I'm sorry?---Mr Marshall is not a witness.

PN7554

No. All right. I think your reference to this about it being a circuit breaker process and presumably it's a circuit breaker process if a dispute arises regarding consultation. Correct?---Yes.

PN7555

I suggest that whenever the UFU has an issue or dispute about consultation, it raises a grievance and invokes the status quo?---The grievance is raised by a member or a body UFU on behalf of that member.

PN7556

Yes, so whenever the UFU, I would suggest, has an issue about - well, not whenever, generally I'll be a bit fairer about it, the UFU has an issue or dispute about consultation, it follows the process of raising a grievance which invokes clause 19 of the disputes procedure. Isn't that correct?---Yes.

PN7557

Generally, again, almost invariably, when a grievance is invoked, the UFU relies on clause 19.4 about the status quo, doesn't it?---Well, that's in the agreement, that's what applies, yes.

PN7558

Isn't the general practice then the UFU issues a bulletin to members saying a grievance has been issued and the status quo has been invoked, therefore they should not, because of the status quo, the situation has to remain as it is and, therefore, the MFB can't implement or do what it wants to do?---Well, it can do but we're informing the membership, yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7559

You're informing the membership. We can accept, presumably, that the UFU has the option whenever this occurs of going through clause 20, doesn't it?---Sorry, could you - - -

PN7560

It has the option of trying to agree a consultation officer, doesn't it?---Well, the MFB haven't used it, but got the option, yes.

PN7561

Yes, you've got the option?---But parties haven't agreed to a consultation officer.

PN7562

The parties haven't agreed to consultation officer currently?---No.

PN7563

Indeed, there's been a number of disputes, I think, placed before this commission in this proceeding. There's been grievances raised about consultation, and I just want to run through quickly a list and I just want to see whether you were involved in the advice to the UFU or involved in initiating the grievance yourself. Do you follow that?---Yes, whether I initiated a grievance.

PN7564

Yes?---Yes.

PN7565

I'm assuming that Mr Casey Lee would have to act - and I might be wrong - would have to act with either your authority or with Mr Marshall's authority. Would that be correct?---Certainly, the authority of the secretary, yes.

PN7566

Yes, Mr Marshall. And Ms Krouskos, when she acts, whose authority does she act under?---Under the secretary, Peter Marshall, and the branch committee of course.

PN7567

Fire ground accountability list, there was a grievance raised about that. Were you involved in that decision to initiate that grievance?---I didn't initiate the grievance as such, but I was involved in the process of the fire ground accountability.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7568

Did you give advice to initiate the grievance to Mr Lee or anyone else?---The secretary would have - - -

PN7569

The secretary would have done that, I see. Personal Internet use, there was a grievance initiated about that concerning consultation. Were you involved in the decision to initiate that?---The Internet use? No, that might be Mr Marshall.

PN7570

Mr Marshall?---Well, yes, Mr Marshall.

PN7571

Windows 7, that also involved a grievance in respect of consultation. Were you involved in that decision to initiate that grievance?---Sorry, which one again?

PN7572

Windows 7, I think it concerned the introduction of Windows 7 and the training. Were you involved in that?---Mr Lee would have raised that under instructions.

PN7573

I see, but not your instructions? That's a shake of the head - - -?---No, sorry.

PN7574

- - - just to assist the transcript writers. Air watch, did you initiate that one?---No.

PN7575

Were you involved in the decision to initiate it, or it's something you don't know much about?---The committee - the branch committee and management obviously discuss issues and decisions are made.

PN7576

What about the grievance in respect of the BA pod? That's right, there's been some evidence given about the transfer of appliance at Bayswater and a grievance initiated there. Were you involved in the decision to initiate that grievance?---No, I think that was via other committee members, Casey Lee and Mr Marshall.

PN7577

The transfer of the appliance to Sunshine, were you involved in that decision?---I believe I was at the hearing.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7578

The grievance, I meant?---The grievance?

PN7579

Yes?---Once again, Mr Lee and Peter Marshall, and the relevant committee member.

PN7580

The work instruction 019, there was a grievance about that concerning the inclusion of certain matters in it. Do you remember that?---OWI19?

PN7581

Yes?---I remember it, yes.

PN7582

Were you involved in initiating that grievance?---Casey Lee and Mr Marshall.

PN7583

Teleboom replacement, there was a grievance about that?---Yes.

PN7584

Were you involved in initiating that?---By Casey Lee and Mr Marshall.

PN7585

I've got Ringwood Fire Station. I apologise for the lack of detail, but there was apparently a grievance raised about, I think, the occupation of the Ringwood Fire Station. The upgrade, I'm sorry, yes, there was a grievance about that?---That was a refurbishment issue.

PN7586

Yes, that was a refurbishment?---Yes.

PN7587

Were you involved in initiating that grievance?---No.

PN7588

The Eastern Hill refurbishment, what about that?---Once again, I was involved, I was involved in that process and initiated - I had conversations, but the grievance was initiated ultimately by Mr Lee and Peter Marshall.

PN7589

The grievance that was lodged in January, I think, this year concerning the use of fire fighters and appliances in respect of a heat wave. Do you remember that?

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY

---The use of the 60 series appliances, yes.

PN7590

The EMR?---Yes.

PN7591

Were you involved in the initiation of that grievance?---No, it would be via Casey Lee and Mr Marshall.

PN7592

There's been evidence given about a grievance raised about MFB polices and about what was contained in the polices and whether they matched with the enterprise agreement or not. Were you involved in that?---Is that the guidelines?

PN7593

Guidance, yes?---I'm aware of the issue, yes.

PN7594

But were you involved in initiating the grievance?---It would have been initiated by our industrial officer and Mr Marshall.

PN7595

I see. Your statement goes on and deals with, on page 11, bin fires. On page 11, paragraph 96, you have a proposal to amend the MFB's bin fire response, and you've given, I think, some more evidence about that today. Presumably, you're aware that fire services across the country in all capital cities respond with one appliance bin fires. Are you aware of that?---I'm not aware of it as such. I believe - - -

PN7596

Are you aware of it or not, I didn't catch that?---I'm unaware of it being the case that all fire services do it.

PN7597

Would it be a consideration at all for the UFU if other fire services across the country did this?---Possibly a consideration.

PN7598

It would be a fairly weighty consideration, wouldn't it, if in other capital cities the fire services were responding this way and had been doing for some eight or 10 years. That would be a consideration, wouldn't it?---A possible consideration, yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7599

I'm assuming your union would be well aware of these arrangements in other states?---That's probably a national issue, a national committee issue.

PN7600

There's no suggestion that you're aware of the brigades in other states are acting unsafely in responding with one appliance in capital cities to bin fires, are you, that you're aware of?---I'm unaware of - I haven't spoken to anyone from - - -

PN7601

You say a national issue. Is Mr Marshall a national secretary?---Yes, he is.

PN7602

The position of the UFU is to oppose the position that the MFB respond with one appliance to bin fires in the Melbourne CBD?---Yes, that proposal, bin fire proposal, yes, put some years ago, or a while ago.

PN7603

The position of the UFU is: absent the agreement of the UFU, that proposal won’t be introduced?---I believe it came to the subcommittee 2012 and wasn’t endorsed. On the back of the seven on the fire ground clause I think it’s - I’d have to check the agreement.

PN7604

So the proposal has been rejected as it currently stands because of the provision in the EBA that refers to seven on the fire ground. Is that your position?---Yes.

PN7605

Absent the UFU changing its mind, that proposal will not be introduced. Correct?---The MFB have the option to put a revised proposal.

PN7606

But the UFU have consistently opposed this for the last decade. There’s no suggestion they’re going to change their mind on this, is there?---That’s a committee decision.

PN7607

Indeed, might I suggest that there’s a lot of senior officers in the brigade that have the view and have had the view for a number of years - - -

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7608

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that wins. Perhaps if you can restate the question, please.

PN7609

MR PARRY: You accept that there are a number of senior officers in the brigade that have the view that this is a proposal that could easily be introduced safely and quickly. Do you accept that?---In particular with senior officers?

PN7610

I wasn’t going to name senior officers. Do you accept there are some senior officers in the brigade - - -?---Well, I assume there is, yes.

PN7611

Can you assume that in making decisions one would give rather significant weight to experiences in other parts of the country involving other large city fire brigades?---Possibly, yes.

PN7612

You’re well aware, aren’t you, that all this material that I’ve just referred to, the views of senior management, the experience in other capital cities, that’s been before the UFU for almost the last decade, hasn’t it?---There’s been proposals over a period of time. I don’t know whether it’s a decade or not. I don’t know - - -

PN7613

The position - sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt. Is there anything else? Well, eight years, say. I’m being - - -?---Possibly, yes. Look, I haven’t got an approximate, no. Several years, if you like.

PN7614

The position of the UFU throughout that period has been trenchant opposition to the proposal, hasn’t it?---No. We’ve worked with the MFB, I think, in the late 2000s where there was a working party discussing all issues.

PN7615

Were you aware Mr McQuade raised this again after the making of the 2010 agreement? Are you aware of that?---Could you, sorry, rephrase the question - or restate, sorry.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7616

Were you aware that Mr McQuade raised this issue with the UFU after the making of the 2010 agreement?---Yes.

PN7617

The position of the union was not to agree to change that position, wasn’t it?---It wasn’t agreed at consultative committee, no.

PN7618

I think to turn to - I think you deal with Mr Youssef’s statement and you refer to five ground accountabilities. In paragraph 118 you refer to his statement and you say, “I refer to paragraph 70 of Mr Youssef’s statement which states that the FAL proposal had not been implemented due to roadblocks placed by the UFU under the authority of the 2010 agreement and say there were no roadblocks put in place by the UFU or the agreement.” Read that?---I don’t have his statement.

PN7619

Sorry?---I don’t have the statement.

PN7620

Your statement, I’m reading from, at the moment, I’m sorry?---I’m sorry, I thought you said Mr Youssef’s. Yes, sorry.

PN7621

You see, you say in your statement - you say there are no roadblocks put in place by the UFU or the agreement. Mr Youssef’s statement refers to the grievance. In your history of this through - you go through the history from pages 111 onwards - sorry, paragraph 111 onwards. You get to paragraph 117 and then you finish up with paragraph 118. You sort of leave out that the UFU notified a grievance on 20 February 2013. Were you aware of that?---Yes, we lodged a grievance. Yes, I’m aware of that.

PN7622

You lodged a grievance and it’s contained in annexure DAY1 which is at page - I think commencing at page 114 of the statement of Mr Youssef, and on page 114 - I’m happy for you to have it. Perhaps I’ll hand annexure DAY11 to Mr Hamilton?---Thank you.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7623

Does yours have big black numbers at the bottom?---It does, yes.

PN7624

Well, as with the way of emails, I think your last reference in paragraph 117 is on what occurred on 13 February, but on page 114 is an email Mr Youssef sent to Mr Lee expressing at the bottom of page 114 the MFB being extremely concerned at the ongoing delay in the introduction of the fire ground accountability list. See that?---Yes.

PN7625

He goes on and refers to wanting to implement the fire ground accountability list by the end of the week. That’s on page 115. Now, the response to that by return email, I think, some seven hours later - I think that was sent at 3.47 pm and then Mr Lee sends a very long and - then it starts on 112, but it’s headed at the top of page 113 Grievance Notification. Fire Ground Accountability List Proposal Consultation. Have you seen this document before?---Yes, we would have seen these during the process; yes.

PN7626

Were you involved in authorising Mr Lee to do this?---I would have liaised with Mr Lee, yes.

PN7627

And Mr Marshall?---Yes.

PN7628

I see, but just back on page 114, about the third paragraph down, “We are now informed that the MFB has attempted to implement this proposal tomorrow morning. In relation to this blatant disregard for the agreed consultation process and breach of the operational staff agreement, the UFU notifies you of a grievance. We refer you to the status quo provisions which require the maintenance of the situation prior to the subject matter of the dispute. In accordance with this, the new proposed work practice system, policy, process or proposal must not be implemented.” Do you see that? You’re aware of that, are you?---Yes. Well, we’ve read the document.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7629

Can we reasonably describe that as a roadblock?---No. I don’t think, in fairness to the Commissioner, he has got the background on the issue.

PN7630

You don’t describe putting in a grievance invoking the status quo and preventing the implementation of the proposal as a roadblock?---We were trying to resolve the issue.

PN7631

Yes?---It was an introduction of a fairly ad hoc spreadsheet to identify firefighters on the fireground.

PN7632

Was any consideration actually given by the UFU, to your knowledge, to actually not invoking the status quo, just raising a grievance?---That’s part of the grievance process.

PN7633

Well, you don’t have to invoke the status quo, do you?---That’s part of the process.

PN7634

But I’m suggesting to you that you don’t have to invoke the status quo. You don’t have to rely on the status quo, do you?---It’s part of the process. We try and engage with the MFB when there’s an impasse and it’s part of the process of a grievance.

PN7635

Do you accept there’s an option of not actually invoking the status quo or not?
---That’s part of the process. Therefore we’ve used it, yes.

PN7636

It’s the practice, isn’t it, that inevitably when the UFU – again, to be fair, almost inevitably – that when the UFU notifies a grievance it invokes the status quo? That’s the practice, isn’t it?---It’s set out in the process.

PN7637

Now, the next heading of yours is QRAE and you refer in paragraph 119 to Mr Zapart. He was the firefighter that was burned in, what, 2007?---Yes, Richard.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7638

Were you aware that soon after those incidents being suffered there was a report commissioned from a County Court judge, Judge Lewis?---Yes, I remember the report. There was a report, yes.

PN7639

Did you read the report?---I don’t think I’ve read the report.

PN7640

So you’d been a member of the UFU branch committee of management since 2000. That’s for the last 14 years. This report was commissioned following serious burns being inflicted on a firefighter and a minister of the Crown invoking a report from a judge concerning the reasons they there had been delays. Presumably you were aware of that process at the time being followed?---I’m aware of the report, yes.

PN7641

Are you aware the UFU made no submissions to Judge Lewis?---I believe it was handled by our solicitors at the time.

Well, solicitors act on instructions. Were you involve din giving them instructions?---Personally, no.

PN7642

You don’t know the reasons why the UFU didn’t participate in the inquiry?---No.

PN7643

The report was handed down on 28 February 2008 and it made, in part, some fairly damning criticisms of the UFU and their involvement in the whole proposal of getting new clothing through. Are you aware of that?---It was personal protective clothing, yes.

PN7644

I understand you haven’t read the report. Is that your evidence?---No, I haven’t read the report.

PN7645

You haven’t gone back as president now and looked at the report?---No.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7646

It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that the union has basically ignored that report, hasn’t it?
---I don’t believe that’s the case.

PN7647

Well, you haven’t read it?---I haven’t.

PN7648

You were on BCOM at the time. Do you know of any steps the union has taken that acknowledges the existence of the report and the concerns it raised?---It was handled by the secretary and our solicitors at the time.

PN7649

So it was left to Mr Marshall and the solicitors?---Certainly the committee were briefed on the situation and the report.

PN7650

They were damning criticisms. Were you aware of that, the union?---I just said I didn’t read the report. I remember being briefed on the report.

PN7651

Can I suggest to you the position is that your union has basically ignored that report. Correct?---I don’t believe that’s the case.

PN7652

But you can’t point to anything where they might have implemented or agreed or changed their processes in light of the findings in that report?---The UFU?

PN7653

Yes?---I don’t understand the question.

PN7654

Can you point to one thing they’ve done that has changed in light of the findings of the judge in that report?---Well, we’ve agitated or we’ve always progressed trying to get the best PPE for our firefighters. That’s what we did for our members.

PN7655

That’s not actually the question. The question was, you can’t point to one thing that the union has done to implement or accept or acknowledge the findings of that report.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7656

MR HARDING: Well, Commissioner, I object to the form of the question on the basis that the witness has said he hasn’t read the report. Now, if Mr Parry wants to put to him a finding of Judge Lewis and say, “What do you know about that,” then he should.

PN7657

MR PARRY: No, I’m not - - -

PN7658

THE COMMISSIONER: And the witness has replied in response to the question, “Has the union ignored the report,” he hasn’t accepted that proposition and then the following question from Mr Parry was, “Can you point to one issue that the union has adopted,” and he has prevaricated in his answer and I’ll allow the question.

PN7659

MR PARRY: Do you understand the question, Mr Hamilton?---Could you repeat the question?

PN7660

Whenever I do that I change the wording of it. You did not agree that the union has ignored the report. I suggest to you that you can’t point to one thing the union has done to change its behaviour, acknowledge the criticisms or adopt a different approach in respect of the matters that are raised in that report?---Without having read the report, it’s difficult to comment.

PN7661

You know of nothing the union has done in light of that report to acknowledge it or implement it or improve its ways, do you?---Well, I am the president of the union. I believe that we do conduct ourselves in a professional manner, yes.

PN7662

That’s not the question. The question is, in light of the findings in the report you’ve done nothing, have you, to implement them, to acknowledge them, to deal with the issues that are raised therein?---I can’t comment on the report. I haven’t read the report.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7663

You are aware that the MFB, following that report, sought to delete the clauses that required union agreement with regard to new PPE, are you aware of that?
---Excuse me, you'll have to repeat the question.

PN7664

Yes. Bargaining commenced in 2008 - - -?---Yes.

PN7665

- - - 2009, didn't it? And you were involved in that bargaining. And the MFB sought to delete those clauses that required union agreement in respect of new PPE?---Yes, I think that would be correct, yes.

PN7666

And the union strongly resisted that?---Yes.

PN7667

You deal on page 19 of your statement with Mr Jugum, rostering an employee entitlements. Paragraph 128, you refer to the various issues there. You say the MFB has not, other than through the current bargaining, sought any significant consultation or change regarding the impact of these provisions. We can take it, can't we, that the MFB has sought change in bargaining in respect of rostering arrangements, haven't they?---Currently, yes.

PN7668

Now, I think you've been involved in bargaining for you said previous events. There's been recent bargaining the UFU has been involved in for an agreement covering workshop and administrative employees, there's been recent bargaining?---That's right.

PN7669

I think that bargaining has involved the taking of industrial action, hasn't it?
---Yes, there was industrial action, yes.

PN7670

That was industrial action - yes, there's been - I think the UFU has initiated industrial action in that bargaining in support of its claims in the corporate and workshop area. Correct?---Yes. So for my clarity on industrial action for the corporate and workshops, yes, not operations.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7671

No, I'm not at operations yet?---Yes, I'm just seeking clarity.

PN7672

You are aware that there has been industrial action taken in respect of the operational area in the past, aren't you?---In the past, in previous bargaining.

PN7673

Yes, and on certain things?---Yes, which is, yes, generally happens, yes.

PN7674

Generally happens?---Generally happens through bargaining, yes.

PN7675

Yes, that the UFU, in support of its claims, puts bans on to put pressure on the MFB to concede the claims. Correct?---Well, that's their right.

PN7676

Correct, it's your right. And I think I can hand you up - it's an extract, to be fair, from The Age. I'm just going to hand you this document?---Thanks.

PN7677

Now, there's parts of the document is clearly an extract from something that's been published and it concerns what's said to be fire trucks worth millions of dollars being left in sheds during a long-running industrial dispute that firefighters fear will compromise public safety. Then there's quotes of a firefighter not identified, and then there's, in the fourth paragraph, reference to you, union president Dave Hamilton said the MFB had the power to have the trucks by mechanics not covered by the unions in critical situations and so forth.

PN7678

Now, there's toing and froing in this as newspaper articles, but I'm particularly going to take you to over the page. There it says, "Mr Hamilton said it was unfortunate the dispute had dragged on so long." Then there's quotation marks. "'There is an issue with the MFB and spare appliances because there are bans in place affecting the turnaround of broken down vehicles,' he said. 'If there's trucks offline, then that compromises community safety. What we saw on the weekend was a first but there's certainly a large portion of their fleet that are not operational. We're absolutely talking millions of dollars worth of equipment that our membership is sold that they want a fair and reasonable agreement, and if there's collateral damage, so be it.'" See that?---Yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7679

Now, it seems to be suggested when there's quotation marks in this article, those were words you actually used, Mr Hamilton. Is that fair?---Well, I've been quoted, yes.

PN7680

So you accept that's a fair reporting of what you said?---That's back in - - -

PN7681

It's dated September 19, 2012?---I can't deny that's the quote. I can't remember the exact words I would have used, but - - -

PN7682

You're prepared to accept that because it's there and it comes for a reasonably - - -?---Yes.

PN7683

- - - reputable source. All right. Now, your reference to, "Our membership is solid and they want a fair and reasonable agreement, and if there's collateral damage, so be it," can I take it that's your position as president of the UFU with regard to bargaining involvement of the UFU?---The bargaining?

PN7684

Yes, that's your position. "Membership is solid and they want a fair and reasonable agreement, and if there's collateral damage, so be it." That's your position as president of the UFU with regard to bargaining, isn't it?---I was presenting the membership at the time.

PN7685

Not disputing that you're representing the membership. I suggest that it's your position regarding bargaining, isn't it?---It was a position in regards to the situation at the time, being in and around the bargaining and in and around appliance availability.

PN7686

Yes, and there were bans in place. If they were going to cause collateral damage, you were saying, "That is simply a consequence of the right you described to take industrial action"?---I don't know but just wholly attributes to industrial action that I was representing the membership and exercising their frustration.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON XXN MR PARRY
PN7687

You understand the exercise of a right such as taking industrial action may well cause significant loss and damage to the MFB, don't you?---Well, industrial action can affect management, yes.

PN7688

Well, it can cause a lot of economic loss, can't it?---It has - all bans potentially have ramifications, yes.

PN7689

It's one of the rights of your union in bargaining, isn't it?---Of course it is, yes.

PN7690

Yes, and you're certainly not going to rule it out in the present round of bargaining, are you?---Certainly it's our right and we'll explore that with the membership, yes.

PN7691

I do tender that extract from The Age of 19 September 2012.

EXHIBIT #MFB48 EXTRACT FROM THE AGE DATED 19/09/2012

PN7692

THE COMMISSIONER: Whilst we’re talking about tabling of documents, did you also wish to table the meeting minutes that you put to Mr Hamilton earlier?

PN7693

MR PARRY: Yes, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #MFB49 EBIC 2006 MINUTES DATED 08/10/2008

PN7694

MR PARRY: If the commission pleases, I have nothing further.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDING [12.51PM]

PN7695

MR HARDING: Mr Hamilton, you were asked some questions about the e-roster – or I think it might be the electronic recall system?---Yes.

PN7696

It was put to you by my learned friend that it took a heck of a long time to go through consultation. Your evidence was there were reasons for that. Can you tell the commission what those reasons were?---There were varying reasons for that. As you can imagine, Commissioner, the e-roster was an ICS or an IT program which was being developed by the MFB through their ICS department and others to marry up with their SAP system, which is their major administration computer system for the inner workings of the MFB. Does that make sense? I hope it does. There’s some huge complexities in regards to trying to marry those systems together. As I alluded to earlier, there’s a huge complexity – well, sorry, rostering is a huge part of firefighting, to roster appropriate crewing and ranks. It’s not very easy. So, therefore, the development of the project took a period of time. Then it was run parallel with the paper-based system. Obviously the rostering department had to work and marry the two to make sure, as I said, all the complexity of the rostering issues were efficient and of the best practice. So that took a lot of time. There was lots of references to the rostering committee, to report-backs identifying issues, and we assisted – the rostering committee assisted to help work through those issues to get the system up and running to its best practice, so essentially to get the best system they could. It is actually a state-of-the-art system which is very friendly to firefighters, not only at the fire station but obviously to our commander ranks who do the rostering of firefighters. It has certainly made it more efficient, easy and has removed a lot of issues for these people that have to roster in this complex area. So it took a lot of time to – it wasn’t just a matter of an off-the-shelf product, if you like.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON RXN MR HARDING
PN7697

Are you aware whether or not there was any complaint from the MFB to the UFU about the time that was taken?---Absolutely not. In actual fact, it was reported back to the rostering committee on several occasions and it was always very positive.

PN7698

Are you able to tell the Commissioner how the process proceeded? Was there obstructions, was there agreement? How was the process unfolded?---As I said, it progressed via the rostering subcommittee under the carriage of ACFO Paul Riley in conjunction with the rostering department. There is a rostering department in the MFB comprising of upwards of four or five personnel. The liaison between the committee and ICS rostering and the appropriate people in the MFB was quite constructive.

PN7699

Mr Hamilton, you were taken to some minutes which have been marked MFB49. These are the minutes of the meeting dated 8 October 2008 attended by you. These were put to you in the course of cross-examination. Do you recall those minutes?---This is 2008?

PN7700

Concerning the workplace diversity and training?---Yes, I have them here.

PN7701

Are you able to tell the commission, based on your knowledge, of what agreement was in force at the time that these conversations occurred?---It was my understanding there was no agreement in regards to whether diversity - - -

PN7702

What about the industrial agreement? That’s what I’m referring to?---Sorry. It was the previous instrument.

PN7703

Not the 2010 agreement?---No.

PN7704

Now, Mr Hamilton, you’ve been taken to a document marked as MFB48 which appears to be a press release?---Yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON RXN MR HARDING
PN7705

Or a newspaper report. Have you got that in front of you still?---I do. I’ll move those, thank you. Here we go, yes.

PN7706

You were asked some questions about that report and you were taken to a paragraph that says, “Union president David Hamilton said the MFB had the power to have the trucks fixed by mechanics not covered by the union in critical situations.” Do you remember that?---Yes.

PN7707

Does the UFU cover mechanics in the MFB’s workshops?---No, we don’t.

PN7708

Are they your members?---No, they’re the AMWU.

PN7709

You’re aware of the workshops agreement that was made recently involving the MFB?---Yes, it was signed quite recently.

PN7710

Are you aware whether or not the UFU is covered by that agreement? If you don’t, that’s fine?---Sorry, reframe the question.

PN7711

Are you aware whether or not the UFU is covered by the workshops agreement?
---No.

PN7712

In relation to the industrial action you’re referring to here, who was the industrial action being taken by?---The workshop employees, being AMWU members.

PN7713

Now, turn the page. You were directed to the last paragraph which says, “We’re absolutely talking millions of dollars’ worth of equipment but our membership is solid that they want a fair and reasonable agreement and if there’s collateral damage, so be it.” What do you say about the words “our membership” in light of what you’ve just told the commission?---Well, it was a dispute – clarifying that, it was a dispute with the AMWU. Some of our members – I’ve had to check but there was a corporate component to that, which we, the UFU, represent the corporate staff. So it was a corporate technical and workshops dispute so certainly we had coverage of the corporate component mentioned, yes.

**** DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON RXN MR HARDING
PN7714

Are they covered by the workshop agreement as far as you are aware?---Not the workshop agreement, no.

PN7715

Thank you. I have no further questions.

PN7716

THE COMMISSIONER: Alright, thank you Mr Harding for that and indeed thank you Mr Hamilton for giving evidence this afternoon, you are now released. We will adjourn until 2 o’clock.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [1.00PM]
<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [1.00PM]
<RESUMED [2.00PM]

PN7717

THE COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon.

<BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN, SWORN [2.01PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR BORENSTEIN [2.02PM]

PN7718

MR BORENSTEIN: Commissioner, Mr Angwin's statement is at tab 19 of the first (indistinct) Mr Angwin, is your full name Brendan John Angwin?---Correct.

PN7719

That's A-n-g-w-i-n?---Yes.

PN7720

You're a commander employed by the MFESB?---I am.

PN7721

Is your business address Hume Highway, Craigieburn?---Correct.

PN7722

Is that the train facility?---That's correct. I'm actually at the moment acting assistant chief fire officer.

PN7723

At Craigieburn?---At Craigieburn.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XN MR BORENSTEIN
PN7724

Thank you. Now, for the purposes of this case, did you prepare a witness statement that runs into 18 pages and 126 paragraphs?---Yes.

PN7725

Have you had an opportunity recently to read that statement?---Yes.

PN7726

Can I direct your attention to paragraph 25 of the statement?---Yes.

PN7727

Did you want to make some correction to paragraph 55?---I did, I did. It was my belief that the money that was allocated for the training development side of it was going to be put within training, paid by training and then journalled over or transferred across to the appropriate office, but there was some sort of administrative (indistinct) it didn't happen, it didn't take place and it came out of a later marine budget when we delivered our training.

PN7728

Is this in response to the last four lines of paragraph 55?---That's correct. We - training ending up paying for the training - for the development side of it.

PN7729

So instead of the first two months, you ended up paying for the whole of the - - -?
---That's correct.

PN7730

- - - development?---The money ended up coming out of a training budget, a marine training budget, yes, but not the project office.

PN7731

Subject to that change, are the contents of your statement true and correct?---Yes.

PN7732

I seek to tender that, please, Commissioner.

PN7733

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. We'll mark that as UFU17, the witness statement of Brendan Angwin.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XN MR BORENSTEIN

EXHIBIT #UFU17 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BRENDAN ANGWIN

PN7734

MR BORENSTEIN: Thank you.

PN7735

Now, on the same page, page 8, where paragraph 55 is to be found, at paragraph 58, you refer to an email that you received from Mr Jugum on 11 March 2011?---Yes.

PN7736

Do you see that?---Yes.

PN7737

Could I ask you to have a look at this document, please. Can you identify that document for us?---Yes.

PN7738

What is it?---It's an email I received from - John wanted to touch base and update the scope of the training for the project.

PN7739

Is that the email that you refer to in paragraph 58?---Correct.

PN7740

I would seek to tender that, please, Commissioner.

PN7741

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll mark that as UFU18.

PN7742

MR BORENSTEIN: Thank you.

PN7743

THE COMMISSIONER: Email 17 March 2011.

EXHIBIT #UFU18 EMAIL DATED 17/03/2011

PN7744

MR BORENSTEIN: I would like you now to turn to the page of your statement to paragraph 64 on page 9?---Yes.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XN MR BORENSTEIN
PN7745

Now, on that page - actually, at paragraph 62, you say that, "During the 12 months that the marine training package was being developed and worked on by Ms Deutscher, she was assigned supervision of Mr Jugum," and you refer to Ms Deutscher's notes reflecting that her work on the project was ongoing and required significant work, and you say, "The project agreement record for the MFB training and education continuous improvement project agreement, at no time indicates interference with the work bay or the consultant process, or the UFU." Then you make references to some other matters.

PN7746

Now, can I show you this document, please. Commissioner, this is UFU4. Are you able to identify this document for the commission?---Yes.

PN7747

What is it?---It's a continuous improvement project agreement that we put in place. It's something that we put in place for most of the projects, most of the items that come into training for part of our requirements as an RTO to have tracking and continuous improvement to show where we make changes and how we go through the development phase.

PN7748

If we turn through to the third page of that document that you've been handed where it is reproduced in landscape format, can you tell the commission what the purpose of this part of the document is?---It's basically who's responsible at actions. So when meetings are held, who's responsible for what and usually dates and the status when items are completed, something was signed off, keep track of where the project is at so we can continually move on.

PN7749

Who is responsible for completing this document?---It is the people who were involved, so if someone has identified that it's their responsibility, therefore they are responsible for completing or inputting data into it.

PN7750

When you refer in paragraph 62 to the project agreement record, are you referring to this document?---That's correct.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XN MR BORENSTEIN
PN7751

In terms of the people responsible for the project, who has access to this document on the way through the project?---This document is usually completed by the people within training and development and it's managed and coordinated by (indistinct)

PN7752

By who?---(indistinct) who was the coordinator of our developments.

PN7753

My question is, Mr Angwin, who would have access to this afternoon that's in this document?---Anybody who asked for it. So the action should be those involved in the project.

PN7754

Is this a document that's stored electronically?---It is stored electronically.

PN7755

Would Mr Jugum have access to this document?---No.

PN7756

Now, in paragraphs 63 through to 69, you refer to various events that happened in the course of the project with Ms Deutscher, do you draw those events from this document?---Correct.

PN7757

Now, on page 17 of your statement, you refer to the Craigieburn training facility, and over the page you respond to some material that Mr Rouse included in his statement, and then at paragraph 123 you say, "Although we're yet to see any proposal from MFB regarding the development of a joint recruit course, we understand discussions have taken place between CFA and MFB to run a joint recruit course in August 2014." Now, you made this statement in June 2014. Can you tell us what developments there have been in terms of a joint recruit course since June 2014?---Last Thursday we had our first full meeting with MFB, CFA, official meeting. Prior to that, you've been doing some tick-tacking to see where we might have some commonality in training and where might be able to do some joint training.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XN MR BORENSTEIN
PN7758

Can I just stop you for a moment?---Yes, sorry.

PN7759

Just to keep it in chronological order, going back to June 2014, can you tell the commission whether at some point you were tasked in relation to a joint recruit course and, if so, when?---We were asked to look at the feasibility of a joint recruit course.

PN7760

When were you asked to do that?---I was asked to do that officially, probably, and I haven't got it off the top of my head, but it was about four weeks ago. Approximately four weeks ago.

PN7761

Who asked you to do that?---It came through Kirsty Schroeder and Mr David Bruce.

PN7762

Can you tell the commission what they asked you particularly to do?---They looked at us to look at, first of all, the feasibility of running the joint recruit course and to see where they may be commonality in our training, so we went through that process, we looked, they did some mapping, two of our trainers, two of their trainers.

PN7763

When you say "two of their trainers" - - -?---Two CFA trainers. And then they looked at subject titles and matched those up, and then when they got down to looking at the content they found out that they were a long way off engaging and making sure they were similar in nature and content.

PN7764

Did you say they were all way off?---They were a fair bit off in what we actually do and how we do it. Common doctrine, common equipment, common methodologies of training.

PN7765

This was training, you say, for recruits?---For recruits.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XN MR BORENSTEIN
PN7766

People who had never been in the fire service before?---Correct.

PN7767

Having mapped out the processes in the two agencies and identified the commonalties and the matters that weren't common, what did you do then?---We went back to - I didn't go back to the meeting, because it happened while I was waiting the other day to be in here - there was a meeting held in the State Control Centre in Nixon Street, and they agreed that they would have an MFB/CFA course but not a joint recruit course with touch points throughout the course with the CFA being able to do their 17 weeks at - so there's six weeks that we're going to have some commonality where we would touch and do some training, and I can elaborate on those areas if you want, and there's also - we're going to - the CFA, because they're got other courses running, they've asked if they could utilise our facilities and run a parallel course while we're running ours.

PN7768

In terms of the period when you're going to be running the joint course or the first six weeks that you mentioned, what sort of elements will be taught in that period?---The first part, the first two weeks are going to be team building, so we get together, we get a bit of an understanding of our industry, get to know each other, which is common with what we do because people are going to be spending normally 17 weeks together, but we're not, and then we do some marching, so there's a little bit of discipline on the fire ground, being able to take some orders and do some marching, so no really common fire fighting skills, and then we're going to break away into separate groups and do a hose drill, because even our hose drill and the way we go about hose drill are totally different at this particular point in time. So that's the first two weeks, and then at about the eight week mark we're going to touch base for two weeks, we're going to do HAZMAT training, because they're currently using our HAZMAT course that we developed, so there's a commonality that we can utilise the HAZMAT, some wild fire perhaps. We're looking at that, we actually currently just been handed over their curriculum, so we're analysing that to see if it's similar to ours, and then at the very end of the course we're going to come together and do a little bit of get to work exercising. With get to work we do fire fighting drills on a larger scale, big drills, big water, and the last week will be preparation for the graduation.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XN MR BORENSTEIN
PN7769

You spoke about having to identify the commonalties and the areas that aren't common. Can you explain to the Commissioner, please, in terms of the impact on the operational aspects of working in either the CFA or the MFB the sort of matter that wouldn't be common?---There are things like, for example, running hose up a building, utilising ladders. They run a hose up their ladder. They told us they weave it between the rungs to a certain degree, which is totally against what we do, totally against our health and safety, you know, our safe working from heights sort of stuff, it's a dangerous practice. For example, with the current explosion where the fire fighters were helping the police at the incident, all those people - well, fire fighters and police used that as an escape route. We can't use it as an escape route if it's got hose running down it, because you need, when escaping, the best access to get and not a blocked access.

PN7770

Let me just stop you on that point. I just want to ask you to elucidate. You say that the MFB process is a safe process for the reasons you've just articulated. Is there any reason that you can tell the commission about why you wouldn't have the CFA recruits taught the system that the MFB uses if it's safer?---That was a proposal put up originally, to trial recruits on their course, but it was knocked back by the CFA. They said, "We can't have people going out into the workforce having a totally different set of training and being on the fire ground different to the way their people are being trained," so - - -

PN7771

So your training has to fit in with what they will encounter when they go out with CFA?---That's correct.

PN7772

When is this "joint course" proposed to start?---August 18.

PN7773

August 18?---Yes.

PN7774

All right. To your knowledge, has there been any impediment put up by the UFU to the development of this joint training course and its implementation?---No, all we've asked for, if there are any changes to our course that it be put through (indistinct)

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XN MR BORENSTEIN
PN7775

When you say "our course", do you mean the standard training course for MFB recruits?---Recruits, that's correct.

PN7776

Mr Rouse also gave some evidence about a course that was intended to be a joint first aid training course. Are you familiar with that?---The only first aid course I know are the units we deal with in the public safety and training package, our EMR course.

PN7777

You're not aware of a proposal to have a first aid course that involved CFA people as well?---No, I don't know.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WHEELAHAN [2.20PM]

PN7778

MR WHEELAHAN: Mr Angwin, you made reference that at the training course there will be some marching and discipline, and some education about taking some orders. Do you advise the recruits that they should respect the chain of command?---During our course, we will.

PN7779

So you will advise them that. Are you involved in any current courses that have been held previously?---I've been involved in many courses within the MFB.

PN7780

And recruit courses?---Yes, I've been a director of several recruit courses.

PN7781

Presumably in those courses you'll also deal with discipline and taking some orders?---Yes.

PN7782

Do you advise the recruits to follow the chain of command?---Yes.

PN7783

And you tell them to respect the rank?---Yes.

PN7784

And to follow orders of superior officers?---Tell them about the importance of following orders, yes.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7785

You're a member of BCOM?---Yes.

PN7786

You've read the statements filed by the MFB in this proceeding?---Not every statement.

PN7787

Have you read those relating to you?---Yes, I believe so.

PN7788

The reply statements - - -?---Yes.

PN7789

- - - that they file as well. The ones relating to you are Mr Jugum - - -?---Yes.

PN7790

- - - Mr O'Connell - - -?---Yes.

PN7791

- - - Mr Lloyd - - -?---Yes.

PN7792

- - - Mr Bruce - - -?---Yes.

PN7793

- - - Mr Werle - - -?---Yes.

PN7794

- - - and Mr Rau?---Yes.

PN7795

So you've read those statements?---Yes.

PN7796

You've given evidence on behalf of the UFU before in other proceedings?---Yes.

PN7797

Quite a number of proceedings?---A few.

PN7798

Over what period of time?---Probably really, if I've given evidence, probably mainly over the last five years, I suppose.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7799

Have you ever given evidence on behalf of the MFB?---Yes.

PN7800

When was that?---That probably was an investigation into some workplace behaviours a few years back.

PN7801

Yes, sorry, I mean in an industrial sense. Let's refine ourselves to the Fair Work - - -?---No.

PN7802

You gave evidence in a scoping case in 2009?---Yes.

PN7803

And you're involved in bargaining for the UFU in the current round of bargaining?---No, I'm not involved.

PN7804

You're not involved?---No.

PN7805

You're a member of BCOM?---Yes.

PN7806

And you oversee the bargaining?---I don't really oversee it; I'm just part of the branch committee of management, but I wouldn't - it would be incorrect to say I oversee it.

PN7807

You're present when there are report backs about bargaining to BCOM. Is that right?---Most times.

PN7808

And it's Mr Mullet who reports back?---No.

PN7809

Mr Lee?---No.

PN7810

Mr Marshall?---Yes, occasionally.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7811

Who is that you say reports back to BCOM on behalf of the UFU bargaining team?---Well, it could be any one of them, it could be any one of them. It depends - - -

PN7812

All right, so - - -?---A lot of it, you know, depends who I run into, who I talk to at that particular point of time.

PN7813

I'm not talking about informal running into somebody; I'm talking about formal reports back to BCOM from the bargaining team and my question was that Mr Mullet reports back to BCOM?---I think they do it with the bargaining team so they may be together as a team and report back on various parts of it as a collective.

PN7814

You're involved in bargaining for previous agreements?---Probably on one or two occasions I went to a meeting.

PN7815

As a member of BCOM or a bargaining team?---No, just as a member of BCOM.

PN7816

All right. Do you recall the positions, any positions taken by the UFU in bargaining for the 2009 round of bargaining?

PN7817

MR BORENSTEIN: That's a very wide question, Commissioner.

PN7818

THE COMMISSIONER: It is a very wide question, I agree.

PN7819

MR WHEELAHAN: It is.

PN7820

Let me put it this way: you know of the Lewis report, do you, Judge Lewis report?---I know of it but I don't know it.

PN7821

Know of it?---Yes.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7822

Have you ever read it?---No.

PN7823

No, okay. On paragraph 21 of your statement, you deal and mention the fatalities and the importance of training. I'll just put this to you: the last firefighter fatality in the course of operational duties in Victoria was in 1976. Correct?---That's correct.

PN7824

You then refer at paragraph 22 to your reliance on the greater alarm response matrix?---Yes.

PN7825

Or, as others refer to it, the greater alarm response, simply. The greater alarm response?---Yes.

PN7826

Are you aware that the chief officer has given an undertaking that there will be no change to the greater alarm response system if your enterprise agreement is terminated?---Yes, he's made some statements.

PN7827

All right. Well, he's not only made statements. Are you aware of an undertaking on behalf of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade being distributed to employees?---Yes.

PN7828

Have you read the undertaking?---No.

PN7829

Paragraph 28, you deal with the current enterprise agreement and the training framework in schedule 3, and I suggest that given that, again, you haven't read the undertaking, it means you're not aware that there's been an undertaking to make no change to schedule 3?

PN7830

MR BORENSTEIN: Well, in fairness, Commissioner, I think my friend should say that the undertaking is for 12 months.

PN7831

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, he should, but I'll allow the question.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7832

MR WHEELAHAN: Maybe I'll go back. You haven't read the undertaking so you don't know how long it's for?---I haven't read the undertakings, but I know that they want to put in place an undertaking in the 12 months, but I haven't read the undertakings.

PN7833

Well, you know 12 months because your counsel has said it now or has somebody, Mr Marshall or somebody else told you that?---It would be almost impossible not to know in this organisation in the talk around that people are talking about just a 12 month undertaking gives no security.

PN7834

But as a member of BCOM, you hadn't read it?---No.

PN7835

No, okay. So my point was: having not read it, is it the case that you're unaware that there has been undertaking by the MFB to maintain the schedule 3 MFB training framework?---For a period of 12 months.

PN7836

Yes?---Well, if that's what you say the undertaking is, that's what it would be, then.

PN7837

Okay, but you don't know?---No.

PN7838

So we'll pass through all your criticisms of what might happen if that wasn't maintained and move to - if I can just stop at paragraph 36. You refer there to the training framework providing qualifications issued to firefighters that are nationally endorsed qualifications. Does that mean that once those qualifications are obtained by a firefighter, that those skills are transferable between the states?
---No.

PN7839

A firefighter that has those nationally endorsed qualifications, for example, from New South Wales, could not transfer those skills and qualifications, and operate in Victoria?---No. I'll clarify that by saying that's my understanding.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7840

All right, and what’s that understanding based on?---Well, based on I was part of the AFAC learning and development group, which is the peak body that represents fire agencies across Australia, and in my involvement in that there were discussions about how really transportable are our qualifications, and they couldn’t - and this was all the training people throughout Australia. They couldn’t get their head around how they could truly be transportable and recognised in other agencies considering all the differences in equipment, in procedures, policy, safe work practice, legislation, powers of chief fire officers, all those things.

PN7841

You’ve referred to various discussions, but it’s your own statement. You make the point at 36, “The qualifications issued to firefighters are nationally endorsed qualifications which maintain the professionalism of firefighters. The skills and qualifications are nationally recognised and they provide a consistent national benchmark.” So I’m suggesting to you that the reader of your evidence, that suggests that national qualifications will be recognised in each state. Isn’t that what you’re saying?---There is an obligation to recognise qualifications. In fact, I’m quite proud that we have the qualifications. I’ve been working on this since 1994, before we had qualifications and we were treated as just baggy-arsed firefighters or bums on seats. Now there’s respect shown for firefighters and our profession, and I’m quite proud we’ve got these qualifications. In fact, people quite often come to me in the development - - -

PN7842

That’s not the question, though, with respect, Mr Angwin. It was just about the recognition of those qualifications in each state. Now, it’s your evidence that they’re national qualifications and you’ve sought to qualify your answer about the discussions you’ve had and that people can’t get their head around whether they are recognised or not. So is your answer - - -?---No, as an RTO we’ve got an obligation - learning institutions have got an obligation to recognise the qualification - so they have a first aid certificate, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it enables you to work in that industry or in that particular workplace, because how you obtained it may not align with the organisation or the requirements of that organisation.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7843

Paragraph 44 - - -

PN7844

THE COMMISSIONER: Before you move on, please, sorry, what do you mean by nationally endorsed?---So through Government Skills Australia, through the fire sector, all agencies, including industrial representation, were called together. We did a national audit on firefighter skills in the early days. They created the basis for Australian competencies. From that module a system was developed. From that further there’s been the public safety training package.

PN7845

Sure, that tells me the process, but when - - -?---So that has been endorsed - - -

PN7846

Just wait for my question?---I apologise.

PN7847

So what do you mean by nationally endorsed?---So they were endorsed and put for accreditation by, I suppose, those bodies. AFAC and us, the United Firefighters Union of Australia, put them up for endorsement so that they go on scope and be delivered and qualifications can be issued against them.

PN7848

That means if you have the qualification you can’t work in New South Wales. Is that what that means?---No, that’s correct.

PN7849

Right, and why is that?---Because of the different operation procedures, the standards, the equipment, for starters. Even between the MFB and CFA right now there were huge differences, and we work in the one state under the one umbrella. So it’s a benchmark. It would help you - it may help you get employment, it may - - -

PN7850

But how does it do that? How on earth could that occur if you can’t work in New South Wales or Queensland or the CFA?---How does it?

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7851

Yes?---It shows, I suppose, that you’re able to perform at that level. It would show that you are able to obtain qualifications to the skill level required. I suppose it’s a bit like people who have certificate IVs or diplomas may use those for other employment. So it shows that you’re at a level where you’re capable of performing tasks.

PN7852

Right, okay. Thank you.

PN7853

MR WHEELAHAN: It’s a national training curriculum, though, isn’t it?---Yes.

PN7854

Yes, and therefore you don’t have to be an MFB firefighter to deliver what is a national training curriculum?---No.

PN7855

Yet at paragraph 44 the arrangements are, though, currently, that MFB’s operational training is delivered by suitably qualified subject matter experts. It’s important operational training delivered by suitably qualified MFB instructors. So you’re not making any allowance for a non-MFB instructor. Correct?
---Correct.

PN7856

Correct, and isn’t it a fact when you talk about the transference of skills that you have secondments and exchanges between the MFB and the CFA. Is that right?
---There have been, yes.

PN7857

That’s at leading firefighter level?---And above.

PN7858

And above. Further, you’ve had those exchanges internationally, for example, with Canada?---Correct.

PN7859

Firefighters, I understand, who go to Canada to carry out works, they undergo a two-week induction course. Is that right?---I don’t know what the Canadians do.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7860

At paragraph 47 you deal with again the qualifications, Australian qualifications training framework, and if you read down at point 1.5 you’ve got, “The applicant has a defined strategy and procedures in place to ensure that assessment, including recognition of prior learning” - and then you go on. It’s the United Firefighters Union position that the recognition of prior learning, though, will only be if it’s prior learning within the MFB. Correct?---It’s the organisation’s position.

PN7861

All right. For the Canadian firefighters that come and work for the MFB, they only go a two-week induction. Is that correct?---It’s depending on their skills (indistinct) I think we allow four weeks.

PN7862

Four weeks?---Four to six weeks, depending on what their needs are, and then, of course, once they’ve done that they get to sit in the back of the truck. They’re not allowed to drive appliances, they’re not allowed to hold any rank of authority. So they just become people in the backs of the trucks for the experience that they gain for (indistinct) to take back to their organisation.

PN7863

It’s the position, isn’t it, of the UFU that you would never agree to persons becoming trainers other than MFB personnel. Correct?---That’s incorrect.

PN7864

So the UFU would agree to trainers who were not MFB persons?---We actually have ambulance people doing our EMR qualifications right now. We have partnerships with Deakin University where they provide part of our training on our promotional leadership qualifications. We have private contractors come in and deliver certain parts, being the media components of our promotional courses. We have the people from - the ex-commissioner of EEO, Moira Rayner, come and deliver EEO training and workplace behaviour. So we do use other people for our training.

PN7865

Well, that’s very good, Mr Angwin. Why didn’t you mention any of that in paragraph 44 then when I asked you questions about your position that only suitably qualified MFB instructors are to be used?---That was for operational training.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7866

All right, so if I were to ask the question with respect to operational training rather than EEO or - - -?---The other important subjects, yes.

PN7867

- - - whatever things you have, you’re referring only to - you confine it only to MFB instructors?---And I can say that with some validation, because - - -

PN7868

No, it’s all right, I was just - is that correct, first, before you validate it?---That is correct, yes, for safety reasons.

PN7869

Well, I wasn’t asking you to validate it. The marine project you deal with commencing at paragraph 69. Your evidence here, and even at 62, all of this seems to just be a recitation of various minutes and documents. You will see there at paragraph 62 that’s just reciting notes of somebody else. Correct? Sorry, you can’t just nod?---Correct, yes. They are an accurate record of what took place, yes.

PN7870

Are you saying that you were present for every item set out in those notes?---Of course not. I’m not - - -

PN7871

Of course not?---I’ve delegated responsibility.

PN7872

All right. Well, you’re not in a position then to add that they’re an accurate record of everything that took place, are you?---I believe they’re accurate.

PN7873

You believe they’re accurate. Further, at paragraph 69 again you’re just reciting various minutes. Correct?---Correct.

PN7874

You simply rely on those minutes as being true and correct?---I do.

PN7875

If I can ask you about the Windows 7 implementation which you deal with in your statement, commencing paragraph 75. Once again, from 76 to 79 this is just a recitation of various minutes of matters where you may or may not have been present?---Yes.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7876

Again, were you actually materially involved in this dispute?---At times.

PN7877

At times?---At times, as my role on the subcommittee. In fact, I was involved from the very start. I signed the project brief which I tried to get hold of, the project proposal which is – MFB couldn’t find it.

PN7878

You set out what has happened all the way up to paragraph 82 but then you simply stop in your statement and you don’t actually say whether Windows 7 was – whether the software upgrades occurred. Has it?---The MFB did upgrade the software.

PN7879

It’s a pretty straightforward upgrade to Windows 7?---For some people.

PN7880

There’s a 24-hour help desk. Is that right?---Yes.

PN7881

Any of those “some people” that might have difficulties, they can use the help desk. Is that correct?---They could but it doesn’t necessarily help them.

PN7882

Do you know anybody who has used the help desk?---I have myself.

PN7883

Are you the only person who used it?---Wouldn’t know.

PN7884

You wouldn’t know. So the basis of your answer that help desk might not necessarily help them is simply your experience in not being able to get help?
---Correct.

PN7885

Now, was that about Windows 7 or a different matter?---Windows 7.

PN7886

Windows 7, all right. You don’t have Windows 7 at a home computer?---No.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7887

You then deal with training again. It’s the position at paragraph 85 that you put, “The UFU – and you’re putting this on behalf of the UFU – “believes training is best delivered face to face.” Correct?---Correct.

PN7888

So you’re not disagreeing with Mr Bruce that during this dispute the UFU was insisting on face-to-face training?---During which dispute?

PN7889

Windows 7 upgrade?---Sorry, you’ve got two different statements you’re talking about here. I’m not sure whether Mr Bruce was talking about the Windows.

PN7890

Well, your next paragraph says, “The UFU’s desire for Windows 7 training”?
---Was face to face.

PN7891

Yes, and that was what the UFU were insisting occur?---It was a request from the UFU, yes.

PN7892

They were insisting face-to-face training?---Well, actually, at one stage there was a blended model where 450 officers, senior officers and commanders were going to be trained face to face and then they were going to support the model of the – sorry, no, that was with the (indistinct)

PN7893

Okay. Now, part of your concerns you list under paragraph 86, one of them is concerns about contracting out. I’ll just have shown to you clause 32 of the current enterprise agreement. I’ll hand you my copy. Just read that clause and I’m going to ask you whether it’s that clause upon which the UFU takes the position that there is to be no contracting out?---Yes.

PN7894

Thank you.

PN7895

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Wheelahan, was that clause 32?

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7896

MR WHEELAHAN: Yes, clause 32.

PN7897

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you?---Were you referring to a particular part of that or is it the whole - - -

PN7898

MR WHEELAHAN: Well, you’ve answered the question?---No, but on reflection I’d like you to be - - -

PN7899

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. The question has been answered.

PN7900

MR WHEELAHAN: Read it again then?---Okay, but I just - - -

PN7901

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, that’s fine, thank you?---That’s fine. I just wanted to let you know that - - -

PN7902

MR WHEELAHAN: So it’s the position, isn’t it, that unless the UFU agrees, the MFB would be unable to get persons not employed by the MFB to carry out face-to-face training?---As I said before, we do get persons outside the MFB to carry out face-to-face training.

PN7903

Only if the UFU agrees. Correct?---After consultation.

PN7904

You’ve accepted that clause 32 is the basis upon which the UFU says there is to be no contracting out. Correct?---If people that are suitably qualified can perform the task.

PN7905

No. We’ll just take it in steps and we’ll go back to what you’ve already accepted. You’ve accepted that clause 32 is the basis upon which the UFU says there is to be no contracting out. Correct?---Yes.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7906

I’m repeating - - -?---I’d say yes but I’ll clarify - - -

PN7907

So the second issue is if, for example, the MFB wanted to get an expert who was not employed by the MFB to carry out face-to-face training on Windows 7 or anything, they cannot do so unless they have the agreement of the UFU. Correct?---No.

PN7908

That’s not correct?---That’s not correct.

PN7909

That’s not correct?---Not at all times.

PN7910

I’m sorry?---Not at all times.

PN7911

Not at all times?---Yes.

PN7912

Do you accept, through your involvement in the Windows 7 upgrade, that it was delayed for a long period of time?---It took a long time to go through negotiations. Correct.

PN7913

Now, were you involved in an attempt to introduce the MFB workplace behaviour program?---I was on the subcommittee.

PN7914

You commence dealing with that at the bottom of page 12. Again, this was not a significant matter. This was just a program about workplace behaviour. Correct?
---Correct. Well, any significant matter, because it is an important issue in the organisation.

PN7915

An important issue that hopefully one would implement fairly swiftly then. Correct?---You would hope so.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7916

Yes, but it’s the fact, isn’t it, that it hasn’t been implemented at all as you give evidence today?---I believe not.

PN7917

Not? Right?---Although we still delivered on promotional courses.

PN7918

I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the qualification to your answer?---We still delivered on promotional courses. So we don’t not deliver it where we fight. We are delivering that. There’s a requirement on promotional courses, especially recruits and that coming along to the organisation.

PN7919

Can we go back to the topic of your statement. You’ve talked about the workplace behaviour program?---Yes.

PN7920

You agreed it was important?---Yes.

PN7921

You agreed it would be good to have it implemented swiftly. Then you agreed that that program has not yet been implemented as you sit here and give your evidence. Correct?---No.

PN7922

Okay. If you go to paragraph 114 of your statement, again, you're dealing with external recruitment and secondments. At 114, we're already traversed the issue of the training and its national status of accreditation. Paragraph 115, if you just read the preceding sentence before that at 114 where you set out the requirements there, the particular MFB environment. You say, "This is why the MFB require these people to undergo a recruit course to enter the MFB ranks," and then you add this at 115, "Without a restriction of lateral entry, career paths and progression for MFB fire fighters would be restricted, which could lead to difficulty in retaining good employees due to lack of opportunity." Now, I suggest to you that what you've just said there amounts to a closed shop, doesn’t it?---Yes.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7923

What I suggest to you is that there might be some benefits to the organisation if, in fact, they were able to laterally recruit people, for example, fresh ideas from someone from a different fire fighting service. That's correct, isn't it?---Not necessarily.

PN7924

Not necessarily? All right. Do you accept that a fire fighter from another Australian service, or even the CFA, might be intelligent enough to be able to learn about MFB policies?---Perhaps.

PN7925

Perhaps. And they might be intelligent enough to be able to pick up and learn MFB procedures?---I've got no doubt they probably would be able to.

PN7926

That same person could learn about MFB equipment?---Yes.

PN7927

They could learn about any specific factors relating to Melbourne?---Yes.

PN7928

Despite all that, it's the position of the UFU that the MFB is, as you've accepted, to remain a closed shop, no lateral entry?---It's not a matter of being a closed shop, it's about stifling opportunities for those within our organisation, highly skilled fire fighters who would seek and attempt to go for promotion.

PN7929

Maybe you're confused by my question. Earlier you accepted that, yes, it amounts to a closed shop. It remains the position, doesn’t it, that the UFU is opposed to lateral recruitment. Correct?---Well, in the agreement it was both the MFB and the UFU who are opposed to it.

PN7930

Sorry, I'll ask the question again. I'm asking about the position of the UFU - - -?
---Correct.

PN7931

- - - for the third time?---Yes, correct.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN XXN MR WHEELAHAN
PN7932

Sorry, what's correct?---That the UFU, as you said, are opposed to lateral entry.

PN7933

Okay. Do any of the other fire services in Australia prevent lateral entry?---I don't know.

PN7934

No further questions, Commissioner.

PN7935

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Wheelahan. Yes, Mr Borenstein.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BORENSTEIN [2.54PM]

PN7936

MR BORENSTEIN: Mr Angwin, for those of us who aren't operational fire fighters, I wonder if you could clarify something for us. You were asked a number of questions arising out of your evidence at page 6 of your statement where you were referring to the national AQTF standards that are being development and applied, and you were asked some questions around what you said in paragraph 36 about the skills and qualifications, the national skills and qualifications are recognised and provided a consistent national benchmark for skills and ensure that skills gained are recognised?---Yes.

PN7937

Then you gave some evidence that those nationally recognised qualifications wouldn't necessarily carry across to enable people from one state to the other to carry our fire fighting services. Can you give us an example, or more than one example, if you can, of how the nationally recognised training qualifications might not suit someone or qualify someone to work, let's say, in the MFB?---An example of that is someone within a small agency or maybe even a private fire service may have the qualification Suppressed Urban Fire. Now, they may get that qualification where they're doing suppressed structure fire, they will work on a small single story prop. To us in the MFB, within our urban built-up environment, this is a structure fire, it is more complicated than just a house, it has more complexities, it is almost a living thing at times with its infrastructure, what's involved in it, the systems within it, and when they fail how complicated that can be, so that's one example.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN RXN MR BORENSTEIN
PN7938

Just to be clear, the delivery of the training to achieve these benchmark skills and so on, who does the delivery of those for people in different agencies?---Their own people.

PN7939

Perhaps brining it closer to home and to Victoria, are you in a position to give any example by way of comparison between people who achieve these standards in the CFA, let's say, and those that achieve it through the MFB where there might be a divergence in the practical fire fighting knowledge that these people have enough though they might all have the same certificate of qualification nationally?---I suppose the qualification will allow each agency to develop its people to meet its need, so CFA, you know, do have qualifications, but they have different equipment, they have different ways they use that equipment, they have different terminology for their equipment. It's a bit like a Holden vehicle and a Ford vehicle, they both have the same need, but you can't interchange wheels because they have different stud patterns, you can't interchange guards because they're different, but they look alike, they do the same thing, but they are in fact totally different and hard to interchange those training, all those bits of it. I believe at some stage it probably could be done, it is about unpacking a course and probably giving it six to eight months to do, both sides of it, looking at common doctrine. Right now both organisations haven't got common doctrine, we haven't got common operating procedures, we have different emergency response guidelines, we have different BA equipment, so if we could unpack that and get to the core of it and then build it up from the ground, we probably could do that, but right now what they've asked to do and why they chief commissioner has now said, "Well, I'm not going to call it a joint recruit course," it's just an MFB/CFA course, and they're going to run parallel with some touch points. He understands that, he understands (indistinct)

PN7940

You were asked some questions about paragraph 47 where you extract standard 1 from the AQTF training essential conditions standards, and you were directed to item 1.5?---Yes.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN RXN MR BORENSTEIN
PN7941

That reads, "The applicant has a defined strategy and procedures in place to ensure that assessment, including recognition of prior learning, will meet requirements of the relevant training package or accredited course will be conducted in accordance with principles, et cetera." It goes on over the page, and you were asked whether that was the position of the UFU, I think. I can't remember the exact words, but you made reference to it being the position or the organisation's position. I just wanted to clarify with you what you were referring to when you said "the organisation"?---Well, the organisation has agreed up to this point, and through our training framework, which is schedule 7, that we will recognise people's qualifications but they are required to do the full training and full courses due to the complexity of the procedures, the difference in equipment to ensure we have safe firefighters on the fire lines.

PN7942

Who are you referring to when you use the word "organisation"?---The MFB.

PN7943

You were asked some questions about paragraph 44 of your statement in the context of training being carried out by MFB employees and you gave some examples of non-operational training that was carried out by people who weren't MFB employees?---Yes.

PN7944

Then you were taken back to 44 and you made the point that's dealing with operational matters?---Yes.

PN7945

You offered to validate your position about paragraph 44 and Mr Wheelahan didn't want to know about that, but can I ask you what the validation for that opinion is? Can I ask you what the validation for that opinion is in 44?---In 44? Due to the complexities of our industry, you know, firefighters are exposed to many hazards, being physical, thermal, chemical and psychological hazards. You know? Some of the various and difficult jobs that firefighters have been to over the years need to ensure that we train people in line with what the MFB and our requirements are as an organisation, whether it be underground loops, whether it be infrastructure on the ports, whether it be terminals at Coode Island, whether it be the Kew Cottages, we had a shocking fire there years ago, we train our people in line to deal with these large, complex type fires or incidents and we base this on the experience gained through our people, through our experiences. It's actually a requirement under that where you go to that standard and I think the point of putting the standard in was missed and where we talked about under 1.4 it talks about that they must have the vocational competence, they must be experienced in those areas, and that was the point of putting that in.

**** BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN RXN MR BORENSTEIN
PN7946

All right, thank you?---So the trainers have to have the relevant qualifications and experience.

PN7947

Okay, thank you. I have no further re-examination. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN7948

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Borenstein. Thank you, Mr Angwin - - -?---Thank you.

PN7949

- - - for giving evidence. You're now released.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.03PM]
<DANNY WARD, SWORN [3.04PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HARDING [3.05PM]

PN7950

MR HARDING: Is your name Danny Malcolm Ward?---Yes.

PN7951

Your business address is 55 Church Street, Richmond?---Yes.

PN7952

You hold the rank of leading firefighter?---I do at this minute. Sorry, I do, but at this minute I'm acting up to the rank of station officer for this roster.

PN7953

You're a member of BCOM?---I am.

PN7954

You also represent the UFU on the consultative committee and rostering committee?---Yes.

PN7955

As well as the resource and redeployment advisory panel?---Yes.

PN7956

The oc health and safety policy committee?---Yes.

PN7957

And the oc health and safety operation subcommittee?---Correct.

**** DANNY WARD XN MR HARDING
PN7958

You say also that you're a proxy from time to time on the uniform committee and the vehicle and equipment subcommittee. Is that correct?---Yes.

PN7959

Have you made a statement for these proceedings?---I have.

PN7960

Have you read that recently?---Yes.

PN7961

Are there any corrections you wish to make?---No.

PN7962

Is it true and correct?---It is.

PN7963

I tender that, Commissioner.

PN7964

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll mark that as UFU19, the statement of Danny Ward.

EXHIBIT #UFU19 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DANNY WARD

PN7965

MR HARDING: Excuse me for a moment, Commissioner.

PN7966

Mr Ward, can I take you to paragraph 64 of your statement?---Yes.

PN7967

You speak there about a dispute notification on 19 April concerning - I think it was a drill or a demonstration project?---Yes.

PN7968

Then you say in (a) that the site was not an approved drill site?---Yes.

PN7969

Mr O'Connell has given evidence in this proceeding and he was asked about the issue of the unsuitability, this is at PN3270, Commissioner, the unsuitability of the site, and his evidence was: certainly this year the display went ahead and Commander Lenaghan was in charge of organising that particular display. Are you aware of that?---No.

**** DANNY WARD XN MR HARDING
PN7970

He says, "I believe he did actually go out and approve it as a formal drill site prior to that occurring"?---If he done that, that's great.

PN7971

Was it approved at the time that you're speaking of in paragraph 64, to your knowledge?---No.

PN7972

If I can hand up, please, the statement of Mr Pearson, which is in reply, which is MFB40, to the witness. I apologise, I think it's MFB39, Commissioner. Are you able to go to paragraph 48, please, of that statement?---Yes.

PN7973

Got that there?---Yes.

PN7974

You'll see that he refers to and replies to paragraph 93 of your statement?---Yes.

PN7975

About halfway down in the paragraph, there's a sentence that commences, "In the Eastern Hill discussions." Can you see that?---Yes.

PN7976

Yes, I think this must be referring to the Eastern Hill refurbishment. "Solutions to address the concerns of end users relating to the overall number of locker," I think that should be 'lockers', "were provided, including creating additional bedrooms that would provide solutions." It goes on to say, "This was rejected as end users felt this would allow for the MFB to put additional firefighters at the fire station." Are you able to comment on that, Mr Ward?---Look, Eastern Hill fire station is such a transient place. It's our biggest fire station and there's always a lot of firefighters there. They use it as a means to send firefighters on standby to other stations and every roster it has more firefighters than any other fire station in the job. So to think that by putting extra bedrooms there they would put more firefighters, it's ludicrous, there's already more firefighters there.

PN7977

If you then turn the page to 50, paragraph 51 he says, “Whether the modifications to Eastern Hill were in accordance with the agreed design principles or not, UFU agreement was required and was not obtained.” He goes on to say, “The refurbishment did therefore not go ahead.” Have you got anything to say about that?---The refurbishment didn’t go ahead because the firefighters and the end user at – sorry, the firefighters, through their end-user reps, did not want to go ahead because they felt that it was not going to be a fully operational mess amenity area that suits the needs that we have to have as we live in them stations.

**** DANNY WARD XN MR HARDING
PN7978

What do you say about his statement that it didn’t go ahead because UFU agreement was not required?---That’s not correct. The end-user representative and the firefighters at that station are the reason that it did not go ahead.

PN7979

Thank you, Mr Ward.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PARRY [3.11PM]

PN7980

MR PARRY: Mr Ward, you say you’ve been on BCOM for 10 years?---Yes, I think that’s correct.

PN7981

In 2008 a report was prepared by Lewis J on delays with regard to the completion of the obtaining of new clothing and equipment. Were you aware of that report?
---I’m aware of it but I haven’t read it.

PN7982

You haven’t read it. Thank you. You’ve been involved in bargaining, I take it, in your time with the holding officers in the UFU?---Yes.

PN7983

You’re involved in the current round of bargaining, aren’t you?---I have attended when I’ve been able to.

PN7984

Well, you’re a part of the bargaining committee, aren’t you?---I have attended when I’ve been able to.

PN7985

Well, are you a member of the bargaining committee or not?---I believe I just answered that. I’ve attended - - -

PN7986

THE COMMISSIONER: No, you haven’t, sir. Please answer the question?
---Yes.

PN7987

MR PARRY: You’ve been part of the bargaining committee in the previous round of negotiations?---I have.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN7988

2009?---I believe so, yes.

PN7989

And given evidence for the UFU before?---Yes.

PN7990

Now, you deal in your statement with the – under a heading, Uniforms and Fireground Rehabilitation – I take it your issue here is the circumstances in which MFB could introduce a new piece of equipment to perform functions of a fire duty pod?---Can you tell me which part of my statement you’re referring to?

PN7991

Under the heading, paragraph 6, Uniforms and Fireground Rehabilitation?---Yes.

PN7992

You then deal with that in a general sense and you then go on and I think it gets near the bottom of the page where you start referring to the uses of a fire duty pod and you describe what it is. It then seems there was discussions about the vehicle, what sort of vehicle this was going to be and how it was to be introduced?---I think you might be – the fire duty pod is already in commission. We have two fire duty pods, one in each zone, region. What we’re talking about here is a brand new vehicle that we’re trying to introduce for fireground rehabilitation.

PN7993

All right. Now, trying to follow it through, we get to paragraph 30 and paragraph 31 where you talk about a spare breathing apparatus support van from fire station 38?---Yes.

PN7994

As I would understand it, this concerns the introduction of a new appliance or new piece of equipment with the MFB, doesn’t it?---Yes.

PN7995

That’s something that requires UFU agreement, doesn’t it?---It requires firefighter agreement through the UFU.

PN7996

Absent the agreement of the UFU, there is to be no new appliance. That’s correct, it?---No.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN7997

Well, if the UFU don’t agree, the MFB can’t introduce the appliance?---I don’t agree. Through consultation we always get appliances into the job.

PN7998

If in consultation, as you describe it, the UFU don’t agree, the matter can’t go any further, can it?---I say to you, we continue to consult to get that appliance introduced into the job.

PN7999

You continue to consult until the UFU agree on terms that you find satisfactory. Correct?---No, I do not. We act accordingly with health and safety rules and regulations and every piece of equipment has to be health and safety as well as agreed by all parties that we introduce it.

PN8000

Well, you’ve mentioned health and safety there but the long and the short of it is absent UFU agreement, no new appliance?---There has not been one appliance not introduced into the brigade in my time. We’ve got agreement. I don’t know what appliance you’ve trying to say has not been brought into the brigade.

PN8001

Telesquirt?---The Telesquirt is not appropriate yet because it hasn’t met the OH&S regulations.

PN8002

It hasn’t been brought into the brigade because the UFU considers it not appropriate. Correct?---I disagree.

PN8003

It’s not in service, is it? Hasn’t been commissioned?---It hasn’t been commissioned for reasons that I don’t know.

PN8004

Well, can I suggest it hasn’t been commissioned because the UFU hasn’t agreed to it being commissioned. Do you accept that?---No, I don’t. If it hasn’t been commissioned it’s for OH&S reasons. We can’t carry a hose on that vehicle. A main aspect of our job in any vehicle is to carry hose. You can’t carry hose on it or one length.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8005

The UFU have not agreed to the introduction of the Telesquirt and it has not been introduced?---It also hasn’t been introduced under the vehicular equipment committee.

PN8006

It was used at Hazelwood but by other firefighters, wasn’t it?---We had an agreement with David Bruce that we would bring firefighters from South Australia over.

PN8007

Yes, and absent those firefighters being brought over from South Australia and absent them using it and using it at the Hazelwood fire, it wouldn’t have been used. Correct?---No, that’s not correct. I think if you ask David Bruce – he come to us and ask if our workshops people, who were trained in its use, to train some of our firefighters up to use it, and we gave them the go ahead to do that.

PN8008

The long and the short of it is the use of the Telesquirt was not by operational firefighters employed by the MFB, was it?---It was at the start.

PN8009

All right. In your statement you also refer to the Drager safety wash?---Yes.

PN8010

I think you talk about another example of a consultation identifying a direct safety threat. Was this a new piece of equipment or a new – it wasn’t a new appliance. Perhaps a new piece of equipment?---I’ll tell you what it was. It was a new way of cleaning our BA masks, a new piece of – not equipment. It was a new product to clean our BA masks.

PN8011

It was a new product. Again can I suggest that absent the agreement of the UFU, the MFB could not introduce that new product?---In consultation – if I had the minutes with me you’d find that both the MFB and the UFU asked the people presenting that piece of equipment to go back and provide manual data - - -

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8012

Well, perhaps we’ll go to my question?---Okay.

PN8013

Are you familiar with clause 88 of the agreement?---Not off hand.

PN8014

Well, I’ll hand you a copy of it?---Yes.

PN8015

Clause 88 is the one that says – and I’ll read the relevant parts to you, hopefully. 88.1, “The MFB and UFU must agree on all aspects of the” – 88.1.2 – “equipment, including PPE” – over the page – “to be used or worn by employees. All aspects include, without limitation, design and specifications. This applies to new and replacement items.” In your view, or in your opinion, was clause 88 applicable to the Draeger safety wash?---It was because we asked for safety data sheets to be presented so we could make an honest appraisal of whether the equipment that they wanted to introduce was safety fire fighters. The equipment they were trying to replace was proven to be not safe, and so we asked for them sheets.

PN8016

The long and the short of it is: assuming the Draeger safety wash is caught by this clause, and you seem to have the view it was, then absent the agreement of the UFU the equipment could not be introduced. That's correct, isn't it?---The MFB and the UFU both jointly at that committee, at the consulting committee, sent it to off to the OH&S policy committee for further investigations to make sure the product was safe for fire fighters to use.

PN8017

I think in paragraph 46 you talk at the initial meeting, "We did not endorse the purchase of a new product." I suggest to you that the non-endorsement of a purchase of the new product was the UFU not endorsing the purchase of the new product?---That assumption would be wrong.

PN8018

I suggest to you that absent the agreement of the UFU there could be no endorsement for anything on the consultative committee?---The MFB signed that document, both parties through consultation would agree to introduce new products.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8019

Your statement deals with the multi agency drills. These are drills that are conducted, as the name suggests, Exercises and Drills, and I think my learned friend when he was asking you questions just a few minutes ago said - he talked about drills or demonstrations, so there's a sort of - perhaps we'll call them exercises, will we, multi agency exercises?---You can call them what you want. I mean no disrespect, but, I mean, it's down there.

PN8020

Don't worry about disrespect. Multi agency exercises, as you describe them. Now, it refers there to Mr O'Connell's witness statement. Is it the position of the UFU that the MFB has to consult about engaging in such multi agency exercises?
---I think the MFB have agreed to do that.

PN8021

No, they've agreed that after, with respect, schmozzle, but go back to where we were when this exercise was going on. At that time, was it the position of the UFU that there had to be consultation about the engaging in of a multi agency exercise?---No, there was no drill site approval form down, and the schmozzle you talk about, there was no schmozzle the last time it was done because they went and done the drill site approval form. A drill site approval form is all for the health and safety of fire fighters in the public that are attending that drill site.

PN8022

All right, I'll go back to the question. Was it the position of the UFU back at the time in - I think it's 2012 - that there had to be consultation about the holding of a multi agency exercise?---I say again: the drill wasn't stopped by the UFU, we have an agreed position that we fill out drill site approval forms before we take exercises or whatever you want to call them at any place where we don't have a drill site approval form for.

PN8023

Mr Ward, the agreement you've spoken of, or the arrangement you've spoken of, was one that was arrived at after all these events in 2012, right?---We had a drill site approval form for a long as I've been in a job, I believe.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8024

Can we go back to my question? Was it the position of the UFU in 2012 that there had to be consultation with the MFB under the terms of the agreement before the MFB could hold a multi agency exercise?---We had multi agency exercises before, and there was no problem. We asked for a drill site approval to be done. Actually, I think I might have done that under OH&S rules and none was done.

PN8025

I think we'll obviously make submissions about that answer, but I can ask the direction to direct him to answer the question, but I'm not sure that's going to achieve anything.

PN8026

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ward, you're being asked to say yes or not to something and you immediately go sideways with an answer that seems convenient to give, but Mr Parry's putting to you a question which is quite precise. I'm going to ask him to put it again and I'm going to ask you to listen very carefully and then try and give the best answer you can which hopefully will be yes or no.

PN8027

MR PARRY: Was it the position of the UFU in 2012 that if the MFB were engaging in a multi agency exercise that they were required to consult with the UFU under the 2010 agreement?---Yes, as they previously done.

PN8028

And that requirement to consult meant one ended up in a process where there was to be - I think the agreement refers to "consensus". Is that your understanding?
---I'm not sure.

PN8029

You're not sure of what's in the EBA?---No, I just wasn't sure the - I thought the agreement or consensus - we just try to do things right. Consensus, say, consensus.

PN8030

All right, then. Your understanding, again, where there has to be such consultation, let's assume that the UFU, for whatever reason, doesn’t agree with the multi agency exercise proceeding. Is it your understanding that in those circumstances the multi agency exercise cannot proceed?---The UFU only acts on its members' behalf. We had members that were worried about their health and safety, and that's why we may have required consultation.

PN8031
**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY

Again, the question is: is it your position or your understanding of the position that if there had been consultation or there was to be consultation about a multi agency exercise and the UFU did not agree for any reason, then that multi agency exercise could not proceed?---No, you're right, under the agreement we both signed.

PN8032

Under that agreement, if the UFU disagreed in consultation with the multi agency exercise taking place, it's your understanding the exercise would not take place?
---It's very hard for me to say yes or no, but I suppose you're right, yes.

PN8033

The multi agency display at Knox, you have in your statement referred to - it's paragraph 59 - you became aware in the days prior to 19 April 2012, the UFU became aware the MFB intended to engage in a multi agency exercise. You've read the statements of Mr O'Connell and Mr Davies, have you, Mr Ward?---Yes.

PN8034

You might remember the statement of Mr O'Connell at attachment 2. If you want to see a document, I'm quite happy - - -?---Yes, please.

PN8035

- - - to show you. Okay, it's AO2. Do you have a document which has videos that has Andrew O'Connell's name at the top of it?---Yes.

PN8036

And you see it's a document, "Sunday, 19 February 2012, 1105, Fire Station 1, 10, 25, 38, 3, 26, 31"?---Yes.

PN8037

When emails are sent out like this to a fire station, where do they go? I mean, obviously to the fire station, but where, to a central terminal that's accessible by the station officer?---They go to the computers in the fire stations.

PN8038

Who accesses them?---Firefighters and officers.

PN8039

So an email like this, one could expect some of those stations would have an SSO, I assume, some an SO and others some leading firefighters and firefighters, so we could expect that group throughout the stations to have had access to this email?

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY

---Yes.

PN8040

And probably read it?---I can't talk on whether they read it or not because I don't know.

PN8041

You've read it now so presumably you don't take any issue with the fact that Mr O'Connell was advising all the stations and his ACFO and commander about the multi agency exercise of Knox to be held on 22 April. Right?---Yes.

PN8042

I think Mr Davis is the ACFO for the northwest region there, Darren Davies?---It's got Darren Davies and Paul Riley.

PN8043

One or other would have the responsibility for this area, presumably?---Yes.

PN8044

I think the CFO for the northwest region, what, was that David Youssef at the time?---I'm not sure; his name is not on the document.

PN8045

Presumably, do you accept that the ACFO in the area and the DCFO have the responsibility to place appliances as they see fit in and about the northwest region?---They also have a responsibility to the public.

PN8046

I'm sorry, I didn't catch that?---They also have a responsibility to the public to provide fire cover.

PN8047

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you answer the question, please?---I thought I did, I'm sorry.

PN8048

No, you went sideways. The question was whether you accept that they have responsibility for - - -?---Yes.

PN8049

- - - making decisions about equipment.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8050

MR PARRY: All right. Moving on from AO2, Mr Ward, there's an AO3, which is also an attachment to Mr O'Connell's statement. Again, I'll provide you a copy of that. See, this is an email from Andrew O'Connell on 15 April 2012 at 10.30 to, again, all of the stations but also copied to Mr Davies, Mr Riley, Mr Mele and Mr Trimboli, who are both commanders, as I understand, Mr Youssef, who is the DCFO. Correct?---Yes.

PN8051

Mr Bruce. And it is one week before this display and it's just confirming and making a couple of minor amendments. Is that a fair summary of that?---Yes.

PN8052

You can't be, I suggest, having read this material, critical of Mr O'Connell because he's been pretty open with all the stations and the people at the stations, all the firefighters and the station officers, and the senior management about the occurrence of this event. You couldn't be critical of him on that level, could you?
---I'm not critical of anybody.

PN8053

Then a couple of days pass and a grievance arrives, and that's AO4. Now, if I could show you AO4 and, indeed, I think you refer to it at paragraph 59 of your statement. Do you have a copy of it? You have copy of it now. Now, your statement says, "In the days prior to 19 April 2012, the UFU became aware that the MFB intended to engage in a multi agency exercise." Do you know how they became aware?---No, in the days - yes. We would have probably become aware through members' concerns.

PN8054

You say "we would have", do you have any knowledge of how the UFU became aware of this and who it was in the UFU that became so aware?---I didn't lodge the grievance, so you would have to ask Mr Lee on who actually spoke to him about lodging the grievance.

PN8055

Do you have any knowledge of why the UFU decided to go straight to a dispute notification rather than perhaps ringing up and wanting to have a talk to Mr O'Connell about this exercise? Do you know why - - -?---I don't.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8056

- - - they chose that?---No.

PN8057

Could it have been that the notification of a grievance activates a status quo provision?---No, I don't know why they done it. As I said, I didn't write the grievance.

PN8058

No, you didn't write it, but you've attached it in your statement and you've referred to it, and it's written by Mr Lee. He's not an operational firefighter, is he?---No.

PN8059

He refers to in AO4 to the UFU being aware of this and said he's informed of a number of points and he sets out about six dot points. Then he says halfway down the page, "The UFU believes" - I'm sorry, did you help him write this or advise him of any aspect of this?---I may have.

PN8060

You may have, okay. The UFU notifies you of a grievance under the MFB operational staff agreement in relation to the proposed event. Then it says, "The grievance relates to but is not limited to concerns regarding contracting out work, particularly training." How, in any sense, is the MFB participating in a multi agency appliance display contracting out work?---I couldn't tell you, I didn't write that grievance.

PN8061

You're conscious that your enterprise agreement, in effect, prohibits anyone else doing fire fighting work, it prohibits contracting out?---We have an agreement signed by both parties and if that's in the agreement, yes.

PN8062

But you can't work out while you sit here how engaging in a multi agency drill could be contracting out?---Not at this moment I can't.

PN8063

The next dot point he makes is, "Abrogating entitlements (rostering meals, amenities payment and conditions for off duty personnel attending work.)" Right? Do you know on what Mr Lee could have based his view that the MFB did not intend meeting entitlements under the EB in respect of rostering meals, amenities, payments and conditions for off duty personnel, do you know that?

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY

---Maybe because there's no consultation to agree, there's nothing in Mr O'Connell's statement to say they're going to provide meals, I don't believe.

PN8064

There's nothing there but, indeed, I'm trying to work out where Mr Lee could have formed the view that the MFB were somehow going to engage in this exercise without paying entitlements or not providing rostering meals, amenities payment in accordance with the EB. You don't know?---With all due respect, you should ask Mr Lee that. I don't know why.

PN8065

Well, I'm asking you because you put his statement - you put this in your statement. Right? And he also refers to - were you aware that Mr O'Connell has only ever intended on shift people to attend?---I'm not aware at all.

PN8066

Were you aware that he was going to make sure that they got their entitlements?
---As I say, I'm not aware because it was never consulted on or spoken about.

PN8067

And you never rang up Mr O'Connell and said, "Are you going to make sure the - what's happening with the on duty, guys, are they getting their entitlements?" That would have been a five minute conversation, wouldn't it?---It may have been but I didn't ring him.

PN8068

You didn't. And you could have said, "What about the off duty guys, do they have to go?" Could have?---Mr O’Connell could have rung me too.

PN8069

Well, he had advised your station, he advised all the firefighters involved and there’s nothing in any of this material that suggests any of them had any concerns at all?---Because the concerns were put to members of the union, the branch committee of management, Mr Lee, I believe, as a union industrial officer, and that’s why the grievance was lodged, I believe.

PN8070

Also there’s reference in this grievance, in that same paragraph I was referring to, breaches of crewing provisions. Do you know on what possible basis it’s suggested that the involvement of the MFB in this exercise was going to involve breaches of crewing provisions?---No.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8071

If there’s reference to breaches of process and requirements regarding training, do you have any knowledge of any basis for Mr Lee asserting that?---As I didn’t write the – I don’t know because I didn’t write the grievance. You’d have to ask Mr Lee.

PN8072

The next issue is, “Furthermore, the UFU also notes that there has been no consultation with the UFU in accordance with the agreement in relation to the proposed event.” Right?---Yes.

PN8073

It would appear, again without asking Mr Lee questions, that that’s the real nub of this, that there was no consultation, that the UFU had not been officially, formally told?---I don’t think so.

PN8074

At the same time this grievance is lodged the UFU issue a bulletin. That’s AO5. Can I hand you AO5. Were you involved in the drafting and sending out of this, Mr Ward?---I don’t think so. I can’t recall.

PN8075

Well, it refers to, “From UFU Victoria.” Presumably it came out of the UFU office somewhere. Correct?---I would imagine.

PN8076

Halfway down, third paragraph, it repeats the same things and then in the second bottom paragraph, “Members are advised in accordance with the dispute resolution process in the agreement that status quo provisions apply and the MFB should not be participating in the event, subject to the resolution of the grievance.” Now, this is on the 19th, Thursday the 19th. The event is to take place on the 22nd. Correct?---Yes.

PN8077

The position of the UFU was that unless there was resolution of the grievance, then there would be no participation in the event. That’s right, isn’t it?---I believe that we had all intentions of getting the dispute resolution process in place and fixing the problem.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8078

What was the problem?---Well, what Mr Lee must have put down there is the problem. There’s a number of them there.

PN8079

But you have no idea whether they’re real problems or not?---I didn’t write the grievance. So I’m not sure and I can’t answer on Mr Lee’s behalf.

PN8080

You say in your statement, “On 20 April 2012 the parties held a disputes meeting.” Were you in attendance at that meeting?---Can you tell me what - - -

PN8081

I’m in paragraph 60?---Thank you. I can’t recall.

PN8082

Your paragraph 20 sets out your understanding of the discussions, right?---Yes.

PN8083

Now, you have attached to your statement attachment 1 which is DW1?---I’ll just get it. Can you give me a copy? I’ve got every other one but 1. I’m sorry.

PN8084

It’s the attachment to your – you don’t have the attachments to your statement?---I have my attachments except attachment 1, I’m sorry.

PN8085

Okay. You’ve attached an email from Mr Youssef to all stations, all platoons and all commanders, Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 7.04. Mr Youssef sets out here in, I think, the third paragraph down, “The event was last held in June 2010 at the same venue with MFB appliances, crews and command station attending. In 2010 neither the firefighters attending or the UFU raised any concerns whatsoever with MFB involvement in the event.” Now, with regard to those two matters, you’ve got no reason to dispute that they are correct?---As the email says, I had no reason.

PN8086

The third sentence is, “The event location is approximately four to five kilometres outside the metropolitan fire district with Eastlink providing good access should appliances be required to respond back into the MFD”?---It doesn’t say what appliances were there. So I can’t comment on what was there.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8087

Well, Mr Youssef is a senior officer in the brigade. You’ve got no reason to question his assessments there of both the distance outside the MFD, the good access back in case appliances were required, have you? Do you have a basis for critiquing the DCFO’s decision?---Well, I don’t believe there’s good access back. The Eastlink is always, back into town, heavily logged with cars and trucks and I just don’t agree with that.

PN8088

However, I suppose I’m getting to the next paragraph, “ACFO David Bruce and I met with Casey Lee on Friday at the UFU office to discuss the event and to endeavour to address the UFU concerns.” Reading that, it would suggest that you weren’t at that meeting on Friday?---I think it says that.

PN8089

It says that. Is it true?---I can’t recall.

PN8090

You can’t recall being at this meeting on the Friday?---It’s 2012. No, I can’t.

PN8091

All right. Mr Lee is an industrial officer without any operational experience. It’s rather unlikely that Mr Lee is going to be able to accept MFB assurances about UFU concerns, isn’t it?---I don’t agree.

PN8092

You think Mr Lee is qualified to debate with ACFO Bruce and DCFO Youssef the appliance issue that you’ve just raised?---I do.

PN8093

You think Mr Lee is qualified to have that debate with an ACFO and a DCFO?---I do.

PN8094

Right, okay. Well, the issues that were raised – when it says, “At Friday’s meeting UFU raised concerns,” it’s not the UFU raising the concerns; it’s Mr Lee?---I think it’s Mr Lee on behalf of the UFU.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8095

Well, no doubt he’s on behalf of the UFU but don’t you think it’s rather bad practice not to have an operational firefighter there?---No.

PN8096

You don’t?---No.

PN8097

The UFU or Mr Lee raised concerns about a range of issues, and the issues were, firstly, CFA volunteers training MFB fire fighters, contracting out the work of MFB fire fighters. Now, do you have any idea where Mr Lee could have got that idea from?---He maybe got it off other members of branch committee. You should ask Mr Lee.

PN8098

We will. But then you go to the commitments that were given at that meeting by Mr Youssef, "No training with volunteers or any other attendees would take place." That should pretty much address that criterion, shouldn't it?---It's very hard for me to agree to anything if I wasn't there.

PN8099

If a concern is raised about CFA volunteers training MFB fire fighters and the CFA gives a commitment there was to be no training with volunteers, one would think reading that, that would address that concern, wouldn't one?---One would.

PN8100

Thank you. Then the second item is, "Maintenance and fire over and safety of fire fighters within the MFD." Now, can we assume that ACFO Bruce with DCFO Youssef are qualified and given the responsibility of making assessments as to the maintenance of fire cover and the safety of fire fighters within the MFD?
---No, I don't agree with that.

PN8101

Do you think they're given that responsibility?---As I just said, I don't agree with this statement.

PN8102

I'm breaking it down. Do you agree that they have that responsibility?---They should have.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8103

When you say "they should have", either they have the responsibility or they don't. Your answer would suggest they don't have that responsibility?---Okay, then, they don't.

PN8104

They don't have that responsibility?---That's what I said.

PN8105

And that's your understanding, the DCFO and ACFO don't have the responsibility to maintain fire cover and the safety of fire fighters within the MFD?---With the two you're talking about, I don't agree.

PN8106

Can we accept that they have more experience in the area of fire cover and the safety of fire fighters than Mr Lee does?---Area of fire cover, maybe, but the safety of fire fighters.

PN8107

Mr Ward, some people listening to this would find it highly offensive that you would suggest senior officers do not have both responsibility and authority in respect of the safety of fire fighters. Do you understand some people might be - - -?---I didn't say that.

PN8108

- - - highly offended by that statement?---I said Mr Lee would have as much as them.

PN8109

Indeed, some of them might be highly offended to think that Mr Lee, an industrial officer with the UFU, without any operational experience, would have any knowledge that could compare with these two officers?---Mr Lee has the full respect of me and other members of branch committee and other fire fighters.

PN8110

Right. The long and the short of it is, as Mr Youssef's note here says, "As a senior duty officer, I would monitor incidents in the MFD and immediately return MFB resources should there be any issue in maintaining fire cover." That's one of the most senior fire officers in the state giving that assurance. Surely, Mr Lee should have been satisfied with that?---You would have to ask Mr Lee.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8111

We will. The dot point that is raised by Mr Lee, apparently, is amenities available at the event, including toilets. The next two dot points, "Attending crews will be paid all entitlements under the certified agreement, including payment of meal allowances and other allowances as applicable. Tea and coffee facilities and toilets will be available," and there's then reference to the final dot point in the top column, "Site not being approved as an MFB drill site." The final dot point, "No skills maintenance would occur drill site, approval not required," and we now know that indeed the site had been approved as an MFB drill site previously, don't we?---No, I think that was after, was it?

PN8112

No, it was before?---When was it approved?

PN8113

We'll find that, and I'll remind you of that tomorrow. Can we accept, looking through this, that Mr Youssef had dealt with every one of Mr Lee's concerns except one, that is, the maintenance of fire cover and the safety of fire fighters within the MFD. Is that a fair review of this document?---Say the question again, please.

PN8114

The UFU raised a range of concerns, and there's five dot points, and I've taken you through the five dot points below them, and what I suggest is Mr Youssef had raised and dealt with every one of those concerns. The one that you take issue with is the maintenance of fire cover and the safety of fire fighters within the MFD?---And the fact that he says that no skills maintenance would occur. Drill site approval forms, anywhere we go there should be a drill site approval form, whatever take place at any drill, or exercise.

PN8115

You weren't at this meeting. I suggest to you that on reading this document it would appear that Mr Youssef had addressed everyone of the concerns with Mr Lee apart from one?---Apart from two (indistinct)

PN8116

Apart from two, the drill site approval not required, presumably, if the drill site had been approved before, that would have been a five minute telephone call to whoever approved the drill site before. That's an easy step, isn't it?---Possibly.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8117

That's not an insurmountable obstacle, is it?---I wouldn't imagine.

PN8118

No. The one issue is the industrial officer of the UFU telling two of the most senior officers in the brigade that he was not going to accept their professional view that they would monitor incidents in the MFD and immediately return MFB resources should there be any issue in maintaining fire cover. That's the only issue, isn't it?---In your book.

PN8119

In my book? Well, on a reading of the document, and I appreciate that you haven't been involved in it. Your position is: well, when it comes to comparing Mr Lee and these two officers, they're equal, that is, you - - -?---I didn't say that. I said Mr Casey Lee has fire fighter safety and great knowledge of fire fighter safety through the many meetings - he's held many meetings on his own with senior managers in the organisation.

PN8120

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Parry, would that be an appropriate point to leave the proceedings?

PN8121

MR PARRY: If the commission pleases.

PN8122

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ward, we're about to adjourn, but if I could remind you that you'll remain on oath during the weekend until we resume on Monday, and during that period you must not discuss your evidence, either the evidence you've given or the evidence you're about to give with any person?
---Commissioner - - -

PN8123

I beg your pardon?---Can I just ask - - -

PN8124

Well, you can ask, but I may not allow it?---You said tomorrow.

**** DANNY WARD XXN MR PARRY
PN8125

MR PARRY: I was just doing that to concern you.

PN8126

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Parry be here, but we won't. All right, we will adjourn until 10 o'clock Monday. Thank you.

PN8127

MR PARRY: Commissioner, perhaps if I could just say a couple of things before we - I wasn't in the commission yesterday. Mr Ward doesn’t have to sit there during this.

PN8128

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ward, you're quite welcome to sit down. I think we're about to move onto another topic. Sorry, move to another place, I'm sorry.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.59PM]

PN8129

MR PARRY: Commissioner, further progress of this matter. Can I indicate that I wasn't here yesterday, but we're conscious, of course, of doing what we can to meet the timeframes. Can I advise that, as is fairly obvious up to date, we're not pressing hearsay objections to the admission of evidence, unless they're particular hearsay, and I'm not ruling that out.

PN8130

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN8131

MR PARRY: As it stands, we're not pursuing hearsay objections. Now, that means the original statements of - there's some five or six fire fighters we objected to, there was statements provided that we just indicate that we're not pursuing the hearsay objections, and if they want to rely on the original statements that's a matter for them. There's some 15 or 16 statements that may well affect. Can I indicate we've filed, say, 13 witnesses. I think the original indication from the UFU was 20 or 30, and we've ended up at 60 or 70. We would expect the UFU to give careful consideration to which of the remaining witnesses they wish to rely on the statements of. It’s not just a matter of putting it on the MFB to identify those it wishes to cross-examine. We’re not going to be forced into a position, in my submission, of not taking issue with overblown and exaggerated evidence which may be given some weight by the commission down the track. having said that, we will give consideration to those remaining witnesses we wish to cross-examine over the weekend. Equally, we would expect to be advised on Monday of those on which the UFU will not be relying. I think it’s a two-way thing to attempt to expedite this case as quickly as we can. We certainly will cooperate in doing that but, as we would say, it’s on both of us in that respect. If the Commissioner pleases.

PN8132

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you for your words. I do understand what you have to say and I appreciate that you’ve given consideration to the views that I put forward yesterday. Mr Borenstein is about to leap up. Maybe if I permit you to say some words as well, is that appropriate?

PN8133

MR BORENSTEIN: I don’t want to delay you. Without commenting directly on what Mr Parry said, I was going to seek some clarification from him about the witnesses that were previously presented as hearsay witnesses and which are now direct evidence witnesses. Our decision about that would depend very much on what Mr Parry proposes to do about their evidence in the sense that if he is going to cross-examine the reporters of their evidence with a view to undermining that evidence then that would influence what we did. If, on the other hand, he was prepared to, in effect, accept that evidence without challenging it on the basis that it’s only hearsay, then that would have another implication. So if Mr Parry can clarify that, that will inform our decision.

PN8134

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you for those sentiments as well. I do appreciate that engagement as well. Mr Parry has indicated that there’s some consideration that he wishes to give over the weekend and no doubt you’ll need to see the product of that. What I can say is that if you prefer to spend some time first thing on Monday morning going through that joint discussion with each other, if that’s a profitable use of your mutual time, I’m happy to accommodate that. Equally, if it was assessed to go into conference with you to work through the remaining witnesses to try and reach some sort of agreement or undertake that scoping exercise, I’d prefer to do that as well.

PN8135

My anxiety does remain the one that I indicated yesterday which is about my confidence about the remaining two weeks but, at the same time, I obviously don’t wish to give a disservice to either of you or drive either of your cases. It’s important that you are able to put the evidence that you wish. Having said that, I do remain concerned about how the remaining two weeks would be spent. So I guess I’d prefer to spend some time on Monday understanding what the remaining period might look like and whether any agreement can be reached between you two, to at least put that into some sort of agreed perspective.

PN8136

MR BORENSTEIN: Can I Just say this, and this may assist our friends in their considerations. A lot of the witness statements go to the issue of the attitude, if I can put it that way, of employees to the termination.

PN8137

THE COMMISSIONER: It does.

PN8138

MR BORENSTEIN: Now, one can understand that a party might wish to cross-examine all those people if it’s really going to be put in issue that the employees opposed the termination. Now, that’s fine. I’m not saying they can’t do that but one thing that might be considered is whether it’s really an issue in this case. I mean, a lot of issues in this case can be ventilated and, if that weren’t an issue, then of course there’s a lot of small witnesses that we wouldn’t have to trouble you about. So I just simply raise that. I’m not asking Mr Parry to do it one way or the other but I just flag that that might be something that’s worth talking about on Monday morning.

PN8139

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, I’ll let that process go on. We’ll be ready to convene at 10 o’clock but if you wish to take more time after 10 o’clock then please let my associate know. If you wish to have my involvement in a conference then I’m prepared to do that as well. In the meantime – do you wish to say anything else, Mr Parry?

PN8140

MR PARRY: I’d just be repeating what I said in some respects. I understand the position of my learned friend. They’ve got a survey in which is a survey and it says what it says. It’s not so much the attitude of people; it’s what they say. We’re not going prejudice our position. I’ll give consideration to the hearsay position but, again, I’m not going to be prejudicing the position of the MFB one little bit in this. I remind him of my invitation to drop some of the people off.

PN8141

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Look, I do understand that. We’ll see where it goes, in that case. Have a good weekend. We’ll adjourn until 10.00.

<ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 21 JULY 2014 [4.05PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

MICHAEL KEITH TISBURY, ON FORMER OATH PN7181
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WHEELAHAN PN7181
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDING PN7217
EXHIBIT #UFU15 FACSIMILE FROM CONNELLY ENVIRONMENTAL DATED 17/02/2003 PN7292
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN7323
DAVID WILLIAM HAMILTON, SWORN PN7323
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HARDING PN7323
EXHIBIT #UFU16 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID HAMILTON PN7336
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PARRY PN7364
EXHIBIT #MFB48 EXTRACT FROM THE AGE DATED 19/09/2012 PN7691
EXHIBIT #MFB49 EBIC 2006 MINUTES DATED 08/10/2008 PN7693
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDING PN7694
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN7716
BRENDAN JOHN ANGWIN, SWORN PN7717
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR BORENSTEIN PN7717
EXHIBIT #UFU17 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BRENDAN ANGWIN PN7733
EXHIBIT #UFU18 EMAIL DATED 17/03/2011 PN7743
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WHEELAHAN PN7777
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BORENSTEIN PN7935
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN7949
DANNY WARD, SWORN PN7949
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR HARDING PN7949
EXHIBIT #UFU19 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DANNY WARD PN7964
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PARRY PN7979
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN8128